In a highly charged response to escalating protests in Los Angeles, President Donald Trump authorized the deployment of National Guard troops to the city on Sunday, June 8, 2025, following a weekend of violent clashes between demonstrators and authorities. These demonstrations were sparked by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations that targeted suspected illegal immigrants across the Los Angeles area. The operations, which led to the detention of dozens of individuals, including children, ignited fierce protests, particularly in neighborhoods such as Paramount, Compton, and downtown Los Angeles.
The National Guard’s arrival was part of a broader strategy to restore order and prevent further violence, as tensions between law enforcement, federal agencies, and protesters reached a boiling point. Hundreds of California National Guard troops began arriving early Sunday morning, though reports indicated that only around 300 National Guard personnel were physically deployed on the ground, far fewer than the 2,000 troops the Trump administration initially said would be activated. The U.S. Northern Command confirmed that the California National Guard’s 79th Infantry Brigade Combat Team (IBCT) had stationed approximately 300 soldiers across three separate locations in the Los Angeles area, primarily to ensure the safety and protection of federal property and personnel.
This decision to send National Guard troops was made after President Trump signed a memorandum on Saturday, authorizing the deployment of the military force to address what he described as “lawlessness” in the city. The intensifying protests, many of which turned violent, had already led to numerous arrests. In addition, ICE agents reported that they were targeted by rocks and other projectiles thrown by protesters, while law enforcement used riot gear, tear gas, and less-lethal munitions to disperse crowds. The situation was deemed so dire that U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth warned that active-duty Marines might be deployed to combat what he referred to as a “huge national security risk” presented by the unrest.
The protests began on Friday after ICE agents conducted raids across various locations in Los Angeles, rounding up more than 40 individuals who were allegedly in violation of U.S. immigration laws. These raids prompted widespread fear in the immigrant community, with many protesters demanding the release of those detained. The situation escalated quickly, with demonstrators blocking streets and clashing with police in front of the Edward Roybal Federal Building, where ICE detainees were being held. Local law enforcement declared unlawful assemblies in multiple areas, including downtown Los Angeles and Paramount, and warned protesters that they risked arrest if they refused to disperse.
Violence broke out in various locations, particularly in the Los Angeles County city of Paramount, where a protest centered around false reports of an ICE raid quickly turned into a chaotic standoff. During the clash, police reported looting at a nearby gas station, while several vehicles were damaged or set ablaze. The unrest also spread to Compton, where another protest took place, and a car was set on fire on a street. In some instances, police and protesters engaged in physical altercations, and several people were arrested for alleged assaults on federal officers.
One of the most significant incidents occurred when ICE officials claimed that over 1,000 protesters surrounded a federal building in downtown Los Angeles. According to ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons, the situation became chaotic as rioters attacked federal agents. However, local authorities, including the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), responded by refuting these claims, stating that its response was delayed partly due to the use of chemical irritants by federal agents. LAPD’s initial delay in addressing the violence was attributed to hazardous conditions, including traffic congestion and the overwhelming presence of demonstrators.
The escalating violence over immigration enforcement operations prompted sharp reactions from both local and federal officials. House Speaker Mike Johnson voiced support for President Trump’s decision to send in the National Guard, stating that the president was exercising “real leadership” in deploying the military to maintain order. “He has the authority and the responsibility to do it,” Johnson added in an interview with ABC News.
However, California Governor Gavin Newsom expressed strong disapproval of the federal intervention. Newsom referred to the deployment of National Guard troops as “purposefully inflammatory” and said that it would only serve to escalate tensions. He asserted that local law enforcement agencies were already capable of managing the situation, arguing that the move to send in National Guard personnel was politically motivated. “We are in close coordination with the city and county, and there is currently no unmet need,” Newsom stated on social media.
The tension between local and federal officials continued to mount as the protests spread. The LAPD, in its statement, confirmed that the agency had not been involved in any federal immigration operations and had been called in solely to assist with crowd and traffic control. Meanwhile, ICE officials criticized the lack of timely action by local authorities, especially the LAPD, and blamed them for not providing support during critical moments when federal agents were under attack.
While the protests over the ICE raids raged across Los Angeles, they were not confined to California. In New York City, demonstrators gathered outside the federal courthouse in Manhattan, protesting the actions of ICE agents. Reports indicated that at least 22 individuals were arrested during these protests, underscoring the broader national response to the immigration enforcement actions. Similar demonstrations were reported in other major cities across the United States, as immigrant rights groups and supporters called for an end to what they described as brutal enforcement measures by the federal government.
In Los Angeles, protests took on a more localized character, with participants voicing anger over the detention of individuals in the immigrant community. The protests were particularly emotional, as many demonstrators feared that families would be torn apart due to ICE’s ongoing raids. Protesters, many of whom held signs and flags in solidarity with immigrant rights, clashed with law enforcement and were met with tear gas and flash-bangs, further escalating the conflict. One protester even waved a Mexican flag as smoke rose from a burning car during a standoff between police and demonstrators in Paramount.
The clashes and subsequent deployment of National Guard troops have led to a heated national conversation about immigration enforcement and the role of local versus federal authorities in handling such tense situations. The White House defended the National Guard deployment, accusing California’s Democratic leadership of abdicating their responsibility to protect citizens. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated, “In the wake of this violence, California’s feckless Democrat leaders have completely abdicated their responsibility to protect their citizens.”
The ongoing unrest in Los Angeles has sparked a broader debate about immigration policies, the role of federal law enforcement, and the appropriate use of military and National Guard forces in domestic situations. The U.S. government’s approach to immigration enforcement has been a point of contention for years, and the current crisis in Los Angeles only adds fuel to an already highly charged political environment.
As of now, tensions remain high across Los Angeles and beyond. The deployment of National Guard troops is expected to continue for the foreseeable future, with no clear resolution in sight. Meanwhile, protests are expected to persist, particularly as news spreads about further ICE operations in other parts of the country. The outcome of these events will undoubtedly shape the ongoing national conversation about immigration, law enforcement, and the rights of individuals within the United States.
In the coming days, as the situation unfolds, it is likely that both local and federal authorities will continue to clash over the best way to manage the growing unrest. What remains clear is that the crisis in Los Angeles, sparked by immigration enforcement operations and subsequent protests, has ignited deep divisions within the country, making it one of the most significant political and social issues of 2025.
