The Unfolding Authoritarian Crackdown in Los Angeles

Since the recent election of Donald Trump, concerns have mounted over the possibility that he might deploy military forces against demonstrators protesting his immigration policies, potentially steering the nation toward martial law. Even in the most extreme predictions, it seemed unlikely that such a measure would be triggered by the relatively limited protests witnessed in Los Angeles last week.

However, in an era marked by distorted realities, it appears the administration no longer needs a genuine crisis to justify authoritarian actions; it can simply fabricate one to legitimize a crackdown.

While some protesters involved in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids in Los Angeles engaged in violent acts—such as one individual allegedly throwing a Molotov cocktail at an officer and another reportedly ramming a motorcycle into police lines—such behavior is both ethically wrong and strategically damaging to the protest movement. Every act of destruction, from burning vehicles to vandalized storefronts, inadvertently strengthens the administration’s position.

The suggestion that troops were necessary due to uncontrollable riots is unfounded. Official statements from the Los Angeles Police Department affirmed that demonstrations remained peaceful, praising citizens for responsibly exercising their First Amendment rights. Nevertheless, the president overruled California’s governor to federalize the National Guard under a seldom-used law designed to counter rebellion against the U.S. government.

By Monday, thousands of National Guard members were stationed in Los Angeles, and the administration announced the deployment of 700 Marines to the city. The local police chief expressed concerns about the uncoordinated arrival of federal forces, highlighting the operational challenges this posed. Yet, it seems the administration’s objective was never genuine public safety.

This administration’s definition of insurrection extends beyond violent acts to include any protest that impedes law enforcement, encompassing peaceful demonstrations near ICE operations. For instance, in San Diego, federal agents’ aggressive immigration raids at local restaurants provoked crowds to block their exit, chanting slogans of opposition. Under the current presidential directive, such civilians could be targeted as insurgents.

Intimidation appears to be a deliberate tactic to deter civil disobedience. Violent protests, while damaging, can be exploited by the administration’s narrative, but it is peaceful protests that pose a more substantial threat to its agenda. A recent example is the arrest and hospitalization of David Huerta, president of the Service Employees International Union of California, who was charged with conspiracy to impede an officer following his peaceful protest against an immigration raid.

The president has also publicly called for the arrest of Governor Gavin Newsom. Such actions—military deployments to suppress dissent, arrests of union leaders, and threats to opposition officials—are hallmark signs of an emerging autocracy. The critical question now is whether Americans committed to democracy will mobilize to resist.

Some analysts argue this confrontation benefits the president by reinforcing his image as a law-and-order figure confronting criminal elements. The administration appeared to orchestrate a spectacle during the ICE raids in Los Angeles, even involving television personalities. Yet, public opinion remains fluid, underscoring the need for prominent voices—political figures, veterans, religious and cultural leaders—to condemn these authoritarian measures.

Officials within the administration have promoted the false narrative that Los Angeles is under foreign occupation, citing the presence of foreign flags among protesters. This misleading portrayal serves as a pretext to justify a sweeping power grab. Those who value democracy must vocally reject such fabrications before they become accepted truth.

Historical context reminds us that in 2020, widespread condemnation followed the use of force against peaceful protesters near St. John’s Church, forcing the administration to retreat from its stance. Polls indicated that most Americans blamed the president for escalating racial tensions. Disorder does not inherently benefit the administration, especially when it appears to be the instigator. Strong opposition to falsehoods and authoritarian tactics remains essential.

The political landscape has shifted rightward since the president’s first term, allowing actions once deemed unacceptable to proceed with less public outcry. Many Democrats, weary from previous political battles, hesitate to confront the current crisis head-on. Nonetheless, the deployment of the military against U.S. citizens based on fabricated threats marks a clear step toward dictatorship.

Plans for a large military parade in Washington, D.C., coinciding with the president’s birthday and celebrating the Army’s 250th anniversary, underscore this troubling trend. Images of tanks moving past iconic landmarks evoke dystopian symbolism, reflecting the nation’s precarious state.

Nationwide protests are scheduled under the banner “No Kings” to oppose these authoritarian moves. Although many who cherish freedom may feel intimidated, they must resist being silenced.