When acrid smoke from burning debris mingled with tear gas near downtown federal buildings, Los Angeles became the epicenter of a volatile constitutional clash this week.
What began as protests against aggressive federal immigration raids swiftly escalated into a dire confrontation between California and the Trump administration, laying bare the deep fissures in American federalism and igniting fears of a cold civil war.
President Donald Trump has authorized the deployment of an additional 2,000 National Guard members in response to immigration protests in Los Angeles, according to the Pentagon's chief spokesman. The latest order brings the total number of Guard members put on federal orders for the protests to over 4,100.
A demonstrator holds a placard as protesters clash with law enforcement in the streets surrounding the federal building during a protest following federal immigration operations in Los Angeles, California, on June 8, 2025 (Photo: CFP)
Trump's strong stance is entirely consistent with his established pattern of hardline intervention on immigration policy, said Lu Qi, Director of the Intellisia Research Institute. Lu believes this forceful action stems from strong attributes of partisan struggle, particularly given that Governor Newsom is a prominent rising star in the Democratic Party and California itself is a state long governed by Democrats.
From raids to riot
The immediate catalyst was a series of high-profile raids conducted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) targeting undocumented immigrants. According to reports, ICE officers showed up unexpectedly, entering workplaces and communities home to large Latino populations, such as the Westlake district and Paramount (where over 82% identify as Hispanic), making dozens of arrests in rapid succession. These tactics, described as sudden and disruptive, triggered immediate backlash within affected communities already wary of federal overreach.
President Donald Trump arrives at the South Lawn of the White House from Camp David on Monday, June 9, 2025. (Photo: CFP)
The protests began relatively small, involving local residents hoping to peacefully voice their opposition to the raids. Initial groups numbered in the dozens. However, tensions rapidly escalated as demonstrators gathered in key locations, particularly the downtown Federal Building where ICE detainees were reportedly held, and a Home Depot in Paramount that became an unexpected flashpoint despite official denials of a raid occurring there.
The number of active protesters involved in clashes grew to over 200, and those numbers continued to rise. Confrontations turned violent: protesters blocked the critical 101 Freeway, hurled water bottles, rocks, and allegedly incendiary devices, and set several self-driving vehicles ablaze. Law enforcement, facing this surge in aggression and property damage, responded with crowd control measures including tear gas, flash-bang grenades, pepper spray, and rubber bullets, leading to dozens of arrests over consecutive days.
Federal troops deployed against state will
The situation transformed from a local law enforcement challenge into a national constitutional crisis when President Donald Trump took the unprecedented step of deploying the National Guard. Crucially, this deployment was ordered without the request or consent of California Governor Gavin Newsom, marking the first time since 1965 that a U.S. President has activated a state's National Guard units unilaterally in such a context. Trump justified the move by declaring the protests constituted a form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States, reportedly invoking federal statutes.
Calif. Gov. Gavin Newsom attends a news conference in Sacramento, Calif., in May (Photo: CFP)
Governor Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass reacted with fury and condemnation. Newsom denounced the deployment as an illegal act and a deliberate attempt by the Trump administration to create disorder and chaos in our city. Mayor Bass echoed this sentiment, stating she felt Los Angeles was part of an unasked-for experiment. Newsom's core argument, echoed in a lawsuit filed by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, hinges on the 10th Amendment and the principle of state sovereignty. Bonta called the deployment an inflammatory escalation unsupported by conditions on the ground that exceeds the federal government's authority. He argued that California possesses sufficient resources to manage protests and that Trump had trampled the state's rights.
According to Professor Lu, Trump's current immigration policy trajectory is likely to trigger a significant struggle over dominance on this issue between the federal government and the states, and between Republicans and Democrats.
This is bound to cause the situation to deteriorate in the short term. Several likely consequences follow: we can expect more protests and direct clashes between police and civilians centered on immigration, particularly flaring up in Democratic-governed states, he added.
Trump's short-term tactical decisions on immigration, as Lu agrees, cannot alter his long-standing hardline policy stance and approach; indeed, the events may even strengthen his existing convictions.
Possible Cold Civil War?
The deployment and the rhetoric surrounding it have dramatically amplified existing societal and political fractures in the U.S. Experts starkly warn that the deployment mirrors pre-Civil War fissures over state versus federal supremacy, pushing the nation perilously close to a new constitutional crisis or Cold Civil War.
This concept, explored in depth by scholars like Wang Wen, Executive Director of the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies at Renmin University of China, posits that while a traditional hot civil war involving widespread armed conflict remains unlikely for now, the United States is entrenched in a cold civil war characterized by deep political polarization, cultural conflict, and institutional distrust fought through legal battles, political maneuvering, and localized friction.
Protesters clash with law enforcement officers in the streets surrounding the federal building during a protest following federal immigration operations in Los Angeles, California, on June 8, 2025. (Photo: CFP)
Amidst the chaos, some extremists in the protest voiced radical demands: an immediate halt to state tax payments to the federal government, active preparations for secession, and ultimately, declaring independence for California.
While lacking mainstream political support and widely viewed as unrealistic, Lu noted these voices signify a dangerous fracture – a loss of faith in shared governance for a segment of the population. These demands, though extreme, underscore the depth of the divide exacerbated by the current crisis.
Partisan discord on the rise
Large-scale immigration raids risk humanitarian disasters and lawsuits - a scenario Democrats may exploit to target Trump politically during the upcoming 2026 election, said Tang Huiyun, Associate Researcher at the Institute of International Relations, Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences (SASS).
Based on what we see from the Supreme Court, it is largely supportive of Trump's mass deportation policies. Tang said, In late May 2025, the Court approved the Trump administration's move to begin deporting approximately 500,000 immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela.
These individuals had entered the U.S. legally under the humanitarian parole program implemented during the Biden administration, Tang noted. While protests against Trump's mass deportation are escalating—potentially spreading to more states—it is unlikely that Trump will alter his core border enforcement policies.
Ultimately, the Los Angeles crisis cannot be divorced from America's toxic partisan landscape. California, a Democratic stronghold that has consistently voted over 60% Democratic in presidential elections since 1992, stands diametrically opposed to the Republican Trump administration's hardline immigration ideology.
Protesters clash with law enforcement in the streets surrounding the federal building during a protest following federal immigration operations in Los Angeles, California (Photo: CFP)
The administration viewed California's sanctuary state laws as defiance, demanding a forceful federal response. Governor Newsom positioned himself as the Democratic bulwark against perceived federal tyranny. The way Trump deploys troops shows how federal power can be weaponized against a dissenting state government, making Los Angeles the violent focal point of a national conflict centered not just on immigration but on the fundamental balance of power between Washington and the states – and the very cohesion of the United States.
