Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Was it legal for Trump to deploy federal troops to Los Angeles?
In this clip from a larger interview for the latest episode of GZERO World, New York Times Magazine staff writer and Yale Law School fellow Emily Bazelon sits down with Ian Bremmer to unpack President Trump’s unprecedented decision to send National Guard troops and US Marines into Los Angeles without the governor’s consent. She argues the administration may have intentionally provoked the unrest through targeted immigration raids in the Latino neighborhoods of a densely populated city.
As California Governor Gavin Newsom sues the federal government, Bazelon makes clear that legal recourse may be limited. Even if Newsom wins, she says, Trump could comply with consultation requirements after the fact and proceed as planned. “The judges cannot save the country from an authoritarian president... by themselves,” Bazelon warns.
GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, the award-winning weekly global affairs series, airs nationwide on US public television stations (check local listings).
New digital episodes of GZERO World are released every Monday on YouTube. Don't miss an episode: subscribe to GZERO's YouTube channel and turn on notifications (🔔).
8 thoughts on Trump’s Los Angeles crackdown
On Saturday, US President Donald Trump activated 2,000 members of the California National Guard to quell protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s deportation efforts in Los Angeles, after small but highly visible demonstrations had popped up across the city in the days prior – with some instances of violence, opportunistic looting, and property damage. California Governor Gavin Newsom disputed that federal intervention was necessary and condemned Trump’s deployment decision as illegal and inflammatory, blaming it for stoking the protests.
Though the protests had largely petered out by then, on Tuesday the president dispatched an additional 2,000-plus National Guard troops and 700 active-duty Marines to the area. Downtown LA had a quiet night on the back of a curfew, but anti-ICE (and, more broadly, anti-Trump) demonstrations have started to spread to other major cities like New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Austin, Dallas, and Atlanta, with more planned in Las Vegas, Minneapolis, San Antonio, and Seattle. Texas Governor Greg Abbot has already called in the National Guard ahead of any potential unrest in his state.
Here are my eight key takeaways:
- Trump’s decision to send federal troops into Los Angeles was extreme. It marked the first time in 60 years that the National Guard had been deployed to a US state without the consent of its governor. The last such instance was in 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson federalized the Alabama Guard in defiance of Governor George Wallace, one of the nation’s leading segregationists, to protect civil rights demonstrators led by Martin Luther King Jr. from violence. Needless to say, federal supremacy over states’ rights is being asserted in a very different context, by a very different president, and in service of a very different goal today.
- It’s legal – for now. Trump’s deployment pushes the envelope politically, but as long as the troops limit their role to protecting federal personnel and facilities while refraining from taking law-enforcement actions (as they reportedly have thus far), it will stay within the bounds of presidential authority. That’s a key legal distinction, as the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act bars active-duty forces from engaging in domestic law enforcement unless the president invokes the 1807 Insurrection Act. That’s a step Trump hasn’t taken (yet at least), suggesting that he still sees as high a bar for it as he did during the George Floyd protests in 2020.
- The door is open to a more radical use of emergency powers. The counterpoint is that Trump referred to the LA protesters as a “violent insurrectionist mob” (he does know a little something about those) and on Tuesday refused to take the invocation of the Insurrection Act off the table. He also warned that any protesters at this weekend’s military parade in Washington, DC – peaceful or not – “will be met with very big force,” and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth hinted at a desire to use military forces on domestic soil more extensively going forward. This pattern suggests that Trump’s threshold for activating emergency powers or using troops against Americans is lower than last time around, when he was repeatedly talked out of extreme steps by institutionalist advisors. I wouldn’t be shocked if the administration invoked the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (aka IEEPA, the same law it used to levy reciprocal tariffs on Liberation Day) to freeze the assets of individual American citizens and organizations it accused of aiding and abetting “foreign invaders” (aka undocumented aliens). Or if it used the Communications Act to pressure internet platforms into throttling protest-related content. These scenarios may sound far-fetched, but so did the unilateral deployment of the National Guard and Marine Corps to Los Angeles less than 200 days into the first year of the Trump presidency. In his second term, Trump has proven willing to push the legal and political limits of executive power, against precedent and despite long odds of success.
- Trump’s LA deployment was designed to score political points, not restore peace. The City of Los Angeles was unaffected by the protests, which were confined to a handful of downtown city blocks. The Los Angeles Police Department had things under control (at least until Trump escalated the situation), and local officials saw no reason to request federal help. In fact, they warned that adding federal troops to the mix would risk heightening tensions and endanger public safety. But Trump wasn’t trying to solve a security problem – he was playing politics.
- Trump is eager to pick public fights over immigration. This is the one issue area where the president has had consistently positive approval ratings, save for a brief dip underwater caused by the administration’s mishandling of the Abrego Garcia case. For Trump, the political upside of doubling down on the migrant crackdown is twofold. First, it shifts attention toward his biggest strength and away from headlines that are more problematic for the administration, such as his failure to secure trade deals, his inability to end the Russia-Ukraine war, and his messy breakup with Elon Musk. Second, it forces Democrats into defending politically unsympathetic targets and positions, much like they did with Abrego Garcia (before the White House overplayed its hand) and Harvard University.
- The optics of the LA protests play straight into Trump’s hands. Images of burning Waymos and protestors flying Mexican flags lend credence to the White House’s false claim that undocumented immigrants are dangerous foreign invaders and their defenders are radical anti-American traitors, allowing the president to discredit opponents of mass deportations as threats to public order and safety. That only a small number of troublemakers were illegal aliens doesn’t matter; Trump is betting (correctly, in my view) those visuals will drive public opinion away from the demonstrators and toward more aggressive deportation policies.
- More deportations are coming. Trump has made measurable progress in curbing illegal border crossings, but so far, deportations have fallen far short of his campaign pledge (and even of deportations during Joe Biden’s last year in office). That’s not surprising; large-scale interior removals are much more politically, economically, and logistically fraught than border enforcement. But according to the Wall Street Journal, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller recently ordered ICE to step up its game, demanding that they stop targeting migrants with criminal records, asylum requests, and court petitions and instead “just go out there and arrest illegal aliens” at their jobs and schools. In other words, snag anyone who looks illegal, no probable cause (let alone warrant) needed. That approach was reportedly what sparked the LA protests last week. The backlash was instrumental to Miller’s goals: by signaling that Trump is making good on his deportation promise, standoffs with law enforcement can make deportations more popular and give Trump the political capital to ramp up more visible and disruptive workplace and neighborhood raids, particularly in Democratic-run cities. These operations will trigger more protests, which will in turn be met with more repression and stepped-up enforcement, and so on.
- On immigration, don’t bet on TACO. Trump faces fewer internal constraints in implementing his policy agenda on immigration than in any other area. Unless and until it starts dragging on his approval ratings, he is likely to double down: more aggressive raids, more confrontations with Democratic governors and mayors, more troop deployments to quell public protests. Mass deportations will disrupt local life in places like Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, and Chicago. Backlash to aggressive enforcement tactics, family separations, and mistaken detentions will be the primary source of domestic unrest in the coming months, but Trump won’t back down. This is a fight the White House is happy to fight.
Trump's deployment of troops to Los Angeles was less about taking control of the streets and more about taking control of the narrative. The strategy is confrontational by design, with immigrants and Democrats as foils and civil unrest as a feature, not a bug. This playbook may work politically. But in the long term, the result will be more conflict: between cities and Washington, between red and blue, between civilians and the military, and between competing visions of American identity. The most politically divided and dysfunctional industrialized nation will only become more so.
Gavin Newsom speaks at the Vogue World: Hollywood Announcement at the Chateau Marmont in West Hollywood, CA on March 26, 2025.
California launches Canadian charm offensive
California governor Gavin Newsom kicked off a campaign to promote Canadian tourism in his state, pitching its sunny beaches, lush vineyards, and world-class restaurants.
Why now? California tourism operators are feeling the pinch as relations between the US and Canada sour under Trump. Newsom reports that Canadian tourism to his state has fallen 12% compared to last year.
But his charm offensive may fall flat for reasons beyond his control. A US travel association says three times as many Canadians are staying away from the US as the industry first predicted, and southbound car trips were down by a third in March, according to Statistics Canada.
The lost business from their northern neighbors could cost Americans $6 billion this year. Canadian anger at Trump’s annexation threats are part of the problem, but so is the fear of mistreatment: The widely reported story of a Canadian actor who was held in custody for 11 days after a visa problem isn’t helping, nor are stories of people of other nationalities being turned away, detained, or having their personal devices examined. A Canadian satirical site joked that Canadian visitors could look forward to an unexpected side trip to El Salvador.
Until there is a thaw in Canada-US relations, many Canadians aren’t interested in spending their vacation dollars in Gavin Newsom’s Golden State, or anywhere else in the US for that matter.
U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) speaks to the media during a visit to El Salvador to advocate for the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man deported without due process by the Trump administration and sent to the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT), in San Salvador, El Salvador, on April 16, 2025.
HARD NUMBERS: Maryland senator flies to El Salvador, Russian journalists jailed, California sues Trump admin over tariffs, EU tilts right on asylum, Peru’s ex-president guilty of money laundering
1: On Wednesday, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) flew to El Salvador to advocate for the release of Kilmar Abgrego Garcia, a Maryland resident wrongfully deported to a brutal high-security prison there. Van Hollen, who met with the Salvadoran vice president, is the only US lawmaker to make the trip. The Supreme Court ruled last week that the Trump administration should “facilitate” Garcia’s return to the United States, but US President Donald Trump has shown no willingness to do so. (Does that mean the United States is facing a constitutional crisis? Here’s what Ian Bremmer has to say).
4: Four Russian journalists were convicted of extremism and jailed in a closed-door trial in Moscow for associating with the Anti-Corruption Fund — a group founded by the late opposition leader and political activist Alexei Navalny. The individuals pleaded not guilty, arguing they were merely doing their jobs as independent journalists.
-0.2: Before Washington unveiled sweeping tariffs that rocked the global economy, the World Trade Organization forecasted global goods trade to grow by 2.7% in 2025. The updated forecast shows a decrease of 0.2%, a swing of 2.9 percentage points. WTO director general Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala also warned that trade between the US and China could plunge by 81-91%, due to the superpowers’ trade war.
5th: California, the fifth-largest economy in the world, sued the Trump administration over the “emergency” rule that allowed the executive branch to impose tariffs — a power constitutionally reserved for Congress, the Golden State alleges.
7: The European Union has designated seven countries—Kosovo, Colombia, Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Bangladesh, and India — as“safe” places for migrants to return, a decision that will result in the denial of asylum applications for citizens from those countries. The move comes amid growing anti-immigrant pressure from far-right parties across the continent.
15: Peru’s former president Ollanta Humala and his wife Nadine Heredia have been found guilty of money laundering and each sentenced to 15 years in prison. The couple was convicted of accepting nearly $3 million in illegal campaign funds from construction giant Odebrecht and hundreds of thousands of dollars from the late Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez. Humala was taken into custody, whereas Heredia sought asylum at the Brazilian embassy in Lima and was granted safe passage to Brazil.A drone view of buildings destroyed during the Palisades Fire in Malibu, California, U.S., January 15, 2025.
Winds pick up, then die down, but LA fire risk remains
Fires raging across Los Angeles have killed more than two dozen people and burned over 60 square miles, with more than 82,000 residents under evacuation orders in the county. Over 12,000 structures have been badly damaged or lost, sending rent costs skyrocketing and exacerbating LA’s preexisting housing crisis.
The fires are already among the worst in California’s history. On Wednesday, authorities issued a less severe wind warning, lowering the risk of fire in the coming days as winds later died down. But winds could threaten to pick up Monday, and with no rain in the forecast, fire conditions could worsen once again.
Toxic smoke is also a threat. On Tuesday, LA County issued a dust and ash warning as air quality drops and particulate matter circulates, raising the threat of health risks including asthma and premature death.
Firefighters from the US and around the world are working to get the blazes under control as criticism of LA Fire Department funding grows. Critics say the LAFD has been structurally underfunded, even as experts contend that no amount of funding or water would have been sufficient to quell the fires — the product of a “perfect storm” of dry conditions, stronger-than-usual Santa Ana winds, and the ongoing effects of climate change.LOS ANGELES, CA - JANUARY 07: A wind-driven fire burns on January 7, 2025 in Los Angeles, California. Santa Ana wind is fueling wildfires in Los Angeles that have destroyed homes and forced the evacuation of thousands of people.
Politics inflamed amid California wildfires
As California’s most destructive wildfires continue to blaze across Los Angeles County, having killed 16 and displaced more than 166,000 residents, emergency response effortshave become politicized, both at home and abroad.
Actor James Woods, Tesla CEO Elon Musk, and right-wing political commentators have accused Los Angeles Fire Department Chief Kristin Crowley of prioritizing diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives over firefighting essentials. In response, Crowley citeda $17.4 million budget reduction to the LAFD in 2025, affecting overtime staffing and essential programs. Los Angeles Fire Commission President Genethia Hudley-Hayes defended Crowley, arguing that the scale of the fires, high winds, and an empty reservoir that was under repair would have overwhelmed even a fully funded department. Meanwhile, California Gov. Gavin Newsom has called for an independent investigation into water supply failures.
While domestic politics is bitterly divided, on the international front the story is one of unity. Mexico and Canadahave sent firefighting equipment, including water bombers and personnel, despite President-elect Donald Trump’s promises of punitive tariffs against both countries.
Will the goodwill effort change hearts and minds in the Trump administration? Alberta Premier Danielle Smithposted to X that “Good neighbours are always there for each other in times of need, and we will assist our American friends in any way they need during this crisis.” She laterposted photos of herself meeting with Trump at Mar-A-Lago at the weekend, along with Canadian businessman Kevin O’Leary.
A house burns as powerful winds fueling devastating wildfires in the Los Angeles area force people to evacuate, in Altadena, California, on Jan. 8, 2025.
Wildfires are raging in Los Angeles. So is their politicization.
As wildfires scorched Los Angeles for a second day on Wednesday, hurricane-strength winds and limited water supplies complicated efforts to contain the flames. The three main fires – in the Pacific Palisades, the Pasadena area, and the rural San Fernando Valley – have burned thousands of acres, decimated hundreds of buildings, killed two people, and placed tens of thousands of people under evacuation orders.
Overnight, all the fire hydrants in the affluent Pacific Palisades neighborhood went dry, and officials are raising alarm bells that the city’s water system is outdated and ill-equipped to keep up with climate change, which is not only making fires more frequent in LA but also spreading them faster.
President Joe Biden is sending money to the region, thanks to the $100 billion in disaster aid passed by Congress before Christmas, $29 billion of which went to FEMA. Incoming President Donald Trump, meanwhile, accused Gov. Gavin Newsom on Wednesday of blocking water to the region “to protect an essentially worthless fish called a smelt, by giving it less water.” Trump appears to be referring to rules adjusting water allocations for cities and farms to protect areas where populations in Northern California where fish populations are depleting. But most of LA’s water is not imported from that region; it comes from groundwater and the aqueduct that runs east of the Sierra Nevada.
In the past, Trump has hesitated to give aid to Democratic-leaning states, and he has been critical of FEMA – falsely accusing the agency of misusing funds for illegal immigrants after Hurricane Helene. While he has not yet announced his pick to run the agency, its fate, and the fate of disaster-prone blue-states, could be fraught for the next four years.
FILE PHOTO: California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) reacts as he speaks to the members of the press on the day of the first presidential debate hosted by CNN in Atlanta, Georgia, U.S., June 27, 2024.
Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoes California’s AI safety bill
California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sunday vetoed the Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act, or SB 1047, the AI safety bill passed by the state’s legislature in August.
Newsom has signed other AI-related bills into law, such as two recent measures protecting performers from AI deepfakes of their likenesses, but vetoed this one over concerns about the focus of the would-be law.
“By focusing only on the most expensive and large-scale models, SB 1047 establishes a regulatory framework that could give the public a false sense of security about controlling this fast-moving technology,” Newsom wrote in a letter on Sept. 29. “Smaller, specialized models may emerge as equally or even more dangerous than the models targeted by SB 1047 — at the potential expense of curtailing the very innovation that fuels advancement in favor of the public good.”
Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener, who sponsored the bill, called the veto a “setback for everyone who believes in oversight of massive corporations that are making critical decisions that affect the safety and welfare of the public and the future of the planet.” Wiener hasn’t disclosed the next steps but vowed to continue pushing the envelope on AI regulation in the state. “California will continue to lead in that conversation — we are not going anywhere.”