In a dramatic escalation of tensions surrounding recent protests in Los Angeles, President Donald Trump has deployed National Guard troops and a Marine battalion to the city, drawing strong condemnation from California Governor Gavin Newsom.
This unexpected move has inadvertently granted Governor Newsom significant national airtime to voice his objections. During a prime-time television address, he stated, “We honor their service. We honor their bravery. But we do not want our streets militarized by our own armed forces. Not in L.A. Not in California. Not anywhere.”
Newsom continued with a stark warning about the wider implications of Trump’s actions, asserting, “Democracy is under assault right before our eyes. The moment we’ve feared has arrived.”
While it remains uncertain how resonant the notion of a democracy in peril is with the public, Newsom’s insistence on keeping armed forces off civilian streets appears to have potential appeal.
Typically, governors do not have the opportunity to deliver full addresses on national television, with such occasions often reserved for presidential nominees or major political figures. However, President Trump’s attention-seeking strategies have inadvertently positioned Newsom in the spotlight, leading to speculation that this moment could bolster his standing within the Democratic Party and reignite discussions about a potential presidential bid in 2028.
Governor Newsom’s speech marked a decisive shift away from the tone he had previously employed when discussing the Republican president, as he asserted a firm stance against Trump’s tactics, which are often denigrated by red-state supporters as attacks on the “left coast.”
In his address, Newsom articulated a clear narrative regarding the escalation of protests initially sparked by federal immigration raids that turned violent. He explained that federal agents had “jumped out of an unmarked van” in a heavily Latino area near a Home Depot, which incited local residents to protest.
Newsom pointed out that the police were largely successful in maintaining order until federal agents resorted to using tear gas, rubber bullets, and flash-bang grenades, causing the protests to reignite and ultimately leading to the deployment of the National Guard.
The governor characterized the presence of the National Guard as illegal and unwarranted, further asserting, “This brazen abuse of power by a sitting president inflamed a combustible situation. Anxiety for families and friends ramped up. Protests started again. Several dozen lawbreakers became violent and destructive.”
In a strong closing statement, Newsom emphasized, “That kind of criminal behavior will not be tolerated. Full stop.” His administration has since taken a firm stance against the violence, resulting in numerous arrests.
Moving beyond the immediate unrest, Newsom noted that the situation was approaching resolution and was mostly confined to a few downtown blocks, in stark contrast to President Trump’s claims of widespread devastation. The president had stated, “Los Angeles would be completely obliterated” without military intervention, a claim starkly at odds with the reality of the confined protests.
Trump’s rhetoric drew criticism from veteran Republican strategist Mike Murphy, who remarked that the president was acting as an arsonist while concurrently trying to position himself as a fireman. This strategy echoes historical moments where presidents have leveraged crises for political gain, reminiscent of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s controversial escalation of military involvement in Vietnam following the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
The current climate, coupled with Trump’s fixation on grabbing attention through provocative means, raises questions about the implications of his actions. Whether it’s through issuing tariffs or making extravagant promises about resource allocation for firefighting, the president’s unpredictability seems designed to ensure he remains in the spotlight.
Interestingly, amid the chaos, polling data released prior to the protests suggests a shift in public opinion regarding healthcare for undocumented immigrants in California. An independent survey by the Public Policy Institute of California revealed that 58% of adult residents oppose providing public healthcare for immigrants living in the state illegally, a stark contrast to the 66% support level in 2021.
This change in perception appears to stem from concerns over the financial feasibility of such programs, rather than a direct alignment with Trump’s anti-immigrant sentiments. In response to rising budget issues, Newsom himself is considering reducing Medi-Cal coverage for undocumented immigrants.
Amid the discussions surrounding protests, Assemblyman Mark Gonzalez (D-Los Angeles) made a notable declaration on the nature of the unrest, stating, “Rocks thrown at officers, CHP cars and Waymo vehicles set on fire, arson on the 101 freeway — have nothing to do with immigration, justice or the values of our communities.”
In doing so, he underscored the distinction between peaceful protest and violent agitation, denouncing those responsible for the chaos as reckless agitators rather than legitimate demonstrators advocating for justice.
Ultimately, while President Trump’s actions may have drawn attention to the issue at hand, Governor Newsom successfully leveraged this opportunity to criticize both the federal response to the protests and the chaotic political maneuvering that has characterized the current administration.
Moving forward, how this situation develops will be closely monitored as it holds significant implications not only for California but for the broader political landscape as both parties navigate the complex intersection of immigration, law enforcement, and civil rights.
image source from：https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-06-12/skelton-column-trump-newsom-raids
