California’s Democratic leaders, Gov. Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta, are sidestepping and deflecting blame for this week’s violence and rioting in Los Angeles. They claim that the Trump administration’s federalization of the National Guard lacks federal interest and violates the Constitution. That is not just misguided but dangerously dismissive of the federal government’s responsibility to enforce the law and protect its agents.
The reality is clear: the federal government has a compelling interest in deploying resources to California to support lawful immigration enforcement, and attempts to paint riotous behavior as “peaceful protest” or to vilify President Trump as the instigator of violence are a disservice to the truth.
Let’s start with the facts. Federal immigration agents, tasked with executing lawful warrants under the authority of the U.S. government, have come under attack in Los Angeles. Protesters have not merely voiced dissent — they have thrown concrete, bottles, and Molotov cocktails, set vehicles ablaze, and obstructed federal operations. The U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California reported over a dozen arrests for impeding federal agents, with 27 more detained for unlawful assembly and violent acts, including attacking police and destroying property. This is not the hallmark of peaceful protest; it is lawlessness that threatens public safety and undermines the sovereignty of federal law.
The federal government’s authority to enforce immigration law is indisputable. Under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has plenary power over immigration, and the executive branch is charged with executing those laws. When federal agents face violence while carrying out their duties, the federal government has not only the right but the obligation to ensure their safety and the integrity of their mission.
The law explicitly authorizes the president to federalize the National Guard when state authorities fail to secure federal operations or when lawlessness obstructs federal law enforcement. California’s refusal to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations — coupled with Newsom’s condemnation of federal action as “chaotic” and “authoritarian” — creates a vacuum that necessitates federal intervention.
Newsom’s invocation of the 10th Amendment to claim a violation of state sovereignty is a convenient but hollow argument. The 10th Amendment reserves powers to the states that are not delegated to the federal government, but immigration enforcement is unequivocally a federal power. The Supreme Court has long affirmed this, notably in Arizona v. United States (2012), which struck down state attempts to usurp federal immigration authority. Newsom’s assertion that federalizing the National Guard infringes on California’s rights ignores the reality that states cannot obstruct federal law enforcement without consequence. When local leaders refuse to secure federal facilities or protect federal agents, as seen in Los Angeles, the federal government must act to restore order.
Bonta’s claim that there is “no federal interest” in deploying the National Guard is equally baseless. The federal interest is clear: ensuring the safety of federal agents, protecting federal property, and upholding immigration laws that safeguard national security and public welfare. ICE operations in Los Angeles targeted individuals with judicial warrants, including gang members and those with serious criminal convictions. These are not arbitrary sweeps but targeted enforcement actions to remove dangerous individuals from our communities. To dismiss this as a political stunt is to ignore the federal government’s responsibility to protect its citizens.
The rhetoric from California’s leaders and commentators is a masterclass in deflection. Newsom calls the deployment “an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism,” while Mayor Karen Bass claims it inflames tensions. Yet, their own failure to curb violence — evidenced by burning cars, blocked highways, and attacks on law enforcement — created the conditions necessitating federal action.
Labeling riotous behavior as “peaceful protest” is a deliberate misrepresentation that erodes trust in governance. Protesters who attack federal agents, destroy property, and endanger lives are not champions of justice; they are obstructing the rule of law. To paint Trump as the villain for responding to this chaos is to invert reality and excuse lawlessness under the guise of political posturing.
As Americans, we must see through this fog of double talk. The deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to Los Angeles is not an overreach but a measured response to a crisis that local leaders have failed to address. This is not about militarizing cities, as critics claim, but about restoring order where anarchy threatens to take hold. The federal government’s actions are grounded in law, necessity, and a commitment to public safety. If California’s leaders truly valued their communities, they would work with federal authorities to ensure safe and lawful immigration enforcement rather than fanning the flames of division.
The rule of law is not negotiable, and no state can opt out of federal authority when it comes to immigration enforcement. Other communities across the country must take heed: excusing violence as protest and obstructing federal law enforcement sets a dangerous precedent. As a nation, we must stand united in supporting the lawful execution of federal duties and reject the narrative that casts law enforcement as the enemy. The safety of our communities and the integrity of our laws depend on it.