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 }}
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.
Trump deploys National Guard to LA amid immigration protests
The deployment, which has sparked protests across the city, marks the first such federal action without a governor’s approval since 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent troops to Alabama to protect civil rights demonstrators from segregationist Governor George Wallace.
“This is obviously very different kind of politics,” said Ian, “but nonetheless reflecting of where the country… is increasingly oriented—not in becoming more progressive… but instead in securing the border.”
Images of protests featuring Mexican flags, Ian notes, feed a narrative the president is eager to promote.
“If Trump continues to respond in a public and aggressive way, there’s certainly a risk that tensions could escalate,” Ian warned, “especially as deportation operations ramp up in the coming months.”
- Where does Trump’s immigration crackdown stand, nearly 100 days in? ›
- Trump-appointed judge strikes down use of wartime powers to fast-track deportations ›
- What does Trump’s mass deportation mean for Canada — and immigration policy? ›
- Trump’s immigration plan faces hurdles ›
- What We're Watching: Trump calls out National Guard, US-China trade talks, Russia-Ukraine violence escalates ›
On immigration, Pope Leo XIV will advocate for the "dignity of the human" says Fr. James Martin
As part of a larger conversation about the role of religion in modern politics and society, Father James Martin discusses Pope Leo's approach to immigration. Then Father Martin reflects on his own advocacy for LGBTQ issues, emphasizing the Gospel's moral imperative over political convenience.
When it comes to migration, Martin says the Pope’s stance isn’t political, it’s biblical: “His orientation is the Gospel, and the Gospel talks about welcoming the stranger.” He pushes back against Vice President JD Vance's interpretation of "love thy neighbor," noting that Catholic teaching calls on people to care for those they don't know. While the Vatican usually avoids direct political confrontation, Martin says sometimes "directness is called for."
Later, Martin turns to the cultural backlash against transgender people, especially in the US, saying the Church’s call is clear: accompany and affirm their dignity. "The more that they are attacked, the more urgent it becomes for us to stand with them," he says. He points to the late Pope Francis’s quiet but consistent engagement with the trans community as a model of compassion over doctrine.
In both cases, Martin underscores the same theme: whether the issue is immigration or gender identity, the Church's mission is to recognize and protect the dignity of every person.
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 (🔔).GZERO World with Ian Bremmer airs on US public television weekly - check local listings.
Tourists in the center of Madrid, Spain, after the announcement of the Ministry of Consumer Affairs to block almost 66,000 illegal ads, on May 19, 2025.
HARD NUMBERS: Spain clamps down on Airbnb, Cat busted smuggling drugs in Costa Rica, and More
66,000: Amid growing concerns from residents, the Spanish government is calling for the removal of 66,000 Airbnb listings for violating tourist accommodation regulations. Protests have been erupting across the country – the second most popular tourist destination in the world, behind France – as frustration mounts over over-tourism and a housing crisis.
50: Of the 240 Venezuelans deported from the United States to El Salvador, at least 50 entered the United States legally and violated no immigration laws, according to an analysis from the center-right CATO Institute. This study follows an earlier report that 75% of the 240 men had no criminal record.
100: Israel allowed the United Nations to bring 100 aid trucks into Gaza on Tuesday, caving to mounting international pressure to provide relief for residents affected by an eleven-week blockade. UN humanitarian chief Tom Fletcher called for more aid, estimating that 14,000 babies could die in Gaza in the next 48 hours without immediate access to more aid.
$5 million: The Trump administration is discussing whether to offer $5 million to the family of Ashli Babbitt, an Air Force veteran who was killed as she stormed the US Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, as part of a settlement over a wrongful-death lawsuit. President Donald Trump granted clemency to all those involved in the Jan. 6 riot, but this move would go a step further.
235.65: Officers at Pococi Penitentiary in Costa Rica apprehended a paws-itively furry culprit caught up in a prison drug-smuggling scheme: a cat carrying 235.65 grams of marijuana and 67.76g of heroin. The drugs have since been confiscated, and the animal was put into the care of the National Animal Health Service.
Why Sen. Chris Van Hollen stood up to Trump
In the latest episode of GZERO World, Ian Bremmer speaks with Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen about his recent trip to El Salvador and his broader concerns over the Trump administration’s abuse of executive power. Van Hollen visited Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a man legally residing in the United States (though who initially entered illegally) who was wrongly deported to a prison in El Salvador. Despite a unanimous Supreme Court ruling ordering his return, “the President admitted that he could get him back by simply picking up the phone,” Van Hollen says. “They are in violation of a nine-to-nothing Supreme Court order.”
Van Hollen accuses the Salvadoran government of detaining Abrego Garcia only because “the Trump administration is paying us money to do so.” And while Republicans have remained largely silent, Van Hollen reveals that privately, “they have conceded that we are at risk… when we have a lawless president.”
Then the conversation turns to foreign policy and trade, where Van Hollen criticizes deep State Department cuts and Trump’s sweeping tariffs. “This tariff chaos is hurting our economy,” he says, adding that lawsuits are already challenging what he calls an abuse of emergency powers. On domestic politics, Van Hollen argues that Democrats need to offer a clear economic vision: “Trump’s tax plan… is what I call the great betrayal.”
Finally, the senator reflects on the future of the Democratic Party. He urges fellow Democrats to be more than just “no on Trump,” calling for clear alternatives—especially when it comes to taxes, healthcare, and economic policy. He sees Trump’s tax cuts as “exhibit A of the great betrayal” of working Americans and calls for a plan that benefits those left behind.
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 (🔔).GZERO World with Ian Bremmer airs on US public television weekly - check local listings.
- Trump versus the courts ›
- El Salvador's Bukele refuses to return wrongly-deported Maryland man, and offers to jail US citizens too ›
- 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 ›
- What does Trump’s mass deportation mean for Canada — and immigration policy? ›
- Trump’s immigration plan faces hurdles ›
Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen on why he went to El Salvador and what's next
Listen: In the latest episode of the GZERO World podcast, Ian Bremmer sits down with Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen to unpack what he calls a constitutional crisis unfolding under the Trump administration. At the center of the conversation is the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland father of three who was wrongfully deported to El Salvador and remains imprisoned in a maximum-security facility known for human rights abuses. Van Hollen recently traveled to El Salvador to visit Abrego Garcia and pressure local authorities, telling Bremmer, “I asked [them] whether or not El Salvador had any independent basis for holding him. His answer was, ‘No… the Trump administration is paying us money to do so.’”
The conversation also turns to broader concerns about America’s global posture. Van Hollen argues the administration has gutted the State Department and abandoned U.S. leadership abroad: “What we are witnessing is America in retreat. Our adversaries, like China, are all too happy to fill the vacuum.” He critiques Trump’s sweeping tariff policies as chaotic and harmful to small businesses, saying they’re driven more by political theater than economic strategy.
With due process under threat and American institutions under pressure, Van Hollen calls on Democrats to fight back not just with opposition, but with an alternative vision: “We should point out the betrayal, but also present a plan that helps working people—the people Trump claims to stand for.”
Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're publishedPresident Donald Trump in the Oval Office on April 23, 2025.
White House claims win on border security but stays mum on tariffs
In response to Trump’s tariff threats, Canada presented a security plan that included drones and helicopters for border patrols. The government began to roll the plan out soon after. In February, it expanded the plan, adopting a “Fentanyl Czar” and listing drug cartels as terrorists under the country’s Criminal Code.
Now, the White House is claiming that there have been “successes” at the border. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt says “Thanks to President Trump, operational control of the border is becoming a reality, and the administration’s historic measures are yielding huge results,” with apprehensions down 95% from March 2024 levels.
Despite the successes cited by Trump, tariffs on Canada remain in place, including 25% on non-USMCA-compliant goods along with steel and aluminum, and 10% on energy and potash. There’s been no indication from the White House the tariffs are going anywhere, regardless of what happens with the border. That may be a vindication for those who’ve argued that the border was an excuse for tariffs, not a reason. But as the US and Canada face recession risks amid the trade war, it will be of limited comfort at best.
Salvadoran police officers escort an alleged member of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua recently deported by the U.S. government to be imprisoned in the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) prison, as part of an agreement with the Salvadoran government, in Tecoluca, El Salvador, in this handout image obtained March 16, 2025.
Where does Trump’s immigration crackdown stand, nearly 100 days in?
President Donald Trump’s actions against migrants have generated among the most controversy of any of his policies during the first few months of his presidency. His administration’s deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members to a Salvadoran maximum security facility has drawn comparisons to the worst abuses of totalitarian regimes, and Trump’s approval rating on immigration issues has slipped a bit in several polls.
Here’s a brief rundown of three of the most salient actions Trump has taken on migration.
1. Mass deportations of alleged criminal migrants
In March, the Trump administration defied court orders to remove over 200 Venezuelan migrants whom it alleged – without providing proof or due process – were criminals without legal status in the United States. The White House claimed it had the authority to do so thanks to the 1789 Alien Enemies Act, which it invoked to target the Tren de Aragua, a gang it alleges to be conducting “irregular warfare and undertaking hostile actions against the United States.”
The Supreme Court ruled on April 8 that while the administration could use this act to deport alleged gang members, it must provide them the opportunity to challenge their removals in court first. Eleven days later, it ruled that the administration must halt deportations under the Alien Enemies Act pending a further ruling from the court. The White House derided challenges as “meritless litigation” – even though it admitted in one case, that of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, it mistakenly deported him to a potential life sentence in El Salvador. Despite another Supreme Court ruling that the administration must facilitate his return to the United States, the administration says it cannot retrieve him from El Salvador.
2. Executive Order “Protecting the American People Against Invasion”
Trump issued this broad executive order, aka PAPAI, within hours of his inauguration. It revokes several Biden-era executive orders related to immigration and attempts to further the crackdown Trump promised on the campaign trail.
For example, it removed restrictions on immigration authorities attempting to make arrests at sensitive locations like churches, schools, or certain workplaces. It urges state and local law enforcement to aid in immigration arrests, which are usually outside their jurisdictions, and threatens so-called sanctuary cities with the loss of federal funds if they do not assist. The order also mandates the creation of “Homeland Security Task Forces” in each state, reporting to the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security. These task forces are meant to marshall more manpower and resources to make arrests, but the White House has expressed frustration with the pace of detentions.
3. Militarized border protection
In another executive order signed on his first day in office, Trump declared a national emergency on the southern border, enabling military forces to take a greater role in securing the region. He also assigned the Roosevelt Reservation, a 60-foot wide strip of land running along much of the border from New Mexico to California, to the Defense Department. DoD has announced it will administer part of the reservation as a section of Fort Huachuca, a military base in Arizona. Doing so will allow military personnel to put up barriers and make arrests as part of their security duties, but those actions are likely to be challenged in court.
Despite – or perhaps because of – the crackdown along the border, apprehensions are way down compared to the Biden administration. Authorities detained just 11,017 attempted migrants along the southern border in March 2025 compared to 189,359 in March 2024.