Los Angeles protests against immigration raids as a response to the Newsom–Newsom-Local-Closed-Field Protests in New York City

Immigration raids in Los Angeles at the end of last week sparked the five-day protests, as well as the administration sending in the military.

In New York City, a few hundred people protested outside the immigration court, but things went quiet on Wednesday.

Most of the protests have been peaceful, and confined to small parts of the city. But some protesters have clashed with law enforcement, set cars ablaze, and vandalized buildings with graffiti.

“If you raid a Home Depot and run armored caravans through our streets, you’re not trying to keep anyone safe,” Bass said. You are trying to cause fear and panic.

“I believe that anybody that’s involved in violence, or looting, or vandalism is not supporting the cause of immigrants,” Bass said at a press conference. “Otherwise they wouldn’t be doing that because they know that that can trigger an even greater reaction from the administration.”

Peaceful protest is legal. “If you harm a person or property, you’ll be arrested,” Abbott posted Tuesday. “@TexasGuard will use every tool & strategy to help law enforcement maintain order.”

Demonstrations are expected across the nation on Saturday as part of No Kings Day, a nationwide event organized by progressive groups to protest Trump’s second term actions. Trump will host a military parade in Washington, D.C. that day to celebrate the U.S. Army’s 250th anniversary, which is also his 79th birthday.

Downtown Los Angeles was quieter Wednesday morning as it emerged from its first overnight curfew since the start of protests against immigration enforcement raids. The city imposed the curfew after incidents of looting and vandalism on Monday. According to LA police, over 220 people were arrested for failing to disperse, 17 for curfew violations, and even a few other charges.

Noem addressed reporters shortly before a federal judge held a hearing to consider an emergency lawsuit filed by California Governor Gavin Newsom seeking to end President Trump’s deployment of 4,000 National Guard troops in Los Angeles. The troops, along with 700 active-duty Marines set to deploy in coming days, have been tasked with guarding federal buildings and protecting immigration agents while they fan out to make deportation arrests.

He said the Guard can protect federal property, but they can’t enforce the law.

William Banks, a Syracuse University professor, says that they can’t arrest. He says the Posse Comitatus law of 1878 limits the use of the military inside the U.S.

The President can use the Insurrection Act of 1807 to send troops into action, as George W. Bush did when he sent in Marines to quell the riots in 1992. President Trump hasn’t taken that step yet.

Los Angeles Police Dispatch: 700 Marines aren’t in LA, but they’re coming from the Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach

The 700 Marines are not currently in LA. In a video, Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman said they’re at Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, where they’re training for civil disturbance.

California officials said the protests were being handled by local law enforcement, the violence was brief and isolated, and that the military deployment led to more unrest. No deaths or serious injuries have been reported.

“Who knows? The bottom line is, we’re not told,” Bass said. We have to operate on rumors. A rumor is going around that 700 Marines are going to come here. I have no idea what they’re going to do when they get here.”

Photos that looked like they came from the National Guard were posted by ICE. Some National Guard members Wednesday have temporarily detained civilians in Los Angeles, according to The Associated Press, handing them over to law enforcement.

Some legal experts think this could fall under the Guard’s protection of federal employees. If they’re drawn directly into helping immigration enforcement, they are in danger of violating Posse Comitatus.

What is the relationship between law enforcement and molotov cocktails, and who is behind the protests? A press conference on migrant rights issues in California

But not all federal-local relationships are under strain. Bill Essayli, the United States Attorney for the Central District of California, announced on Wednesday that federal charges had been filed against two men for having molotov cocktails during protests. He praised local police and the LA sheriff’s department for their help in the investigation, and local law enforcement representatives at the press conference also thanked the feds.

Essayli said that they had a good relationship with their law enforcement partners. He made it clear that federal law enforcement would not be bound by state restrictions on immigration.

Some people believe that California is a sanctuary from federal immigration laws. “Federal laws are applicable here and they will be enforced, and nothing they have done to date has impacted our ability to carry out our immigration enforcement efforts.”

McLaughlin did not reply. I think that there’s major questions right now about who is financially backing these protests. There’s some activity on the ground that it seems that is highly coordinated, and that there might be a financial backer that could be even a foreign adversary, and we are having ICE, or, excuse me, the IRS and the FBI, look further into who might be backing these protests.

She said there is some activity on the ground that she believes may be connected to a financial backer that could be a foreign adversary.

I think that someone is paying the governor and the mayor. They are just troublemakers if they’re not. What can I tell you. “I think that somebody is paying them.” Trump said to reporters during his trip to North Carolina.

In a conversation with NPR’s Steve Inskeep, McLaughlin also criticized California leaders for failing to restore order, spoke about deportation numbers and discussed Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man mistakenly deported to El Salvador, who the Trump administration brought back to the U.S. to face criminal charges in Tennessee.

McLaughlin: Well, it’s the same as the National Guard. These are highly trained military people. When things get out of control with rioters, they’ve got means to control crowds. We’ve seen our members of law enforcement being pummeled with rocks. We’ve seen fires, cars being lit on fire and buildings being vandalized, and like I mentioned before, public property being defaced and ICE officers being attacked. So these are highly trained members of the military and they have means of regaining control.

The person is McLaughlin. I believe it’s more boots on the ground. Law enforcement, our federal property, and the protesters are all made to feel safe because there’s more men and women in uniform. Right now we’ve seen from the leadership of Governor Newsom and Karen Bass that things have not been peaceful, they have not been smooth, and so that’s something – we wanted to return law and order.

Inskeep says that Marines are in Los Angeles. It’s very early, but what skills did the Marines have that apply in this particular urban situation that even the national guard does not have?

Inskeep: I’ve seen the video and the photos of the cars. That’s certainly true, but I think about the role of the military and what Secretary Pete Hegseth wants the military to do. He says that the mission has a focus of lethality and readiness. How does a Marines deployment to Los Angeles match up with the mission?

In the memo that the President sent out to National Guard troops, he said that the protests can be considered a kind of rebellion. That’s what the word is used for. I want to see how we can understand this as a rebellion. I would consider a rebellion a group of people with a leader and an objective. Are you able to figure out who is in charge of this rebellion?

The Most Injunctions Under a Single President in American History. Kilmar Abrego, the State of the Art, and the Highest Deportations

McLaughlin: no. Did you know last month? I don’t have that number on my hand. I would have to get back to you on that. I know deportations are around in the last 125 days, about 150,000.

Roughly. I believe we’ve been able to increase our efforts. We inherit a broken ICE, a broken Customs and Border Protection, people who have been out of work for four years.

It seems that the rate of deportations is higher than the average under both President Obama and President Trump, but still lower than the average under President Biden, but we don’t know the exact number for this year. Why do you think it has been difficult to get the numbers up?

McLaughlin: We have been facing a historic number of injunctions, Steve, as you know, at the hands of a lot of these judges. We knew that coming in though. I think it’s a matter of resources. To make sure we give our ICE enforcement officers more resources, we need this bill to be passed by Congress. They haven’t been allowed to do their jobs for the last four years, so you are going from zero to 100 very quickly because they are once again allowed to do their jobs.

McLaughlin: I would definitely counter that. This has been the most injunctions under a single leader in American history. Absolutely, Steve. Look at the numbers.

McLaughlin: There is no. I think. You should take the case of Kilmar Abrego. There were eight individuals who had final deportation orders from South Sudan. Eight people are ordered by the Massachusetts judge to come back. This is not the norm. The district judges who desperately want to bring child rapists and killers back to the U.S. soil, have final deportation orders. It’s quite disturbing that it’s pure activism, Steve.

Inskeep: I guess we should note that the Supreme Court, unanimously, among other courts, have insisted that people may well be terrorists, but that their cases should be heard in court. And that does lead to one more question. Since you brought him to the United States to be tried, you have faced criminal charges. I guess he’ll get his day in court, and he’s facing quite an indictment. The administration said that they couldn’t bring him back. Now that the United States has brought him back, would you agree that it was always possible to bring him back?

McLaughlin: I think what really matters here, Steve, is the media’s insistence that this is an innocent Maryland man, and I don’t think that matters too much to the Department of Justice. They’ve been saying that for months. He was a full time human trafficker. Allegedly. Steve, I completely disagree with what you’re saying. I think that the environment that we’re in is different than anything that has happened under the first administration of President Trump.

To clarify, you stated that you would leave it to the Department of Justice. I understand. But given that it is now clear that it was possible to bring him back, why did the government not previously bring him back?

You’ve heard the facilitate vs effectuate argument multiple times. He was not facing a grand jury when he was younger but now he is. The facts are different on the ground.

Analyzing Los Angeles’ Protests and the Trump Administration’s “Reirigration” Law Enforcement Campaign: Secretary Noem and the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Office

In Los Angeles on Thursday, Homeland Security Secretary Noem told the media that the Trump administration won’t let up in its campaign against immigrants without legal status.

Noem spoke at a West Los Angeles federal building far from the small downtown area where protests have been concentrated. The city has mostly returned to normal since two nights of curfew were imposed, and city leaders continued to deny that the city had ever been besieged by violent mobs.

Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, both Democrats, have accused Trump of exploiting the protests for political gain and have called the deployment of military troops an unnecessary and provocative escalation. Secretary Noem said it will continue.

She said immigration agents were preparing to round up “literally tens of thousands of targets” in Los Angeles. It’s a scale of operations that has astonished even longtime immigration officials.

“First time I’ve ever seen it in my almost 30-year career,” Gregory Bovino, the Customs and Border Protection official leading his agency’s operations in Los Angeles, said at Noem’s press conference. “It’s stunning.”

Noem’s press conference was interrupted when a senator entered to confront her. As he shouted a question, he was dragged from the room, pushed to the ground, handcuffed, and briefly detained.

“If this is how the Department of Homeland Security responds to a senator with a question, you can only imagine what they’re doing to farm workers, to cooks, to day laborers” throughout California and across the country, he said to reporters later.

The White House had argued in court that the president has the power to use the military when it’s necessary, because they said there had been ongoing interference with immigration agents. The military was not doing law enforcement duties, but it was used to protect and accompany federal agents.

“At no point in the past three days has there been a rebellion or an insurrection. In its lawsuit against the administration, the state said that the protests have not risen to the level of protests or riots seen in Los Angeles in the past.

“The federal government is now turning the military against American citizens,” Newsom said in a statement when his state sued to get control of the Guard back.. “Sending trained warfighters onto the streets is unprecedented and threatens the very core of our democracy.”

It was the first time in 60 years that a president had invoked the National Guard in a state without the approval of the governor. In 1965 President Lyndon Johnson sent troops to Alabama to protect civil rights demonstrators.

Trump ordered the deployment of the guard after he said there had been attempts to impede immigration agents in Los Angeles.

A Supreme Court Decision Deciding the Representation of the National Guard in the Contest of the First Amendment Rights of the U.S. Constitution

In a hearing Thursday, District Judge Charles Breyer rejected an argument by the administration’s lawyer that the courts do not have authority to review a president’s decision on whether the National Guard is needed.

There is a difference between a constitutional government and King George. It’s not that the leader can simply say something and then it becomes it,” the judge said.

There is a chance that the ruling could be appealed. But it’s a setback for the White House in the dispute over the powers it can assert in cracking down on illegal immigration – and over public opposition to it. It was unclear when Guard units would be removed.