Trump Deploys Troops as ICE Raids Spark Widespread Protests

Morocco World

7 hours ago

Rabat– ​​Protests erupted across Los Angeles this weekend after a series of aggressive immigration raids by federal agents. US President Donald Trump escalated the federal response by deploying 2,000 National Guard troops to the city in an effort to quell what he described as 'insurrectionist' unrest.
'Looking really bad in LA. BRING IN THE TROOPS,' said Trump.
The protests began following sweeping Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids at multiple worksites, which immigrant rights groups and labor unions condemned as violent and fear-driven.
Among those arrested was David Huerta, president of Service Employees International Union (SEIU) California, who was reportedly observing a raid peacefully when he was violently detained. Union leaders called the arrests part of a deliberate campaign to intimidate immigrant communities.
'As a union, we will always stand with our immigrant brothers, sisters, and siblings. We will not be intimidated into silence. We will keep showing up. We will keep fighting back,' said SEIU, emphasizing the direct link between workers and immigrants' rights.
Clashes between demonstrators and law enforcement escalated rapidly across Los Angeles. Federal agents fired tear gas and flash-bangs outside a federal building, while protesters gathered at multiple locations, including a Home Depot in southeast LA Police reported property damage and began making arrests.
Authorities alleged that some protesters looted stores, set up barricades, and attacked officers on the 101 Freeway–a major highway that cuts through Los Angeles– with fireworks and rocks. In response, the LAPD authorized the use of 'less lethal munitions,' as National Guard troops were deployed to join federal agencies on the ground.
In the midst of police escalation, an Australian journalist was also injured. Lauren Tomasi, reporting live for Nine News, was shot with a rubber bullet despite being clearly identifiable as press and not being involved in the protests.
Trump vs California
The deployment marks the first time in decades that a US president has unilaterally sent National Guard troops into a state without its request or consent—raising serious concerns over Trump's continued disregard of the law and constitutional boundaries.
Typically, such deployments require coordination with state governors or are carried out under the Insurrection Act, which was not invoked in this case. Instead, Trump used 'Title 10' of the US Code to federalize the Guard, placing them under direct presidential command.
Legal scholars argue this move tests the limits of executive power and potentially violates the 10th Amendment, which protects state sovereignty. Without the legal cover of the Insurrection Act, the troops are restricted from engaging in law enforcement, and their presence has been criticized as an unlawful escalation rather than a legitimate response.
California Governor Gavin Newsom fiercely condemned President Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles, calling it a 'serious breach of state sovereignty' and demanding their immediate withdrawal.
In an official letter to the Department of Defense, Newsom argued the order was unlawful, noting it bypassed the governor's authority in violation of federal law: 'This directive did not issue 'through the governor of the state' as required by section 12406.'
Newsom stressed that local law enforcement was adequately handling the situation and warned that Trump's intervention was 'inflaming tensions while pulling resources from where they're actually needed.' Newsom formally requested the federal government rescind the order and return control of the Guard to the state, potentially laying the ground for a legal challenge.
Legal experts raised concerns about the deployment. Trump did not invoke the Insurrection Act, which would allow broader military authority. Instead, he used Title 10 to place the Guard under federal control—an approach that typically requires coordination with state governors- actions in line with Trump's continued disregard of legal and constitutional boundaries.
Although federal officials say the troops are only protecting immigration officers and property, civil rights advocates argue the military presence is inflaming an already volatile situation. Protests have now stretched into a fourth day, fueled by outrage over the raids, the arrests, and the use of military force in a major American city.
Raids and federal quotas
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem met last month with ICE leadership and demanded the agency increase arrests to 3,000 per day—reportedly threatening job loss for officials who didn't comply.
The result has been a dramatic escalation in enforcement nationwide, including the detention of over 2,200 individuals in a single day in early June. Many of those arrested had been enrolled in ICE's Alternatives to Detention (ATD) program—a monitoring system meant to provide a more humane and cost-effective alternative to incarceration while immigration proceedings are pending.
Under the new enforcement orders, even asylum seekers who are following all the rules are being detained. In Los Angeles, families with pending cases were arrested after showing up for routine ICE check-ins—some, including children, were held for hours without food or water. Similar arrests have taken place in courtrooms across the country, even in cases where judges had dismissed deportation.
Home to over ten million immigrants, California's resistance to the federal deployment also stems from its long-standing identity as a 'sanctuary state'. Under the California Values Act, local and state law enforcement are prohibited from using their resources to assist federal immigration agencies in most cases.
This law limits cooperation with ICE—such as sharing information about detainees or honoring federal immigration detainers—unless an individual has been convicted of certain serious crimes. The aim is to protect undocumented residents from deportation over minor offenses and to foster trust between immigrant communities and local authorities— setting it apart from the federal government's punitive immigration approach.