President Donald Trump’s recent announcement of activating the California National Guard, along with the reported deployment of marines as backup, has ignited a wave of skepticism and criticism across political lines.
Many observers anticipated this move, especially in light of Trump’s recent turbulent relations with notable figures such as Elon Musk, raising concerns about its potential implications for civil order. The announcement arrived amidst ongoing protests in Paramount, a community in Greater Los Angeles, where tensions had already been escalating.
California Governor Gavin Newsom has publicly opposed the activation, arguing that the Guard’s presence could exacerbate the situation and lead to further unrest. In a move emblematic of a contentious political landscape, Newsom is now pursuing legal action against the Trump administration over what he believes to be an illegal deployment of the National Guard without a request from the state’s governor.
Historically, such federal intervention is rare, with the last instance occurring in 1965 during Alabama Governor George Wallace’s refusal to safeguard civil rights marchers. Newsom’s fears regarding unnecessary provocation seem to resonate in a climate where the activation of military forces can rapidly become a flashpoint for violence.
While some legal experts suggest that Trump’s order does not appear unlawful under the provisions of Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which allows federal forces to protect federal agents, it poses a significant challenge to democratic norms that both major parties have tended to uphold and respect—especially in times of crisis. Violation of these norms by any administration can lead to a detrimental trend of further norm-breaking in the future.
One concerning consequence of Trump’s announcement is the potential for increased violence during protests. As soon as a peaceful demonstration turns into rioting—characterized by acts such as vandalism or violence against property—the essence of the demonstration shifts from lawful protest to unlawful rioting. This shift can have severe political ramifications, damaging public support for the cause and bolstering the governing party’s stance on law and order.
In historical contexts, responses to civil disturbances have often played a pivotal role in political ascensions. For instance, former Massachusetts Governor Calvin Coolidge’s decisive action during the Boston police strike solidified his reputation as a ‘law and order’ leader in 1919, while President Richard Nixon capitalized on the chaos following Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination to secure electoral victory in 1968 with a platform focused on restoring societal order.
Amidst this landscape, there exists a disturbing trend where radical elements on the fringe left romanticize so-called ‘direct action’ as a means of galvanizing support for their causes. Such actions often fall flat in the American political environment, yet mainstream progressive factions frequently hesitate to denounce these extremist elements emphatically.
The current political climate under President Trump exacerbates the situation. His long-standing admiration for military force as a means to subdue domestic dissent raises serious alarms among critics. This tendency was evident in 1990 when Trump praised China’s crackdown on Tiananmen Square protesters for its demonstration of governmental strength.
During his first term, public reports indicated that Trump suggested militarizing federal responses to civilian protests, especially after significant incidents like the murder of George Floyd. As he begins his second term, his administration appears to be increasingly advocating for expansive wartime powers that could be utilized beyond their original intent, particularly in the realms of trade and immigration.
While critics may view these claims as legally and morally dubious, they serve to shift the public discourse. When the media focus shifts towards unrest—such as images of destruction or chaos—the conversation steers away from pressing issues, enabling the administration to adopt a defensive posture.
Trump’s approach creates a scenario where he may gain politically from civil discord, capitalizing on an environment that breeds fear and unrest. Significantly, many of his allies within the government are actively promoting a climate of fear, discussing narratives of invasion and insurrection in Los Angeles that echo Trump’s own rhetoric.
As the situation develops, there is a palpable feeling of apprehension regarding the trajectory of political discourse. With Congress appearing hesitant to act and the judiciary facing its limitations, a troubling pattern may emerge: competing ideologies surrounding protest and unrest could devolve into a power struggle within the fabric of American society.
While it is hopeful to believe that this will not culminate in further unrest, the current trajectory suggests a potential for significant and negative outcomes that could reverberate throughout the nation.
image source from：https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2025-06-09/los-angeles-protests-immigration-national-guard-ice-raids
