Try a little harder to think about the differences, Matt. Though there is some gray area here: the response of residents in LA against the gestapo raids is not completely peaceful. Also, Lyndon Johnson sent federal troops into Detroit during the riot/rebellion there in 1967. Quite a difference from sending troops into the South to enforce the constitution and protect American citizens from KKK/segregationist violence. Context is everything. This "administration" is entirely lawless.
In Detroit LBJ used the insurrection act at the request of the Governor. In the South it was the Governors that were rebelling by refusing to obey Federal Law. This is the first time used against civilian protesters without consent of Governor. To my eyes the protests seemed limited and localized and while not exactly peaceful seemed limited to some rock throwing.
Well, let’s start with “Gestapo”. They brutally murdered legal citizens of Germany. That is no comparison to what is happening here. ICE is rounding up and deporting people who entered this country without following American law. Do I agree with their tactics? Absolutely not. We need more compassion and humanity. But I am seeing people downplay the violence against law and order. “Not completely peaceful” is no way describe civilians lobbing Molotov cocktails and fireworks against police. Unjustified violence does not justify unjustified violence.
I agree with you that violence is to be avoided, and I think that’s the intention of most protesters. I merely wanted to raise an important point that you left out of your comment.
Isn’t the unconstitutionality of lack of due process in what you called ICE’s tactics important? Sure they need to be compassionate and humane, but don’t they also need to follow the law?
BTW, the courts don’t seem to be having much success in most of the cases of abduction and disappearing by ICE.
I’m not a lawyer. I don’t think detaining an undocumented person is unconstitutional. Can you share your source on them being deported without due process?
Remembering Kent State shooting where the Ohio National Guard shoot live ammunition killing several Vietnam protesters.
May 1970. Protesting the invasion of Cambodia by US troops. But this is our president inflaming the public and normalizing the use of troops against America.
Curious that he could “wait” 187 minutes before taking any action to stop dangerous armed rioters in the US Capitol but immigration protesters are apparently a far greater menace
Yes to everything you said. My one consolation in all this is that my husband is slowly starting to share my concerns about what’s happening. He’s finally starting to let it in. I’m no longer the crazy person in our family 🤣.
Love this article and sending it to BlueSky. At least Eisenhower at Little Rock and LBJ in Alabama had real reasond to federalize the state national guards over Faubus's and Wallace's objections. The pretext in California is pretty flimsy. Using the Insurrection Act of 1807 is typical Trumpian abuse of old, seldom used laws.
This really is a serious and dangerous escalation and abuse of power. Authoritarians need manufactured crises to justify removing liberty and control by the people. Invoking the alien enemies act, suspending habeas corpus are all examples of the administration’s appeal to far right supporters that see this as an invasion not a protest.
Thanks for this hard hitting article. We must get off this slippery slope where our rights are being erased, soon by gunfire using bullets we paid for.
I totally agree with you. I’m another one who saw this coming, and people have rejected me, or at the very least, claim they don’t want to talk about politics. I have family who have become strong MAGA. I am currently living in Mexico, and too old and disabled to do much, so I am watching this from afar, fearing for the country in which I spent 50 years trying to fight for both people and the environment.
Mike, you repeatedly refer to the protest as being only peaceful. But that is not true according to the news reports, LAPD, and LA Sheriff’s department.
Is this report from the LAPD not accurate? https://x.com/LAPDPIO/status/1931498850344382771/photo/1 It describes a federal building in LA being surrounded by hundreds of people that it describes as a “hostile and riotous crowd.” it says it was “very dangerous for individual officers to respond into a hostile environment.” it says the LAPD respects and will protect the right of peaceful protesters, but “acts of violence will not be tolerated.”
And in Paramount, the LA Sheriff’s Department said the protesters became “increasingly agitated, throwing objects and exhibiting violent behavior toward federal agents and deputy sheriffs.” In response, the Sheriff’s Department requested additional resources countywide and deployed additional deputies.
The LAPD put out a statement yesterday saying Saturday's protests were peaceful. The incident you refer to is from Friday, and was a handful of protesters committing the acts of violence.
The other incident was in Paramount, CA and was a small handful of people within a largely peaceful protest within a small area near a Home Depot.
Are you suggesting that these handful of violent protesters justifies deployment of the military?
I am trying to get up to speed on this; first, to figure out what is actually happening. I can’t assess what is justified without knowing the facts.
Your post is alarming. But I’m trying to figure out if it is unjustifiably alarmist. You assert: “When a president deploys military force against citizens exercising their First Amendment rights, constitutional democracy enters a new and perilous phase.” I agree with that statement. But does it accurately describe the current situation in LA?
Our republic depends on nonpartisan adherence to the Constitution and the rule of law. I am glad you’ve written and spoken a lot about the need for those in government to follow the Constitution. I agree. But to me it’s disappointing, and inaccurate, for you to focus almost exclusively on Trump and the current Republican Party.
“. . . the Trump administration is hypocritically committing its own violations of the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Project 2025 describes itself as a historic movement “to take down the Deep State and return the government to the people.” But the Trump administration’s “imperial Presidency” approach is a usurpation of power, not a return of power to “the people.” Trump himself feeds this concern through actions, comments, and social media posts by himself and his White House that show a disregard for, and sometimes outright contempt and mockery of, our Constitution and the Rule of Law that portray him as the anti-George Washington. For example, his sweeping pardons and commutations of January 6th rioters with little regard to the extent to which criminal acts of violence against law enforcement and destruction of federal property had occurred (the mirror image of Democrats allowing riots through the summer of 2020); the February 15, 2025 post that “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law" (a quote attributed to Napolean in connection with his overthrow of the French Republic and declaring himself Emperor); and the February 19, 2025 “LONG LIVE THE KING” post. There are others, and the list keeps growing.”
But the problem includes the Democrats and pre-dates Trump. Unless I’ve missed it (I haven’t read all your stuff, so I might have), you downplay or ignore the role the Democrats have played in creating our current crisis. Trump is the latest in an escalating cycle of both Democrats and Republicans stretching the bounds of the Constitution and undermining the Rule of Law.
The immigration crisis is one example. Everyone should hold the Trump administration account to comply with the Constitution, including due process and the use of the military. But if the current crisis is to be resolved, it also requires respecting the law, specifically immigration laws and their enforcement by lawful and constitutional means. Multiple prior administrations, especially the Biden Administration, have undermined the rule of law by refusing to enforce our immigration laws and have let millions of illegal aliens in the country (and then failed to enforce those laws internally through deportations) in violation of the President’s duty to faithfully execute the laws. This has been exacerbated by “sanctuary” cities and states also violating the spirit, if not the letter, of the law and Constitution by refusing to support, and sometimes obstructing, enforcement of validly passed, constitutional immigration laws. The Democrats’ undermining of immigration law has long made a mockery of the Constitution and rule of law.
Now, federal agents are trying to enforce federal law in LA. Saturday's protests were peaceful. But not all the protests have been. On Friday, hundreds of people surrounded the federal building and blocked the entrance. The LAPD described it as a “hostile and riotous crowd.” There have been other violent incidents over the weekend. You describe it as largely peaceful protests, with a handful of violent protestors. That’s reminiscent of 2020. Then, there were widespread, justified, peaceful protests against police violence. But it wasn’t accurate to describe it only as that. There was also much rioting, property damage, looting, injuries, and some deaths. “By June 8, 2020, at least 19 people had died during the protests.” George Floyd protests - Wikipedia As with many riots, the lack of a sufficient law enforcement response to the violence and rioting encourages more. That is what happened in 1992 in LA. The violence, attempted murders, and rioting gained steam once the police retreated from 71st and Normandie. 1992 Los Angeles riots - Wikipedia Then, like now, federalized national guard and the Marines were bought in to the LA area to restore order. Then, 10,000 were eventually brought in, due to a delay in bringing them in until after the rioting had gotten so wide-spread and covered such a large area. Is it premature now to bring in 2,000 federalized national guard to try to protect federal and local law enforcement and to prevent violence from spreading? It’s probably not necessary at this time. But that doesn’t mean it’s not prudent to do so, and certainly does not mean it’s unconstitutional (based on what I’ve read so far). The need for an increased law enforcement presence has been make clear by the events to date, and in similar situations, the amount of people involved and risks tend to grow over time.
I agree with you that military force and police force should not be used against citizens exercising their First Amendment rights. Not only should force not be used, but they should not be intimidated or prevented from peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights. From the coverage I’ve seen so far, I’m not aware of the people of LA being prevented from peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights. That would be unconstitutional and illegitimate. But on the other hand, it is constitutional for the President to federalize the National Guard to protect federal personnel and federal property. According to CNN (June 7, 2025: Donald Trump presidency news | CNN Politics), that is their mission: “The Secretary of Defense directed U.S. Northern Command to assume command of 2,000 California National Guard forces to protect federal personnel and federal property in the greater Los Angeles area in support of the lead federal agency.” If they stick to that limited mission, it won’t be unconstitutional.
MAGA always sends in their rabid rage junkies to create this narrative. Then it’s all anyone talks about, that handful of people. That doesn’t justify this jack booted thuggery in our streets.
Thoroughly enjoying your writing, despite the seriousness of the subject matter and situation. A question for you: If counsel for the National Guard deemed the order illegal, are they not obliged to disobey? I haven't seen any media discussing this. As I understand the statute used to call in the National Guard, the order seems illegal.
I didn’t see this line of thinking when we were talking about deploying the NG on Jan 6…
Try a little harder to think about the differences, Matt. Though there is some gray area here: the response of residents in LA against the gestapo raids is not completely peaceful. Also, Lyndon Johnson sent federal troops into Detroit during the riot/rebellion there in 1967. Quite a difference from sending troops into the South to enforce the constitution and protect American citizens from KKK/segregationist violence. Context is everything. This "administration" is entirely lawless.
In Detroit LBJ used the insurrection act at the request of the Governor. In the South it was the Governors that were rebelling by refusing to obey Federal Law. This is the first time used against civilian protesters without consent of Governor. To my eyes the protests seemed limited and localized and while not exactly peaceful seemed limited to some rock throwing.
Well, let’s start with “Gestapo”. They brutally murdered legal citizens of Germany. That is no comparison to what is happening here. ICE is rounding up and deporting people who entered this country without following American law. Do I agree with their tactics? Absolutely not. We need more compassion and humanity. But I am seeing people downplay the violence against law and order. “Not completely peaceful” is no way describe civilians lobbing Molotov cocktails and fireworks against police. Unjustified violence does not justify unjustified violence.
Matt, you forgot an important piece: ICE is rounding up and deporting people WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. That is unconstitutional.
I did not “forget”. The remedy for anything unconstitutional is the courts. It is not citizens throwing Molotovs.
I agree with you that violence is to be avoided, and I think that’s the intention of most protesters. I merely wanted to raise an important point that you left out of your comment.
Isn’t the unconstitutionality of lack of due process in what you called ICE’s tactics important? Sure they need to be compassionate and humane, but don’t they also need to follow the law?
BTW, the courts don’t seem to be having much success in most of the cases of abduction and disappearing by ICE.
I’m not a lawyer. I don’t think detaining an undocumented person is unconstitutional. Can you share your source on them being deported without due process?
Four dead in Ohio……
That didn’t work out well.
We’re about to start to take casualties from the enemy from within.
We ALL MUST RESOLVE TO SAY STOP. And then to the streets to make it so. Hand in hand.
We all stand together or we all die apart!
Getting close to the time to choose.
Be not afraid !
Right?
Remembering Kent State shooting where the Ohio National Guard shoot live ammunition killing several Vietnam protesters.
May 1970. Protesting the invasion of Cambodia by US troops. But this is our president inflaming the public and normalizing the use of troops against America.
Not Great and
Curious that he could “wait” 187 minutes before taking any action to stop dangerous armed rioters in the US Capitol but immigration protesters are apparently a far greater menace
to his manhood.
Yes to everything you said. My one consolation in all this is that my husband is slowly starting to share my concerns about what’s happening. He’s finally starting to let it in. I’m no longer the crazy person in our family 🤣.
Will Republicans finally wake up when they start killing people? I doubt it.
I doubt it to, they want us to die. Liberals, non-white people, women who can’t have babies. We’re all expendable to them.
Love this article and sending it to BlueSky. At least Eisenhower at Little Rock and LBJ in Alabama had real reasond to federalize the state national guards over Faubus's and Wallace's objections. The pretext in California is pretty flimsy. Using the Insurrection Act of 1807 is typical Trumpian abuse of old, seldom used laws.
Thank you for calling this out this latest move for what it is. Well written.
What is still hard for me in all of this, is what do I do? What actions can I take to slow or stop our slide towards authoritarianism?
Annie, the best way to start is to find local activists and join them.
This really is a serious and dangerous escalation and abuse of power. Authoritarians need manufactured crises to justify removing liberty and control by the people. Invoking the alien enemies act, suspending habeas corpus are all examples of the administration’s appeal to far right supporters that see this as an invasion not a protest.
Thanks for this hard hitting article. We must get off this slippery slope where our rights are being erased, soon by gunfire using bullets we paid for.
Ok, just to be the devils advocate for a second. The troops are only there in case the protesters go nuts and start riots, right?
They will be there to try and stop the protests. I think you need to reread the post.
I totally agree with you. I’m another one who saw this coming, and people have rejected me, or at the very least, claim they don’t want to talk about politics. I have family who have become strong MAGA. I am currently living in Mexico, and too old and disabled to do much, so I am watching this from afar, fearing for the country in which I spent 50 years trying to fight for both people and the environment.
;
Mike, you repeatedly refer to the protest as being only peaceful. But that is not true according to the news reports, LAPD, and LA Sheriff’s department.
Is this report from the LAPD not accurate? https://x.com/LAPDPIO/status/1931498850344382771/photo/1 It describes a federal building in LA being surrounded by hundreds of people that it describes as a “hostile and riotous crowd.” it says it was “very dangerous for individual officers to respond into a hostile environment.” it says the LAPD respects and will protect the right of peaceful protesters, but “acts of violence will not be tolerated.”
And in Paramount, the LA Sheriff’s Department said the protesters became “increasingly agitated, throwing objects and exhibiting violent behavior toward federal agents and deputy sheriffs.” In response, the Sheriff’s Department requested additional resources countywide and deployed additional deputies.
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-presidency-news-06-07-25#cmbn39rj700003b6mq3vcjjoh
The LAPD put out a statement yesterday saying Saturday's protests were peaceful. The incident you refer to is from Friday, and was a handful of protesters committing the acts of violence.
The other incident was in Paramount, CA and was a small handful of people within a largely peaceful protest within a small area near a Home Depot.
Are you suggesting that these handful of violent protesters justifies deployment of the military?
I am trying to get up to speed on this; first, to figure out what is actually happening. I can’t assess what is justified without knowing the facts.
Your post is alarming. But I’m trying to figure out if it is unjustifiably alarmist. You assert: “When a president deploys military force against citizens exercising their First Amendment rights, constitutional democracy enters a new and perilous phase.” I agree with that statement. But does it accurately describe the current situation in LA?
Our republic depends on nonpartisan adherence to the Constitution and the rule of law. I am glad you’ve written and spoken a lot about the need for those in government to follow the Constitution. I agree. But to me it’s disappointing, and inaccurate, for you to focus almost exclusively on Trump and the current Republican Party.
I am not an apologist for the Trump Administration. I agree that their unconstitutionality needs to be called out and stopped. I wrote about this at https://usantica.substack.com/p/we-must-put-the-us-constitution-and:
“. . . the Trump administration is hypocritically committing its own violations of the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Project 2025 describes itself as a historic movement “to take down the Deep State and return the government to the people.” But the Trump administration’s “imperial Presidency” approach is a usurpation of power, not a return of power to “the people.” Trump himself feeds this concern through actions, comments, and social media posts by himself and his White House that show a disregard for, and sometimes outright contempt and mockery of, our Constitution and the Rule of Law that portray him as the anti-George Washington. For example, his sweeping pardons and commutations of January 6th rioters with little regard to the extent to which criminal acts of violence against law enforcement and destruction of federal property had occurred (the mirror image of Democrats allowing riots through the summer of 2020); the February 15, 2025 post that “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law" (a quote attributed to Napolean in connection with his overthrow of the French Republic and declaring himself Emperor); and the February 19, 2025 “LONG LIVE THE KING” post. There are others, and the list keeps growing.”
But the problem includes the Democrats and pre-dates Trump. Unless I’ve missed it (I haven’t read all your stuff, so I might have), you downplay or ignore the role the Democrats have played in creating our current crisis. Trump is the latest in an escalating cycle of both Democrats and Republicans stretching the bounds of the Constitution and undermining the Rule of Law.
The immigration crisis is one example. Everyone should hold the Trump administration account to comply with the Constitution, including due process and the use of the military. But if the current crisis is to be resolved, it also requires respecting the law, specifically immigration laws and their enforcement by lawful and constitutional means. Multiple prior administrations, especially the Biden Administration, have undermined the rule of law by refusing to enforce our immigration laws and have let millions of illegal aliens in the country (and then failed to enforce those laws internally through deportations) in violation of the President’s duty to faithfully execute the laws. This has been exacerbated by “sanctuary” cities and states also violating the spirit, if not the letter, of the law and Constitution by refusing to support, and sometimes obstructing, enforcement of validly passed, constitutional immigration laws. The Democrats’ undermining of immigration law has long made a mockery of the Constitution and rule of law.
Now, federal agents are trying to enforce federal law in LA. Saturday's protests were peaceful. But not all the protests have been. On Friday, hundreds of people surrounded the federal building and blocked the entrance. The LAPD described it as a “hostile and riotous crowd.” There have been other violent incidents over the weekend. You describe it as largely peaceful protests, with a handful of violent protestors. That’s reminiscent of 2020. Then, there were widespread, justified, peaceful protests against police violence. But it wasn’t accurate to describe it only as that. There was also much rioting, property damage, looting, injuries, and some deaths. “By June 8, 2020, at least 19 people had died during the protests.” George Floyd protests - Wikipedia As with many riots, the lack of a sufficient law enforcement response to the violence and rioting encourages more. That is what happened in 1992 in LA. The violence, attempted murders, and rioting gained steam once the police retreated from 71st and Normandie. 1992 Los Angeles riots - Wikipedia Then, like now, federalized national guard and the Marines were bought in to the LA area to restore order. Then, 10,000 were eventually brought in, due to a delay in bringing them in until after the rioting had gotten so wide-spread and covered such a large area. Is it premature now to bring in 2,000 federalized national guard to try to protect federal and local law enforcement and to prevent violence from spreading? It’s probably not necessary at this time. But that doesn’t mean it’s not prudent to do so, and certainly does not mean it’s unconstitutional (based on what I’ve read so far). The need for an increased law enforcement presence has been make clear by the events to date, and in similar situations, the amount of people involved and risks tend to grow over time.
I agree with you that military force and police force should not be used against citizens exercising their First Amendment rights. Not only should force not be used, but they should not be intimidated or prevented from peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights. From the coverage I’ve seen so far, I’m not aware of the people of LA being prevented from peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights. That would be unconstitutional and illegitimate. But on the other hand, it is constitutional for the President to federalize the National Guard to protect federal personnel and federal property. According to CNN (June 7, 2025: Donald Trump presidency news | CNN Politics), that is their mission: “The Secretary of Defense directed U.S. Northern Command to assume command of 2,000 California National Guard forces to protect federal personnel and federal property in the greater Los Angeles area in support of the lead federal agency.” If they stick to that limited mission, it won’t be unconstitutional.
MAGA always sends in their rabid rage junkies to create this narrative. Then it’s all anyone talks about, that handful of people. That doesn’t justify this jack booted thuggery in our streets.
Thoroughly enjoying your writing, despite the seriousness of the subject matter and situation. A question for you: If counsel for the National Guard deemed the order illegal, are they not obliged to disobey? I haven't seen any media discussing this. As I understand the statute used to call in the National Guard, the order seems illegal.