California Governor Gavin Newsom has sharply criticized former President Donald Trump’s controversial activation of the state’s National Guard in Los Angeles, asserting that the political maneuver ultimately backfired on the former president.
Newsom’s office notably established a public tracker, meticulously counting the days since President Trump unilaterally bypassed the governor to deploy the National Guard. This action was ostensibly aimed at providing support to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and the Los Angeles Police Department amidst escalating unrest and protests linked to contentious immigration raids within the city.
The situation on the ground was characterized by significant civil disturbance, with reports detailing instances of violence, vehicle arsons, and aggressive confrontations where protestors allegedly hurled heavy objects at law enforcement from overpasses. These chaotic scenes prompted a visit from Representative Maxine Waters, who, despite acknowledging some violence, provided a nuanced perspective on the nature of the demonstrations.
Governor Newsom emphatically labeled the deployment as a “chaotic, needless takeover,” emphasizing that the “political theatrics in LA” orchestrated by Trump had, in Newsom’s view, “blown up in his face.” The 54-day mark served as a significant point of contention for the governor, highlighting the duration and perceived futility of the federal intervention.
A central point of Newsom’s critique revolved around the eventual return of nearly all deployed soldiers to their homes. This partial withdrawal underscored the governor’s assertion that the initial widespread deployment was largely unnecessary and disproportionate to the actual security needs.
Newsom has since publicly demanded that former President Trump take similar action for the remaining approximately 300 National Guard members still deployed. This persistent call reflects Newsom’s ongoing concern regarding the utilization of state resources under federal command and the desire to fully restore the state’s control over its military assets.
The incident illuminates the complex interplay between state and federal authority, particularly concerning law enforcement and military deployments during periods of civil unrest. It also serves as a potent example of the deep political divides and jurisdictional disputes that characterized the relationship between the Trump administration and states led by Democratic governors.
This episode in Los Angeles, involving the California National Guard and federal intervention, continues to be cited in discussions about executive overreach and the appropriate balance of power in domestic security operations. It remains a key reference point in understanding the political legacy of the Trump administration’s approach to state-level challenges.
