In the context of protecting federal property and assets, the military deployment is correct, legal, and actually needed. These people are protesting ICE, a federal agency, engaged in its work. ICE should be protested. However, it's likely the protests would turn violent. Whether the presence of National Guard troops is used as an excuse to incite that or not is a cynical political matter (yes, they will be blamed). However, the show of force will likely stop property damage and injury before it happens. The LAPD tends to be incendiary in its own right, and its record dealing with riots that have nothing to do with federal actions is poor. If this was a BLM protest, or a "river to the sea" riot, then I'd say leave the feds out. But this is a protest against the feds, so, regardless of whether Trump engineered it, the troop deployment is appropriate in that context.
I can't speak to the legality of using Marines to protect federal buildings, but what Trump's done with California's National Guard is illegal, until he invokes the Insurrection Act, with its required proclamation for "insurgents" to go home and notice to Congress.
Not that Trump and his rubber-stamp lawyers care, as they were picking this fight with California by threatening to cut its federal funding[1] and Gov. Newsom suggested California ceasing to pay into the federal coffers in the first place[2] (CA being a net contributor to those funds[3]).
All of this is one big kabuki play - and the facts on the ground are largely irrelevant. Note that we're not talking anymore about Elon's charge that Trump is in the Epstein files, Trump threatening to yank Elon's grants, the Mike Johnson scrambling to address fatal issues in the funding bill[4], the open revolt in the NIH[5].
The chaos is intentional.
As for "the show of force will likely stop property damage and injury before it happens", the Marines wouldn't be protecting the City from the protesters, they'd be there sitting the LAPD down, protecting the City from LAPD attempting to trample folks in custody with their horses[6], shooting journalists[7], or shooting women sitting on the ground holding a sign[8]. LAPD this weekend has been doing its best to pour fuel on the ACAB fire.
I do not know if it cleared through the court system, but President Eisenhower settled the matter in 1957 (at least so far) when he sent the Arkansas National Guard to Little Rock to enforce school integration. Governor Faubus did not approve that action. I do not believe a governor's approval is required. The governor can be required to issue the orders, just like a manager can be required to take personnel actions. Of course, Trump being Trump, did not give Newsom the opportunity to refuse.
Newsom did not mobilize the guard nor request they be mobilized. Faubus did mobilize them, and Eisenhower then federalized them. If Eisenhower had mobilized them without Faubus request, then we'd be in a similar situation.
I agree with you insofar as Trump should have left LA & California to twist in the wind if they insisted on refusing assistance to put a stop to the madness.
People get what they vote for. I’d also decline to supply federal funds to clean up the resulting mess if they refused assistance to mitigate the damage in the first place.
Agreed, except that protection of Homeland Security agents is necessary. I can't say whether protection provided by the military is law enforcement or not but I'm sure a good lawyer could argue the point.
Insert the word rioters for MAGA insurrectionists and Mr. Thornton would be correct. This column got me to thinking, instead of rounding up violent illegals(and in the process making some mistakes and grabbing some that don't belong), perhaps ICE should be rounding up those that are really behind the incitement to riot, the Soros crime syndicate, some in Congress who shoot off their mouths causing mobs to form to carry out their implied directives, etc. Maybe imprisoning the ones behind the scenes might just tamp down the majority of the violence that the left inevitably resorts to in these situations. Furthermore, look back on our history, even as we tout our nation as one that the rest of the world can look to as a place of rest, peace, comfort, and opportunity, we have had a record of violence and unrest that is second to none on the planet. And almost invariably it has been those on the left that turn to it as a first resort, and I, for one, am sick and tired of it!
“Grabbing some that don’t belong” seems like a woeful understatement for describing agents detaining people who are presenting to ICE offices for appointments….at least if you accept the Trump line that he is deporting criminals and violent illegals.
You know the typical righty objection about gun control and 2a - that criminals aren’t gonna follow the rules? Same goes with these illegal immigrants.
I never saw or heard a Trump promise to deport only violent, criminal illegals. He did promise to make that a priority. He also said early on that he would have no problem with using the military.
While he did not employ an Eisenhower-like effort the first time he was president, Trump is bringing the pledge back. Trump told Time he would target between 15 million and 20 million people who he said are undocumented in the US. The exact number of undocumented immigrants is not clear. It is probably smaller than Trump says.
Pew Research Center estimated the number of undocumented migrants in the US was around 10.5 million in 2021. Pew’s estimate acknowledges the population may have grown as more people have tried to enter the US. As of 2021, it estimated about 3% of the US population and about 22% of the foreign-born population were undocumented.
There are clearly more people trying to enter the US. In the 2023 fiscal year, which lasts from October 2022 through September 2023, there were nearly 2.5 million “encounters”
Ah yes, because everything has some form of central control and there is no individual agency/responsibility for actions.
Here's a better idea: reform e-Verify and charge the employers that hire the undocumented. Deal with part of the root issue - demand - rather than symptoms.
But to suggest some cars burning in LA county = LA county is burning would also be a gross misrepresentation.
It’s almost like people need to avoid false dichotomies or something.
And history provides some perspective. This is the first time in 60 years that National Guard has been federalized against wishes of that state’s government. During Rodney King riots, Guard was sent in only at request of CA governor and LA mayor.
So I’d ask “was current situation worse than during King riots”?
If you don't think the big mouths and moneyed interests on the left are giving the rioters their marching orders, you need to wake up. "The truth shall set you free."
The problem is framing the protests as violent: is it appropriate if thousands protest and a few dozen commit violent acts? It looks like around 50 people or so have been arrested so far - and some of those arrests are dubious (David Huerta being a prime example).
In the context of protecting federal property and assets, the military deployment is correct, legal, and actually needed. These people are protesting ICE, a federal agency, engaged in its work. ICE should be protested. However, it's likely the protests would turn violent. Whether the presence of National Guard troops is used as an excuse to incite that or not is a cynical political matter (yes, they will be blamed). However, the show of force will likely stop property damage and injury before it happens. The LAPD tends to be incendiary in its own right, and its record dealing with riots that have nothing to do with federal actions is poor. If this was a BLM protest, or a "river to the sea" riot, then I'd say leave the feds out. But this is a protest against the feds, so, regardless of whether Trump engineered it, the troop deployment is appropriate in that context.
I can't speak to the legality of using Marines to protect federal buildings, but what Trump's done with California's National Guard is illegal, until he invokes the Insurrection Act, with its required proclamation for "insurgents" to go home and notice to Congress.
Not that Trump and his rubber-stamp lawyers care, as they were picking this fight with California by threatening to cut its federal funding[1] and Gov. Newsom suggested California ceasing to pay into the federal coffers in the first place[2] (CA being a net contributor to those funds[3]).
All of this is one big kabuki play - and the facts on the ground are largely irrelevant. Note that we're not talking anymore about Elon's charge that Trump is in the Epstein files, Trump threatening to yank Elon's grants, the Mike Johnson scrambling to address fatal issues in the funding bill[4], the open revolt in the NIH[5].
The chaos is intentional.
As for "the show of force will likely stop property damage and injury before it happens", the Marines wouldn't be protecting the City from the protesters, they'd be there sitting the LAPD down, protecting the City from LAPD attempting to trample folks in custody with their horses[6], shooting journalists[7], or shooting women sitting on the ground holding a sign[8]. LAPD this weekend has been doing its best to pour fuel on the ACAB fire.
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/06/politics/trump-california-federal-funding
[2] https://www.kcra.com/article/newsom-threatens-california-tax-dollars-trump-threat/64996892
[3] https://usafacts.org/articles/which-states-contribute-the-most-and-least-to-federal-revenue/
[4] https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/06/09/congress/house-technical-corrections-gop-megabill-00394907
[5] https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2025/06/nih-bethesda-declaration-bhattacharya-letter/683081/
[6] https://www.newsweek.com/la-protestor-stomped-police-horseback-violence-video-2082637
[7] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/jun/09/australian-reporter-shot-with-rubber-bullet-while-covering-anti-ice-protests-in-los-angeles
[8] https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/1l71d3z/lapd_shot_a_woman_in_the_head_with_that_was/
I do not know if it cleared through the court system, but President Eisenhower settled the matter in 1957 (at least so far) when he sent the Arkansas National Guard to Little Rock to enforce school integration. Governor Faubus did not approve that action. I do not believe a governor's approval is required. The governor can be required to issue the orders, just like a manager can be required to take personnel actions. Of course, Trump being Trump, did not give Newsom the opportunity to refuse.
Faubus mobilized the guard in the first place to block access. That they were mobilized allowed for their federalization.
They were still under the command of the governor.
That's irrelevant.
Newsom did not mobilize the guard nor request they be mobilized. Faubus did mobilize them, and Eisenhower then federalized them. If Eisenhower had mobilized them without Faubus request, then we'd be in a similar situation.
It's not similar at all at the moment.
Nice article. This situation is another in the long line of examples which demonstrate 2 wrongs don’t make a right.
I agree with you insofar as Trump should have left LA & California to twist in the wind if they insisted on refusing assistance to put a stop to the madness.
People get what they vote for. I’d also decline to supply federal funds to clean up the resulting mess if they refused assistance to mitigate the damage in the first place.
Agreed, except that protection of Homeland Security agents is necessary. I can't say whether protection provided by the military is law enforcement or not but I'm sure a good lawyer could argue the point.
Let's get some perspective here: do you consider a handful of burned cars where the perpetrators were arrested quickly after to be "madness"?
LA is huge: the incidents were small and localized, and LAPD was more than capable of handling any issues that arose.
You're being played.
“If” is doing some seriously heavy lifting here. I’d suggest it is you who are being played.
You're the only one using the word "if".
Outside the few Waymos there's been very little property damage.
Or did you reply from the wrong account?
Insert the word rioters for MAGA insurrectionists and Mr. Thornton would be correct. This column got me to thinking, instead of rounding up violent illegals(and in the process making some mistakes and grabbing some that don't belong), perhaps ICE should be rounding up those that are really behind the incitement to riot, the Soros crime syndicate, some in Congress who shoot off their mouths causing mobs to form to carry out their implied directives, etc. Maybe imprisoning the ones behind the scenes might just tamp down the majority of the violence that the left inevitably resorts to in these situations. Furthermore, look back on our history, even as we tout our nation as one that the rest of the world can look to as a place of rest, peace, comfort, and opportunity, we have had a record of violence and unrest that is second to none on the planet. And almost invariably it has been those on the left that turn to it as a first resort, and I, for one, am sick and tired of it!
“Grabbing some that don’t belong” seems like a woeful understatement for describing agents detaining people who are presenting to ICE offices for appointments….at least if you accept the Trump line that he is deporting criminals and violent illegals.
You know the typical righty objection about gun control and 2a - that criminals aren’t gonna follow the rules? Same goes with these illegal immigrants.
I never saw or heard a Trump promise to deport only violent, criminal illegals. He did promise to make that a priority. He also said early on that he would have no problem with using the military.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/01/politics/trump-immigration-what-matters
"Trump promised mass deportation in 2016 too
While he did not employ an Eisenhower-like effort the first time he was president, Trump is bringing the pledge back. Trump told Time he would target between 15 million and 20 million people who he said are undocumented in the US. The exact number of undocumented immigrants is not clear. It is probably smaller than Trump says.
Pew Research Center estimated the number of undocumented migrants in the US was around 10.5 million in 2021. Pew’s estimate acknowledges the population may have grown as more people have tried to enter the US. As of 2021, it estimated about 3% of the US population and about 22% of the foreign-born population were undocumented.
There are clearly more people trying to enter the US. In the 2023 fiscal year, which lasts from October 2022 through September 2023, there were nearly 2.5 million “encounters”
Does rounding people up at ICE offices augur with “making (deporting criminals) a priority” to you?
Is this program that targets illegals with final deportation orders what you are referring to?
https://nypost.com/2025/06/04/us-news/ice-rounds-up-immigrants-making-mandatory-appearances-at-lower-manhattan-courthouse/
Ah yes, because everything has some form of central control and there is no individual agency/responsibility for actions.
Here's a better idea: reform e-Verify and charge the employers that hire the undocumented. Deal with part of the root issue - demand - rather than symptoms.
Protest is speech. Do you hate speech?
And there is always individual agency in violent uprising, but I don't ever discount the central players behind the scenes.
Seriously?! You're going to excuse lawlessness?! Why am I not surprised?
There is no excuse for “lawlessness”.
But to suggest some cars burning in LA county = LA county is burning would also be a gross misrepresentation.
It’s almost like people need to avoid false dichotomies or something.
And history provides some perspective. This is the first time in 60 years that National Guard has been federalized against wishes of that state’s government. During Rodney King riots, Guard was sent in only at request of CA governor and LA mayor.
So I’d ask “was current situation worse than during King riots”?
A handful of burned vehicles with a few dozen arrests is not a violent uprising, not in a county of 10mil people covering 4700sqmi.
Who says I hate nonviolent speech? Too far of a reach, even for you, SGMAN.
Violence is not speech. Protest is.
"Implied directives" is some BS.
If you don't think the big mouths and moneyed interests on the left are giving the rioters their marching orders, you need to wake up. "The truth shall set you free."
The problem is framing the protests as violent: is it appropriate if thousands protest and a few dozen commit violent acts? It looks like around 50 people or so have been arrested so far - and some of those arrests are dubious (David Huerta being a prime example).
I agree….but one video of a burning Waymo is more effective than a thousand words when it comes to establishing a narrative in public opinion.