‘This isn't an isolated incident': Trump's show of military force in LA was years in the making, say experts
Donald Trump is targeting Los Angeles, the biggest city in deep-blue California – a sprawling metropolis shaped by immigrant communities that the president described on Tuesday as a 'trash heap' – with a show of force many years in the making.
After his first term, Trump expressed regret for not taking a more heavy-handed approach to the 2020 protests over George Floyd's murder by police. So when demonstrations against his immigration crackdown erupted last week in Los Angeles, he turned to the playbook he wished he had used then – federalizing the national guard and deploying hundreds of US marines to confront what Democratic officials insist was a manageable situation, escalated by a president who the state's governor, Gavin Newsom, has warned is increasingly behaving like a 'dictator'.
It's the made-for-TV clash Trump has been waiting for: visually gripping scenes of unrest in a Democratic-run city furious over his administration's mass deportation agenda.
'Chaos is exactly what Trump wanted, and now California is left to clean up the mess,' Newsom said on Twitter/X.
Related: Los Angeles protests: from immigration raids to sending in the marines – a visual timeline
Trump has said he 'would have brought in the military immediately' if he could redo 2020. And, former defense secretary Mark Esper told NPR in 2022, Trump asked if protesters could be shot. 'Can't you just shoot them, just shoot them in the legs or something?' Trump asked, according to Esper.
The showdown in Los Angeles brings together longtime overlapping goals of the Trump regime: bringing state and local officials to heel; trying to tap as many resources as possible for his deportation program; and going after protesters who speak or act against him, all while stretching the boundaries of legality.
Sending troops into an American city to stifle largely peaceful protests is a 'test case' that, depending on how it plays out in Los Angeles, could be a strategy the administration replicates in other cities, said Sarah Mehta, the deputy director of government affairs at the ACLU.
'This isn't an isolated incident,' she said. 'I think what we're seeing in Los Angeles is this culmination of several weeks of incredibly aggressive immigration policing, the federal government asking the military to get further involved in immigration enforcement, including the transportation of unaccompanied children and attention and riot control, and then on top of that, again, these really targeted attacks against cities and states that are not going along with Trump's aggressive deportation regime.'
Karen Bass, the mayor of Los Angeles, said her city was being used as a proving ground for how the federal government might exert its authority over other local governments that resist the president's agenda. 'I feel like we are part of an experiment that we did not ask to be a part of,' she said, speaking at a press conference in downtown Los Angeles on Monday.
Related: 'The language of authoritarianism': how Trump and allies cast LA as a lawless city needing military intervention
While Trump sows chaos in the streets, the mayor said, the city's immigrant communities were gripped by a 'level of fear and terror' over the administration's escalating enforcement efforts, with some undocumented workers staying home and mixed-status families afraid to attend school graduation ceremonies.
***
In January, Trump returned to power with what he says is a popular mandate to carry out the largest deportation campaign in US history. Amid growing frustration over the pace of removals, the White House is turning to increasingly forceful tactics, including stepped up raids on workplaces.
On Friday, scattered protests broke out in response to a series of immigration sweeps, in some instances by federal agents wearing tactical gear, at businesses across the Los Angeles area.
Newsom and Bass said local and state law enforcement were fully capable of handling the demonstrations, but as images of cars on fire and clashes with police spread online, the Trump administration ignored the state's wishes and brought in the national guard – an extraordinary move that state officials said brought even more protesters into the street over the weekend. Then on Monday, a day of larger, mostly peaceful protests, Trump ordered additional national guard troops and hundreds of US marines to the city.
'We will liberate Los Angeles and make it free, clean and safe again,' Trump vowed, in a speech to soldiers at Fort Bragg on Tuesday.
Democratic cities, in particular, have long drawn Trump's ire. On the campaign trail, he frequently pointed to liberal cities, painting them as hellscapes devoid of capable leadership that would be better run with him in White House. Speaking in Iowa in 2023, Trump said he would use federal troops to 'get crime out of our cities'.
'The next time I'm not waiting [for local approval]. We don't have to wait any longer. We got to get crime out of our cities,' Trump said. He, and the conservative allies behind Project 2025, have pushed for withholding federal funds from states and cities that don't aid federal immigration enforcement.
Democrats expected him to make good on these threats. In August 2024, the New York Times reported that Trump's allies spent the four years between his presidencies finding legal justifications for using the military in these situations, often in the immigration context, but sometimes against protesters.
Related: 'We're not afraid of you': LA protesters, enraged by Trump, flood the streets
In a statement provided to the Guardian, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said: 'President Trump has rightfully highlighted how poorly Democrat cities are run – including emboldening criminals, providing sanctuary to criminal illegal aliens, and putting Americans at risk. In LA, illegal aliens and violent criminal protesters spent the last several days attacking law enforcement, waving foreign flags, lighting cars on fire, and unleashing a state of outright anarchy. Anyone downplaying this behavior, or describing it as a 'manageable situation', is either an idiot or a propagandist for the Democrat party.'
California, the biggest blue state in the country, has long been Trump's favorite foil. On issue after issue – from climate to immigration to education – Trump cast the state as a hellscape 'ruined' by 'radical left' lunacy. In defending his national guard deployment, Trump decried Los Angeles a 'once great American City' that 'has been invaded and occupied by Illegal Aliens and Criminals'.
Newsom and attorney general Rob Bonta on Monday sued Trump over what they said was an 'unlawful' deployment of the national guard over the governor's objections. Bonta noted that it was the state's 24th legal action against the Trump administration in 20 weeks.
Democrats say the timing of his crackdown on Los Angeles was no coincidence. Trump had just endured a days-long stretch of bad news: his political partnership with Elon Musk imploded, the US government returned a Maryland man wrongly deported after weeks of insisting they would not bring him back and the president's 'big, beautiful bill' stalled on Capitol Hill.
'What's happening in Los Angeles is straight out of the Trump playbook,' California senator Alex Padilla said, 'manufacture a crisis and provoke violence to distract from terrible headlines.'
Since January, Trump's administration has targeted universities and college students on visas who had participated in pro-Palestinian activism. The crackdown comes as states have advanced a host of anti-protest bills in the last few years to expand criminal punishments for protesting.
On Monday, Trump called for Newsom's arrest – a move the governor called an 'unmistakable step toward authoritarianism'.
'The President of the United States just called for the arrest of a sitting Governor,' Newsom said after Trump's threat of arrest. 'This is a line we cannot cross as a nation.'
Trump was unable to identify a crime he thought Newsom had committed. House Speaker Mike Johnson suggested Newsom should be 'tarred and feathered'.
Related: How can Trump use the national guard on US soil?
The Trump administration has already gone after several elected officials who resist his administration's crackdown. Trump's justice department has charged a sitting congresswoman, LaMonica McIver of New Jersey, with assault after a clash with immigration officers at a May protest outside of a detention facility in Newark. During the incident, the city's mayor, Ras Baraka, was arrested, though charges against him were dropped. And a Wisconsin judge was indicted by a federal grand jury for allegedly helping a man evade immigration agents seeking his arrest in her courthouse.
***
Stephen Miller, the hardline architect of Trump's immigration agenda, used a simple term to describe the protests last week: 'insurrection'.
Miller, who was raised in the seaside city of Santa Monica on Los Angeles's west side, called his home state 'the largest sanctuary state in America', underscoring its status as a trial balloon for other communities. He has described the militarized response in Los Angeles as a 'fight to save civilization'.
'When the rioters swarmed, you handed over your streets, willingly,' he retorted to Newsom on Monday. 'You still refuse to arrest and prosecute the arsonists, seditionists and insurrectionists. This Administration is fighting to save the city and the citizens you have left to struggle and suffer.'
Trump, who notably pardoned all those who were convicted for their roles in the insurrection at the US Capitol in 2021, has been debating whether to invoke the Insurrection Act, the 18th-century law that would give him the power to activate the military or national guard to quell rebellion or unrest.
For now, he is using a different legal justification, though the threat of the act looms. The right to peacefully assemble is guaranteed by the first amendment. Protests in LA have largely been peaceful, not amounting to an insurrection.
Engaging the military is a tipping point, Mehta said, because it is 'striking and terrifying' to see the president use every tool he can to punish his critics. But, she said, it also reveals the administration's weakness – they have to use all of these tools to compel compliance.
'They're doing this because they need to make a show of force, and because people are resisting and people are pushing back,' Mehta said. 'People are outraged, and they're very angry about the way that their civil rights are being stripped away, and the aggressiveness with which immigration agents are responding to members of our community.'
Related: Misinformation about LA Ice protests swirls online: 'Catnip for rightwing agitators'
Mass 'No Kings' protests are expected across the country in response to the multimillion dollar military parade Trump has planned in the country's capitol for Saturday, his 79th birthday and the US army's 250th anniversary. Organizers expect protests in more than 1,800 locations, though not in Washington DC. About 100 of the events have been added since Trump sent troops to Los Angeles.
'Now, this military escalation only confirms what we've known: this government wants to rule by force, not serve the people,' the coalition behind the 14 June protests said in a statement.
Speaking from the Oval Office on Tuesday, Trump said he wasn't aware of any planned protests against the event, but claimed that any participants 'hate our country'.
Then, he issued a dark warning: 'For those people that want to protest, they're going to be met with very big force.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
28 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Trump moves to merge wildland firefighting into single force, despite ex-officials warning of chaos
BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — President Donald Trump on Thursday ordered government agencies to consolidate their wildland firefighting into a single program, despite warnings from former federal officials that it could be costly and increase the risk of catastrophic blazes. The order aims to centralize firefighting efforts now split among five agencies and two Cabinet departments. Trump's proposed budget for next year calls for the creation of a new Federal Wildland Fire Service under the U.S. Interior Department. That would mean shifting thousands of personnel from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service — where most federal firefighters now work — with fire season already underway. The administration has not disclosed how much the change could cost or save. Trump in his order cited the devastating Los Angeles wildfires in January as highlighting a need for a quicker response to wildfires. 'Wildfires threaten every region, yet many local government entities continue to disregard commonsense preventive measures,' the order said. The Trump administration in its first months temporarily cut off money for wildfire prevention work and reduced the ranks of federal government firefighters through layoffs and retirement. The order makes no mention of climate change, which Trump has downplayed even as warming temperatures help stoke bigger and more destructive wildfires that churn out massive amounts of harmful pollution. More than 65,000 wildfires across the U.S. burned almost 9 million acres (3.6 million hectares) last year. Organizations representing firefighters and former Forest Service officials say it would be costly to restructure firefighting efforts and cause major disruptions in the midst of fire season. A group that includes several former Forest Service chiefs said in a recent letter to lawmakers that consolidation of firefighting work could 'actually increase the likelihood of more large catastrophic fires, putting more communities, firefighters and resources at risk.' Another destructive fire season is expected this year, driven by above-normal temperatures for most of the country, according to federal officials. A prior proposal to merge the Forest Service and Interior to improve firefighting was found to have significant drawbacks by the Congressional Research Service in a 2008 report. But the idea more recently got bipartisan support, with California Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla and Montana Republican Sen. Tim Sheehy sponsoring legislation that is similar to Trump's plan. Before his election last year, Sheehy founded an aerial firefighting company that relies heavily on federal contracts. In a separate action aimed at wildfires, the Trump administration last month rolled back environmental safeguards around future logging projects on more than half U.S. national forests. The emergency designation covers 176,000 square miles (455,000 square kilometers) of terrain primarily in the West but also in the South, around the Great Lakes and in New England. Most of those forests are considered to have high wildfire risk, and many are in decline because of insects and disease.
CNBC
33 minutes ago
- CNBC
An Israeli attack on Iran could send oil prices above $100 as tensions mount
Beset by near-universal bearish outlooks just a month ago, oil prices could spike to more than $100 a barrel in the event of an Israeli attack on Iran, some analysts are warning. Crude prices spiked as much as 5% overnight — before paring gains — on fears of military escalation between Iran and Israel as President Donald Trump announced the withdrawal of some U.S. personnel from embassies and bases across the Middle East. The front-month August contract for global benchmark Brent crude was trading at $69 per barrel at 3:20 p.m. ET on Thursday, while the front-month July U.S. WTI contract was at $67.7 per barrel. "They [U.S. military personnel] are being moved out because it could be a dangerous place and we will see what happens... We have given notice to move out," Trump told reporters on Wednesday. The Pentagon has ordered the withdrawal of troops and non-essential staff from embassies in Baghdad, Kuwait and Bahrain. The jury is still out as to whether the moves are a pressure play ahead of upcoming U.S.-Iran nuclear talks, or whether the U.S., Israel and Iran are truly on the verge of conflict. The geopolitical risk premium is "already at least partially reflected in current oil prices," according to J.P. Morgan's global commodities research team, citing Brent crude trading at just under $70 a barrel, already above its model-derived fair value figure of $66 for June. "This suggests an elevated 7% probability of a worst-case scenario, where the price reaction is exponential rather than linear, with the impact on supply potentially extending beyond a 2.1 mbd (million barrels per day) reduction in Iranian oil exports," the bank's research team wrote in a note published Thursday. Iran is OPEC's third-largest crude producer. Israel appears ready to attack Iran, according to reports citing U.S. and European officials, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been pressing Trump to allow strikes. But the American president said in late May that he had warned Netanyahu against attacking Iran while negotiations with Washington were under way. U.S. Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff is currently set to meet with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in Oman on Sunday for a sixth round of negotiations. Strait of Hormuz in focus Oil traders are focusing on the potential of a wider conflict shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint through which 20% of the volume of the world's total oil consumption passes daily. The British Navy on Wednesday issued a rare warning to ships in the region, saying it had "been made aware of increased tensions within the region which could lead to an escalation of military activity having a direct impact on mariners." It urged caution for vessels transiting "the Arabian Gulf, Gulf of Oman and Straits of Hormuz." Beyond that, J.P. Morgan warned, "a more general Middle East conflagration could ignite retaliatory responses from major oil producing countries in the region responsible for a third of global oil output." "Under this severe outcome," the bank's analysts wrote, "we estimate oil prices could surge to the $120-130/bbl range." Even before the latest uptick in tensions, some oil industry watchers were already making bullish calls despite a flood of announced OPEC+ supply coming onto the market, and lower global growth and demand forecasts due to trade and tariff tensions. Josh Young, founder and chief investment officer at Houston-based Bison Interests, told CNBC in late May that physical markets are more tightly supplied than previously thought, and with several oil rigs in the U.S. shale patch coming offline just as the U.S. summer driving season begins, markets should be preparing for Brent crude at $85 a barrel. "The pure inventory versus consumption would indicate $85 [per barrel], which is way higher than where we are right now. It's almost uncomfortable to say that, but that's the current price implied by inventories," Young told CNBC's Access Middle East. He cited his forecast figure as "fair value," arguing that "typically, you go from too cheap to too expensive. So I don't think we should be ruling out $100 oil this year. And I think if there is a geopolitical risk, it could get even higher." Without the geopolitical risk premium — namely, a conflict with Iran — Young still sees crude coming up to the $80 to $85 per barrel range, particularly in the event of trade deals being reached and Trump's tariffs being lowered. The outlook is boosted by this month's forecast from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, which sees a decline in U.S. oil production for the first time since the Covid-19 pandemic due to slower drilling activity and a declining rig count. Such bullish forecasts are certainly not the norm, however. Without a military attack on Iran, J.P. Morgan's base case for oil "remains in the low-to-mid $60s oil for the remainder of 2025, and $60 in 2026." Goldman Sachs also maintains an oil price forecast in the $50 to $60 per barrel range for this and next year, despite noting an improving demand picture, downside risks to U.S. supply and geopolitical tensions. The recent rise in inventories due to OPEC+ output increases, "supports our cautious oil price forecast, with Brent expected to average $60 for the rest of 2025 and $56 in 2026," the bank's commodities team wrote. "However, small misses in OPEC+ supply suggest that lower-than-anticipated spare capacity represents an upside risk to our price forecast."
Axios
34 minutes ago
- Axios
Scoop: House Dem breaks with party on McIver and Padilla incidents
Democrats in Congress have largely closed ranks around Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.) and Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) — but centrist Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine) is panning what he calls their "politics as theater." Why it matters: Golden represents a district President Trump won last year and is always walking a careful line between supporting his party and maintaining his independence. On this, he is steering hard away from the party line. "I think that it's never good when a senator or member of Congress gets roughed up by law enforcement," he said in an interview with Axios at the Capitol. But, he added, "I don't think politics as theater is what our job is here." What happened: Padilla was forcibly removed by law enforcement as he tried to confront Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem during a press conference at the Los Angeles FBI Headquarters on Thursday. Officers detained Padilla, held him on the ground and handcuffed him, though the senator was later allowed to meet with Noem. The incident came after McIver was indicted for allegedly assaulting law enforcement during a scuffle with DHS officers outside an ICE facility in her home state last month, which she denies. What he's saying: "Storming into the FBI headquarters and trying to break up a press conference and rushing on a [cabinet] secretary is not really the job of an elected official," Golden said. Of McIver he said: "Where I come from, if you shove a police officer, you're probably getting arrested." Still, he added: "I am not in any way saying that means law enforcement should be slamming people around." The other side: "Everyone is entitled to their respective opinions … For me, the video I saw was clear," Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), a member of Democratic leadership, told Axios when asked about Golden's comments. "He was at his place of work. He works in that building. He went to the press conference, ... he identified himself as a U.S. senator and then they manhandle him to the ground and arrest him," Garcia said. "I think it's crystal clear that that is unacceptable and an incredible overreach and quite dangerous ... and I think the American public is as outraged as the Congress." What to watch: Some Democrats are already talking about investigating the Padilla incident. "We only saw clips of it, so I'd like to find out everything that happened and how that occurred," said Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.), the acting ranking member of the House Oversight Committee. "He was very roughly handled, and it seemed like he was just trying to interject and attend the [press] conference. So, yeah, I think we need to take a good hard look at it."
