Governor Gavin Newsom has labelled the federal deployment of California National Guard troops to Los Angeles as unlawful and a breach of state sovereignty. He formally requested their withdrawal in a letter to the defence secretary, emphasising that law enforcement agencies on both the state and local level were equipped to manage the protests without military reinforcement.
Approximately 2,000 National Guard members, federalised under Title 10 of the U.S. Code, arrived in key areas of Los Angeles to protect federal personnel and facilities during demonstrations sparked by immigration enforcement raids. The deployment, the first such federalised call-up of the Guard in California sans gubernatorial request since 1965, follows widespread objections from state officials.
Newsom accused the federal government of creating “a spectacle” to justify more aggressive measures. He described the move as inflaming tension, draining resources from ongoing law enforcement operations, and potentially setting a dangerous precedent for executive overreach. The governor’s legal team has confirmed preparations for a federal lawsuit to challenge the deployment.
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass echoed these concerns, describing the federal intervention as a provocative escalation. She urged peaceful protests while noting that militarised presence risked undermining public trust and stirring fear among immigrant communities.
Federal officials maintain that the operation was warranted by violent confrontations. Images captured during the protests show the National Guard using tear‑gas canisters and rubber bullets and guarding federal buildings amid clashes involving thrown projectiles and burning vehicles—including at least six self‑driving Waymo cars set on fire.
Federal authorities have noted escalating incidents during the demonstrations, including fireworks, rocks, bottles, and makeshift barricades targeting law enforcement and ICE agents. Police declared several rallies as unlawful assemblies, making multiple arrests related to violence and obstruction of federal operations.
Despite federal claims of “chaos, violence and lawlessness”, state leaders have rejected such characterisations. Newsom asserted that the demonstrations were largely peaceful until the Guard’s arrival, and that deployment amounts to an unconstitutional incursion on state authority.
Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth indicated that the Pentagon was on standby to deploy up to 500 U.S. Marines stationed at Camp Pendleton, raising concerns that the situation could be further militarised. The White House has defended the move, stating that the Guard presence was crucial to protect ICE personnel and federal property and accusing Democratic leaders of failing to safeguard against disorder.
On social media, President Donald Trump referred to the protesters as “violent, insurrectionist mobs” and directed law enforcement to “take all such action necessary” to curb riots. He also threatened more forceful responses if protections were breached.
Internationally, Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum criticised the raids and deployment, calling for comprehensive immigration reforms instead of militarised responses.
Legal experts have observed that federal deployment under Title 10 typically requires a governor’s consent. Bypassing this protocol is rare and has sparked debate over separation of powers and the limits of presidential authority. Critics also highlight the Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts military involvement in domestic law enforcement, though federalised National Guard units operating under Title 10 are exempt.
