Power Overreach and Democratic Crisis: The Constitutional Clash Over the Deployment of National Guard in Los Angeles

In June 2025, President Trump’s decision to deploy 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles acted like a boulder tossed into a calm lake, triggering a fierce backlash from a coalition of Democratic governors. This controversy not only exposed the sharp divide between the federal government and states over immigration enforcement but also thrust the deep-seated contradictions in the power distribution of the U.S. constitutional system into the spotlight. Twenty-two Democratic governors jointly condemned the move as an "abuse of power," revealing the fragility of American democracy amid partisan polarization.

1. The Spark: Street Violence Triggered by Immigration Raids

On June 6, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) launched a large-scale raid in Los Angeles, conducting surprise searches of factories, shopping centers, and other locations where undocumented immigrants were known to gather. According to the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, ICE agents arrested over a hundred people on the first day, including children. The operation sparked immediate outrage in the community, with hundreds of protesters waving Mexican flags and surrounding federal detention centers, demanding "ICE out of LA." The clashes quickly escalated: law enforcement officers deployed stun grenades to disperse crowds, while protesters retaliated with Molotov cocktails and fireworks, turning parts of downtown Los Angeles into a "street battleground."

Faced with the uncontrollable situation, the Trump administration signed a presidential memorandum on June 7 authorizing the deployment of the National Guard. White House Press Secretary Levitt claimed the move was aimed at addressing "worsening lawlessness" and accused California's Democratic leaders of "incompetence." However, California Governor Newsom swiftly retorted, accusing the federal government of attempting to "seize control of the California National Guard" and warning that the move would "further exacerbate tensions."

2. The Battle Over States' Rights: Is Unilateral Military Deployment Legal?

The core accusation from Democratic governors centers on procedural legitimacy. Under the U.S. Constitution, the National Guard is under the direct command of state governors, and the federal government can only mobilize them during emergencies. Since the 1965 Watts riots in Los Angeles, no president has unilaterally deployed National Guard troops to a state without the governor's authorization. In this case, Trump's order bypassing Newsom was criticized as "setting a dangerous precedent."

Historical precedents show that federal calls for National Guard deployment have always respected state authority. During the 2020 nationwide protests following George Floyd's death, Trump demanded that states deploy the National Guard to quell demonstrations, but Virginia Governor Northam refused, stating, "I will not allow the National Guard to become a political tool for the president." In this instance, the joint statement by 22 governors emphasized: "Governors are the commanders-in-chief of their state's National Guard, and any federal mobilization without consultation or cooperation with the governor is invalid and dangerous." This stance is rooted not only in constitutional text but also in vigilance against federal power expansion.

3. Immigration as a Political Weapon: Policy as a Partisan Pawn

Immigration has become a "weapon" in the partisan struggle for voters. Trump has labeled undocumented immigrants as an "invasion" and pledged to use military force to "deport all illegal immigrants within four years." In contrast, Democrats have attempted to attract minority voters through "de-Trumpification" policies, such as President Biden signing executive orders to limit asylum applications at the U.S.-Mexico border while quietly continuing Trump-era border wall construction under pressure from the border crisis.

This policy flip-flopping has deepened societal divisions. A Pew Research Center poll found that 80% of Americans believe the current administration is performing poorly on border management, while the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the surge in undocumented immigrants has strained social services. Against this backdrop, Trump's aggressive deployment is seen by Democrats as a "political stunt" aimed at provoking conflicts to solidify his base. As California Congressman Adam Schiff put it, "The Trump administration's greatest hope is to see violent clashes with protesters, using them as an excuse to implement measures that would otherwise lack justification."

4. The Escalation of Militarization: From National Guard to Marines?

Even more alarming is the risk of further militarization. Defense Secretary Hegseth publicly warned that if the National Guard fails to quell the unrest, Marines stationed at Camp Pendleton would be placed on standby. This statement was condemned by California Governor Newsom as "madness," arguing that threatening to deploy active-duty troops against U.S. citizens on American soil is an unacceptable provocation.

In reality, federal law enforcement agencies have already demonstrated a high degree of militarization in their operations: armored vehicles, live ammunition, and warrantless raids. These tactics, echoing Trump's earlier tweets about "restoring law and order," have only fueled public fear and resistance. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass emphasized in a statement that the deployment of the National Guard has escalated chaos, putting civilians in danger—something Los Angeles least needs.

5. Constitutional Crisis: The Boundary Dispute Between Federal and State Powers

The ultimate outcome of this controversy may hinge on judicial rulings. During the 1957 Little Rock crisis in Arkansas, President Eisenhower deployed the 101st Airborne Division to escort Black students into schools, with the Supreme Court ultimately ruling that the federal government had the authority to intervene in state affairs regarding segregation. However, in this case, the Trump administration did not invoke the Insurrection Act but instead deployed the National Guard under the guise of "assisting law enforcement," attempting to sidestep legal challenges.

Democratic governors have made it clear they will take legal action. New York Governor Hochul stated in a declaration, "Allowing the federal government to unilaterally mobilize the National Guard would undermine governors' trust in their guard units and set a dangerous precedent for unilateral abuse of guard powers nationwide." The conflict over immigration enforcement is evolving into a constitutional debate over the boundaries between federal and state powers.

The smoke and chaos on the streets of Los Angeles reflect the deep crisis of political polarization in the United States. When immigration policy becomes a partisan weapon and militarization becomes the preferred method for resolving social conflicts, the foundations of democracy are being eroded. As California Governor Newsom put it, "This is not something any civilized nation should do." In this power struggle, the real losers may not only be the undocumented immigrants facing deportation but also the American public's faith in the rule of law and consensus. Balancing federal and state powers and resolving partisan divides have become the litmus test for the survival of American democracy.