Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
Los Angeles is once again facing unrest. Mobs, allegedly fueled by professional agitators and seemingly tacit support from some Democratic officials, have aggressively targeted federal law enforcement officers. This violence includes throwing rocks, vandalizing vehicles, launching fireworks, and assaulting federal officers as they attempt to enforce lawful deportations under U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Amidst the chaos, rioters ironically display flags from their countries of origin, despite opposing their return to those nations.
In light of the escalating violence, federal and local law enforcement have resorted to using tear gas and flashbangs to disperse crowds in Paramount, a suburb of LA. With the safety of law enforcement officers at risk and local responses deemed insufficient, President Donald Trump has mobilized 2,000 members of the National Guard to restore order. Additional active-duty troops are reportedly on standby.
California Governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass have criticized this response, expressing concern over what they term ‘cruel’ immigration enforcement, while the city descends further into violence. Newsom has labeled Trump’s decision to federalize the National Guard as ‘purposefully inflammatory’ and fears it could heighten existing tensions. Meanwhile, groups advocating for immigration rights have condemned Trump’s actions, describing them as a disturbing escalation in the administration’s handling of immigration and law enforcement.
Trump remains undeterred by the backlash. His priority lies in ensuring the safety of federal officers confronted by violent crowds for merely carrying out their duties.
This scenario feels reminiscent of events from 1992. During my tenure as a captain in the California Army National Guard, I witnessed the aftermath of the Rodney King riots firsthand. The Crenshaw District burned, businesses were vandalized, and disorder ruled until Governor Pete Wilson called upon the National Guard and President George H.W. Bush invoked the Insurrection Act, dispatching 3,500 federal troops to support 10,000 National Guardsmen. Stability was swiftly restored at that time.
However, today’s disturbances differ significantly from the riots of 1992. The initial cause of the Rodney King riots stemmed from public outrage over alleged excessive police force. Contributing factors included a severely understaffed police department and critical tactical missteps, such as withdrawing officers from an intersection overtaken by violent individuals. Ultimately, the aftermath was devastating, resulting in 63 fatalities, nearly 2,400 injuries, over 12,000 arrests, and property damages amounting to more than $2.3 billion when adjusted for inflation. In a stark contrast, the violence witnessed during the 2020 riots attributed to George Floyd’s death, Antifa, and the Black Lives Matter movement pales in comparison to the 1992 unrest.
Today’s riots appear driven more by radical open-borders advocates than by concern over policing methods. ICE is actively enforcing federal law against illegal immigrant criminals and individuals with final deportation orders. The immediate threat seems to be directed primarily towards federal law enforcement officers rather than private property.
As such, the military deployment reveals not only a difference in scale—13,500 troops were assembled in 1992 compared to 2,000 today—but also a difference in purpose.
Typically, National Guard personnel can enforce civilian law when acting under a state mission for a governor. The Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits military involvement in civilian law enforcement, does not apply in such cases. However, once federalized, the Posse Comitatus Act’s restrictions come into play, similarly affecting active-duty service members. Yet an exception exists: the Insurrection Act. Presidents have invoked this act 31 times since 1992, permitting military intervention when local law and order deteriorate.
Thus far, Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act. Instead, he has called upon the California National Guard, possibly alongside some Marines, to protect federal agents. Consequently, these troops will focus on force protection and logistical support rather than direct law enforcement or immigration operations.
Should this effort prove inadequate, Trump retains the option to invoke the Insurrection Act. This would allow him to federalize additional National Guard units from other states and deploy more active-duty forces, similar to actions taken by presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy during the civil rights movement.
Ultimately, Newsom and Bass must face accountability for their apparent lack of effective governance. Discontented Californians have been fleeing the state in search of better leadership, and these recent events could severely damage Newsom’s presidential aspirations.
The individuals instigating these riots are not mere protesters; they represent a more aggressive insurgency. Like the actions of Antifa in 2020, they seek to undermine federal authority and challenge the enforcement of laws passed by Congress. Meanwhile, Newsom and Bass appear to support these actions by failing to take decisive measures against them. As a result, it falls upon Trump to act.
The left may cry ‘tyranny’, and some retired military officials may express concerns about military politicization. However, it must be acknowledged that unchecked anarchy presents its own form of tyranny, with potentially dire consequences for social order.
