On June 8 local time, under orders from President Donald Trump, approximately 300 members of the National Guard were deployed to Los Angeles, California. By midday, clashes had erupted between the Guardsmen stationed in front of federal law enforcement buildings in downtown Los Angeles and a growing crowd of protesters.
The immediate catalyst for the unrest in California was a surprise immigration raid launched by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on June 6, codenamed “Iron Fist.” Without notifying local authorities in advance, federal agents broke into garment factories and warehouses in immigrant neighborhoods, arresting 44 undocumented individuals and detaining 200. Some workers alleged they were violently dragged out. That evening, over 500 protesters blocked Highway 101, throwing Molotov cocktails at police vehicles. Law enforcement responded with tear gas and stun grenades, and the situation quickly escalated into a violent standoff.
On June 7, President Trump signed a presidential memorandum bypassing California Governor Gavin Newsom and unilaterally deployed 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles, even threatening to call in the U.S. Marine Corps. This marked the first instance of federal military intervention without gubernatorial consent since the civil rights era in 1965. On June 8, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced that Marines at Camp Pendleton had been placed on high alert. The White House went so far as to threaten the arrest of state officials who resisted the enforcement actions.
This unrest cannot be separated from the intensifying polarization of American politics, and it highlights the structural contradictions inherent when the federal and state governments—representing “central” and “local” powers—are controlled by opposing parties. In recent years, the Democratic and Republican parties have been deeply divided on nearly every major issue, plunging the U.S. into a governance crisis marked by opposition for its own sake, which has only exacerbated partisan conflicts in both domestic and foreign affairs.
Nowhere is this standoff more pronounced than in immigration policy. Republicans advocate for stricter immigration controls and tough enforcement against undocumented immigrants. Since the beginning of Trump’s second term, the administration has made deporting illegal immigrants a top priority, instructing ICE to raise daily arrest targets to 3,000 in order to achieve more than one million annual deportations. For Trump, this initiative not only fulfills campaign promises to his base but also serves to reinforce his image as a defender of “law and order” by cracking down on the “illegal economy.”
In contrast, Democratic strongholds like California have championed immigrant inclusion, emphasizing the positive contributions of immigrants to the U.S. economy and society. In response to Trump’s deportation orders, Democratic leaders such as Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass have collaborated with city prosecutors to accelerate the enactment of “sanctuary city” policies, dedicating significant municipal resources to shielding immigrant communities. These efforts run directly counter to the Trump administration’s agenda and reflect the extent to which immigration has become politicized on both sides.
The long-standing personal animosity between President Trump and Governor Newsom has also significantly fueled the escalation. During Trump’s first term from 2017 to 2021, the two clashed repeatedly over climate change, wildfire prevention, and foreign policy. As Trump pursued aggressive anti-immigrant policies, Newsom responded by expanding California’s healthcare coverage to include more young undocumented immigrants.
Their fraught relationship has sowed the seeds for today’s conflict. Trump has blamed the unfolding chaos in Los Angeles on Newsom’s “incompetence,” while Newsom has condemned Trump’s deployment of the National Guard as the authoritarian behavior of a “dictator,” holding it responsible for escalating the unrest.
In the short term, there appear to be two possible trajectories for the crisis.
The first scenario is a spiral of escalating violence. Should the Trump administration deploy additional National Guard units and persist with aggressive “clearing” operations, it could trigger even larger-scale riots and confrontations. Given the substantial economic toll of such unrest, California’s symbolic role as the Democratic Party’s flagship state, and the potential for a “magnet effect” inspiring similar actions in other states, the federal government may feel compelled to intensify suppression efforts. This, in turn, will almost certainly increase the intensity of clashes between National Guard troops and protestors.
The second scenario involves a temporary de-escalation through judicial intervention. Facing the federal government’s militarized enforcement measures, Newsom has stated his intention to seek legal recourse. If a federal district court in California agrees to hear the constitutional challenge, a preliminary injunction could potentially limit the National Guard’s operations within the state. However, given the current political polarization and social fragmentation in the U.S., doubts remain about whether the judiciary can remain impartial, casting uncertainty over its ability to mediate the crisis effectively.
Ultimately, resolving this conflict requires institutional dialogue and negotiation between the federal and state governments, and between the Democratic and Republican parties. Immigration has long been a contentious issue between the two major parties, and the constitutional limitations of federal authority over immigration call for a more cooperative and functional relationship between central and local powers. Yet, constructing such a framework of cooperation will be extraordinarily difficult in the current—and likely future—political climate.
Regardless of how events unfold, this crisis represents not just a clash over immigration policy, state-federal relations, and governance philosophy, but a deeper test of the United States’ capacity to function as a global hegemon. As National Guard armored vehicles face off against protestors waving Mexican flags in the streets, the country stands at a historic crossroads. Whether a new equilibrium is achieved through force or the constitutional boundaries of power are redrawn in court, the crisis exposes a fundamental fracture in American democracy. The founding ideal of “E Pluribus Unum”—out of many, one—is facing its most serious challenge to date. Whether this conflict becomes a preview of the 2026 U.S. midterm elections remains to be seen.