TEHRAN - When the Trump administration announced the deployment of 2,000 National Guard members to Los Angeles on June 7, 2025, it significantly intensified its immigration enforcement strategy, making protests throughout the city a focal point of national discussion.

This unprecedented action, which the White House has presented as a necessary response to "lawlessness" and "rebellion," has generated intense controversy regarding the boundaries of federal power, the degradation of civil liberties, and the use of military force to suppress domestic dissent.

The Los Angeles crisis now serves as a crucial litmus test for the future of American democracy and constitutional limits.

Federal-state collision: A battle for control

The immediate catalyst for the crisis was a series of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids on June 6–7 targeting workplaces in Los Angeles’ Fashion District, South LA, and Paramount. Over 120 arrests—including union leader David Huerta—sparked protests that began peacefully but escalated into clashes with federal agents deploying tear gas, flash-bang grenades, and less-lethal munitions.

A purposeful use of federal power was demonstrated by President Trump's decision to federalize the California National Guard under Title 10 authority, despite Governor Gavin Newsom's protests. Newsom said local law enforcement had kept protests inside the boundaries of Los Angeles and denounced the deployment as "purposefully inflammatory."

However, White House aide Stephen Miller accused protesters of undermining U.S. sovereignty, framing the demonstrations as an "insurrection" that required military intervention.

Legal and constitutional fault lines

The Trump administration's use of the Insurrection Act of 1807, suggested but not clearly stated by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, faces legal issues.

This law allows the military to step in to control unrest only if local leaders can't handle it or ask for federal help. California’s clear pushback and Governor Newsom saying local police managed the protests weaken the administration’s argument for needing to act.

The Trump administration's use of the Insurrection Act of 1807, which Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth mentioned but didn’t really spell out, is facing some serious legal issues. This Act lets the military step in to handle civil unrest only when state leaders can’t or don’t want to take care of it.

With California's clear pushback and Governor Newsom stating that local police managed to control the protests, the administration's reasoning for stepping in looks shaky.

Instead, Trump chose to send in the National Guard using Title 10 authority, which allows federal troops to be called up during rebellions or invasions.

Many experts think the protests didn’t meet that legal standard. Erwin Chemerinsky, who leads UC Berkeley’s law school, criticized the move, saying it risks using the military to deal with domestic issues and sets a worrying precedent by mixing civilian leadership with military action.

The administration’s actions also strain the Posse Comitatus Act, which bars federal military forces from domestic law enforcement unless expressly authorized. By threatening to deploy active-duty Marines, Defense Secretary Hegseth risked violating this principle, further eroding safeguards against militarized policing.

Social impact: Fear, resistance, and polarization

Raids and subsequent action show simply deepen rifts within Los Angeles’ immigrant communities. ICE’s methods, including workplace raids and courthouse arrests, are consistent with Trump’s promise to carry out "the largest deportation operation in history” in 2025.

ICE and Trump's crusade to criminalize creativity and collaboration are assaulting trust among community members. For many, the presence of the Guard is akin to authoritarian governments, with community organizers reporting an enhanced fear of deportation or the loss of their family.

The power divisions exposed by the crisis reveal a fractured landscape: Local authorities, including LA Mayor Karen Bass and the City Council, openly defied federal actions by condemning the raids as “cruelty disguised as policy,” while the LAPD and Sheriff’s Department refused to collaborate with ICE, prioritizing community trust over federal mandates.

Meanwhile, grassroots resistance surged as protesters chanting “ICE out of LA” mobilized legal aid networks and sanctuary policies, supported by labor unions decrying the arrest of SEIU leader David Huerta.

Media narratives further polarized the discourse, with right-wing outlets like Fox News amplifying Trump’s “law and order” framing to depict protests as insurrection, while international channels such as Al Jazeera and BBC drew stark parallels to global authoritarianism, underscoring the deepening ideological rift over state power and civil rights.

Critique of the administration’s narrative

The administration's designation of the Los Angeles protests as an "insurrection" does not hold up on closer inspection. There were certainly a few reports of property destruction in Paramount, but LAPD reports conclude that the vast majority of protests were peaceful.

The White House's coordination of immigration enforcement and national security, indicated by Hegseth's references to "foreign terrorist organizations," seems deliberate to justify sweeping and aggressive actions. The story not only exaggerates the threat posed by protesters but also attempts to normalize the militarization of a fundamentally civil issue.

The government's glaring inconsistencies and hypocrisy continue in its approach to prioritizing enforcement. While ICE targets cities like Los Angeles and New York that have large immigrant populations presided over by Democratic mayors, it channels its resources (over 80% of its personnel) toward those cities without any reasonable justification for its decisions, thus in a politically motivated manner.

ICE's goal of developing an "Amazon Prime for human beings" deportation system shows a prioritization of productivity over human rights and dignity.

Broader implications for democracy

The American democracy is significantly impacted by these developments. The National Guard's use to quell protests represents a major increase in executive authority and runs the risk of normalizing the use of force in response to political dissension.

This conflict is representative of a broader struggle over states' rights and the future of pluralist democracy in the U.S., according to California, which has continuously opposed Trump's immigration agenda.

There are serious long-term risks: overriding state control may establish a precedent of federal intrusion in other controversial policy areas, including those involving abortion or climate regulation; the threat of deployment of the military may dissuade lawful protest, particularly among historically marginalized populations; and, globally, the image of America as a democracy is tarnished as colleagues and adversaries cite Los Angeles as an example of an authoritarian change.