California Governor Gavin Newsom found himself in a contentious position over the weekend, as violent anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles escalated with scenes of burning cars and attacks on federal personnel. Newsom condemned the situation, declaring it an ‘illegal act, an immoral act, an unconstitutional act,’ but his remarks were directed at President Donald Trump’s request to deploy the National Guard to protect ICE officers, not the protesters themselves.
The administration insists that the deployment is necessary to quell the unrest, as mobs have attacked vehicles and trapped federal personnel. However, critics argue that it is an unnecessary escalation and could worsen the situation. Even some legal experts have acknowledged that Trump likely has the legal authority to proceed, as outlined in Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which allows the president to deploy the National Guard if the governor is ‘unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.’
Newsom is refusing to issue the orders or coordinate the deployment, which has led to legal and political challenges. The administration has already claimed that these riots ‘constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States,’ and could cite the January 6th riots as a precedent for such claims. Democrats, however, have been vocal in their opposition to ICE and immigration enforcement, with some even encouraging protesters to escalate their tactics against federal officers.
This conflict highlights the deepening divide between state and federal authorities over immigration policy and law enforcement, with each side accusing the other of overreach. The situation in California could serve as a precedent for future conflicts over federal authority, especially in increasingly hostile blue cities.