Earlier this month, a significant incident unfolded near downtown Los Angeles, where U.S. military personnel along with federal agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) conducted an operation in a park. This park is ironically named after General Douglas MacArthur.
The agents arrived in tactical gear and camouflage, some on horseback, while others operated armored vehicles or patrolled in Black Hawk helicopters. Despite the show of force, the operation failed to capture any individuals but did disrupt a group of children participating in a summer camp.
The scale and nature of this operation resembled scenes from a satirical television show rather than a routine enforcement action. Gregory Bovino, the Border Patrol agent in charge, spoke to Fox News regarding the future of such operations, stating, “Better get used to us now, ’cause this is going to be normal very soon. We will go anywhere, anytime we want in Los Angeles.”
This chilling assertion aligns with the broader message from President Donald Trump, who has been vocal about deploying heavily armed federal forces wherever he sees fit, particularly in cities run by Democratic leaders who dare to oppose him.
As the U.S. stands on the brink of what some perceive as an authoritarian shift, both Congress and the courts have provided President Trump with an array of tools to maintain control. The events of January 6, 2021, taught him the importance of having a firm grip on the factions wielding power, which he achieved through the appointment of loyalists to key positions in the military, FBI, and Department of Justice, as well as various other governmental entities.
As Commander in Chief, President Trump has the authority to deploy troops and, under Title 10, he can take command of National Guard troops, even in defiance of local officials. Governor Gavin Newsom of California has contested the legality of Trump’s actions in Los Angeles, and while the courts may weigh in, initial rulings from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals suggest a tendency towards deferment to presidential authority.
Despite the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits military involvement in domestic law enforcement, President Trump could invoke the Insurrection Act to overcome these limitations. Observers speculate that the current Supreme Court would likely back this interpretation, supporting longstanding precedents that confer vast power on the president under the act.
Additionally, with a substantial budget of $170 billion approved by Congress, the newly empowered Department of Homeland Security (DHS) aims to expand ICE substantially by tripling its size and doubling the capacity for detention.
While this expansion focuses primarily on immigration enforcement, it holds broader implications. The events in Portland in 2020 serve as a stark reminder of the risks associated with federal interference in local matters, where President Trump sent Border Patrol agents into the city against the will of local leadership, ostensibly to protect federal buildings during unrest that followed the killing of George Floyd.
The Homeland Security Act provides the Secretary of DHS considerable leeway to deploy agents to assist in safeguarding federal property while also allowing them to carry out other activities linked to homeland security. This includes enacting arrests for various offenses, expanding the operational scope of DHS agents beyond federal property.
Such actions in the past have seen Border Patrol agents, equipped with military-style weapons, patrol urban environments like Portland in unmarked vehicles, raising substantial concerns regarding civil liberties. President Trump possesses the capability to replicate these tactics anywhere across the nation, leveraging the financial and operational muscle of the DHS to establish potentially aggressive federal presence and control.
In response to these developments, legal considerations are underway. The 4th Amendment necessitates that officers possess reasonable suspicion before stopping or questioning individuals, and probable cause must exist for arrests. Recently, U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong issued a temporary restraining order that prohibits ICE and CBP from conducting stops without reasonable suspicion based on specific, articulated facts. The ruling also expressly forbids profiling based on race, ethnicity, or other arbitrary characteristics.
Although this legal action presents a significant constitutional check against overreach, the subsequent appeal by the Trump administration may challenge the ruling’s permanence. DHS operates differently than more traditional law enforcement entities like the FBI, which has historical constraints and cultural norms shaped by past abuses of power. DHS lacks this historical baggage, leading to a more aggressive posture in its operations, as seen in Los Angeles recently.
Even if Judge Frimpong’s ruling withstands legal scrutiny, experts fear that ICE and CBP will adapt their strategies to navigate around such restrictions, training their officers to provide alternative justifications for their actions. The operational culture of these agencies, accustomed to near-border enforcement where federal power is notably expansive, may embolden them to pursue aggressive strategies in urban settings, leading to heightened tensions.
As the DHS prepares to hire thousands of new agents and construct additional detention facilities with Congressional funding, the potential for militarized federal presence in cities continues to grow. Concerns arise over the implications this may have for future elections, with apprehensions that President Trump might leverage these reinforcements to safeguard the integrity of the electoral process in 2026 or 2028.
While such scenarios may seem speculative or dystopian to some, significant questions remain about who or what could impede this trajectory. Congress appears reluctant to challenge President Trump, and while individual federal judges may assert their authority, there is a prevalent concern regarding the Supreme Court’s willingness to defer to presidential powers, particularly in areas concerning national security and immigration enforcement.
In an evocative expression of the waning checks on government power, Bruce Springsteen suggested that “the last check on power, after the checks and balances of government have failed, are the people, you and me.” As the landscape of law enforcement in America continues to shift, civic engagement and public scrutiny are imperative to safeguard democratic norms.
image source from：latimes
