This past Saturday, I watched, from Canada, livestreams of some of the protests in Los Angeles. The protests took place in varied locations around and outside of the city, over more than one day, so what I saw was admittedly just a selection. There had been reports on Friday that U.S. President Donald Trump (“Trump”) was sending in 12,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles in response to what the Los Angeles Police Department said, at that stage, were largely peaceful protests, continuing through Saturday. This was also in spite of objections raised by California Governor Gavin Newsom (“Newsom”), who Trump actually referred to as “Newscum” in his social media posts. 

We do live in strange times.  

As Friday progressed, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth (“Hegseth”) publicly speculated about sending in the U.S. Marines to respond to these protests. As discussed below, that threat escalated into action later.  

Many people at the protests on Saturday were livestreaming as events unfolded. The wide availability of cameras and livestreams is important in addressing political narratives about public events.  

In two separate incidents that I watched, livestreams showed law enforcement, in heavy riot gear, lining up and facing protestors who were not engaging in any violent activity. In one livestream, protestors could be heard pleading with them, saying things like “we grew up together,” and “we have no quarrel with you” and “you have guns while we have megaphones.” With no warning, the law-enforcement officers began spraying what looked like tear gas, as people yelled that they were shooting pellet guns and began to run. I saw this almost identical sequence of events streamed live at two different locations. The media, nonetheless, repeatedly described the protests as involving “clashes” between protestors and the police. The notion of a “clash” implies, at least, violence on both sides, and is not the same as an attack by law-enforcement officers on peaceful protestors. 

Language matters.  

In another widely circulated video, an Australian reporter is shown giving a report on camera, with a row of law-enforcement officers behind her, not facing her. As she reports, an officer then turns towards the reporter, aims a (presumably rubber-bullet) gun directly at her, and then fires, apparently hitting her in the leg. There was no shooting coming from the direction of the reporter, but the media repeatedly referred to it as this reporter being caught in the “crossfire.” I have described what happened in the video, which obviously did not involve any “crossfire,” but readers are free to watch the video themselves at the above link. It may be that the officer intended to shoot the protestors in front of her, but that would not be justified either, as there was no sign of violence coming from them either. 

Calling in militarized police and throwing teargas and shooting rubber bullets at peaceful protestors is a pre-emptive, not a reactive, move, and it suggests that violence is being sparked and/or perpetrated by the law-enforcement personnel. This is an important distinction, and it is a critique of state law enforcement at that stage. That critique notwithstanding, local law enforcement continued to describe the protests as primarily peaceful through the weekend, with some reports of isolated violence, which they said local law enforcement was capable of handling. 

In describing this scenario, however, members of the current U.S. Federal Government have repeatedly claimed that there is widespread violence coming from the protestors, with the President beginning to refer to the protests as an “insurrection.” Indeed, the U.S. President has begun to float the idea of invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807 (“Insurrection Act” or “the Act”). Arguably, the President has no power to deploy the military against U.S. civilians, but this could change if he invokes the Insurrection Act. The problem there, of course, is that there is no insurrection, just as there is no “alien invasion” to justify many of the current, harsh immigration actions. False narratives are being set forth to justify problematic legal actions.  

The January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol Did Not Involve the Presence of Militarized Law Enforcement, In Spite of Direct Threats to the U.S. Government Even Before the Attack  

I find myself thinking of another “protest” situation, which played out on January 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol. Unlike the Los Angeles protests, this one involved threats of violence before the incident. A prominent scene from these “protests” to the 2020 elections involved the raising of a scaffold, purportedly to be used to hang then-Vice-President Mike Pence (“Pence”) for fulfilling his constitutional duty in the certifying of the election. Pence and his family had to be spirited away for their own protection during the attack. 

At the urging of Trump and others, thousands of people went to the Capitol, where many of them violently stormed the building, quickly overwhelming the inadequate law-enforcement present that day and threatening the lives of members of Congress and their staff. Even though it was well known, in advance, that these “protests” would happen, there was no comparable large, militarized police presence there that day to greet the protestors. As the attack on the Capitol unfolded, Trump did not send in the National Guard, even when his own aides and members of Congress begged him to do so, and even though the U.S. Government was under literal violent attack. In fact, Trump has been widely criticized for refusing to do anything at all, for hours, to stop the attack, before he finally mildly responded with a statement and Twitter post. These details and much more can be read in the Congressional report on the attack, linked above. 

It is thus ironic that these events did not lead to concerns about “insurrection.” We are to believe, however, that the largely peaceful anti-ICE protests are an insurrection, justifying possible invocation of the Insurrection Act. 

The Insurrection Act states: 

  

“Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion” (hyperlinks in original, emphasis added). 

  

This power, thus activated, is a statutory exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally bars the President from using the military as a domestic law-enforcement entity. The Insurrection Act has been invoked 30 times throughout U.S. history, most recently during the riots in Los Angeles after the acquittal of the officers accused in the beating of Rodney King. Problems with this legislation and specifically in relation to the current situation are discussed in depth here, with extensive resources included. 

There is dispute as to whether the events of January 6 were, indeed, an “insurrection,” as described by the Act. The Supreme Court of the United States did not reach that issue in deciding that Trump could remain on the ballot, in spite of arguments that he led an insurrection on January 6th, because of a dispositive issue with the procedure by which the claim had been made by states. If we are to use the term, though, the situation on January 6th certainly comes far closer to meeting the definition than the largely peaceful anti-ICE protests taking place in Los Angeles and now elsewhere around the U.S. 

As the situation in Los Angeles escalated, the White House official X site proclaimed “Law and Order.” 

The Federal Government’s assertions that its actions in Los Angeles are about “law and order are undermined on several fronts. Beyond the problem with such claims on these facts, there is a legitimacy problem with a U.S. President who was convicted of 34 felony counts, for which he served no time. He was indicted for other actions, including some related to the violent attack on the Capitol. Those indictments against Trump were dropped when he was elected President, and he pardoned many of the people convicted in the violent Capitol attack. That sense of impunity, and not of “law and order,” with the President himself has been further reinforced by the Supreme Court’s decision, which expanded the notion of what is protected under presidential immunity. 

The current protests in Los Angeles, of course, are protests against the Federal Government’s ICE actions, which have themselves been widely argued to violate the U.S. Constitution. I have addressed some of those points in prior posts. That is different from a President-led “protest” that erupted in a violent attack on the Capitol, and it is impossible not to see the differences in response. “Law and order” concerns seem to vary, not based on the actions of those involved, but on whether those in power agree with the motivation behind protests and more. 

It is apparent that law enforcement has played a role in violence in Los Angeles, and that the President himself has fueled, if not actually lit, any flames in Los Angeles with his own escalating comments and actions. At one point, for instance, Trump said that the “once great” Los Angeles “has been invaded and occupied by Illegal Aliens and Criminals” and that his administration will stop at nothing “to liberate Los Angeles from the Migrant Invasion.” I have posted already about the disingenuous representation of “invasions” by migrants that have been used to justify questionable governmental actions. Trump also claimed to have discussed the protests with Newsom on Friday night, specifically about sending in the National Guard to California. Newsom denied that this happened during their phone call, saying Trump avoided talking about the protests at all and calling him a “stone cold liar.” Trump federalized the National Guard, in spite of objections from California state officials, who were reiterating that the protests were largely peaceful. Trump later congratulated the National Guard on a great job regarding the protests, including at one point before the National Guard had actually arrived in California. Later, on Monday, June 9th, he posted on Truth Social: 

  

“We made a great decision in sending the National Guard to deal with the violent, instigated riots in California. If we had not done so, Los Angeles would have been completely obliterated. The very incompetent “Governor,”  Gavin Newscum, and “Mayor,” Karen Bass, should be saying, “THANK YOU, PRESIDENT TRUMP, YOU ARE SO WONDERFUL. WE WOULD BE NOTHING WITHOUT YOU, SIR.” Instead, they choose to lie to the People of California and America by saying that we weren’t needed, and that these are “peaceful protests.” Just one look at the pictures and videos of the Violence and Destruction tells you all you have to know. We will always do what is needed to keep our Citizens SAFE, so we can, together, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!” (format reproduced as in original) 

  

As Trump pointed out in his post, local officials have disputed the assertions that the protests are “riots,” or generally violent at all. If his post is to be believed, the President is basing his conclusions on “pictures and videos.” It is, perhaps, thus notable that U.S. Senator Ted Cruz, from Texas, posted a video of alleged violence in the current protests, which was reported to actually be from 2020. While it is not clear what “pictures and videos” the President is using, he himself has not travelled to Los Angeles, and local officials, who are on the scene, are disputing his factual account of widespread violence. 

After federalizing the National Guard, Trump announced on Monday that he was sending in 700 Marines. It does not have to be said that a plan to use the U.S. military against civilians on U.S. soil is a disturbing and extreme action, as discussed above. Meanwhile, the State of California has sued the Federal Government over the actions involving the National Guard. In its complaint, California officials asserted: “Most of those involved in protesting have been exercising their rights under the First Amendment in a peaceful, non-violent, and legally compliant manner. There have no doubt been exceptions.” As this post was being finalized, the Federal Government filed a response, alleging widespread violence against federal facilities and personnel in Los Angeles. 

As things escalated, Trump called for Newsom’s arrest. Newsom replied by suggesting Trump was engaging in the “acts of a dictator.” When asked what crime Newsom had committed, Trump said his “primary crime” was running for Governor and doing a bad job. The State of California announced law-enforcement surges in a document called “Cleaning up Trump’s Mess …” On Tuesday, June 10th, Newsom made a rare televised address to the Nation, in which he bluntly said that Trump was emulating the actions of “failed dictators.” 

The legalities of federalizing the National Guard, sending in Marines against civilians within the U.S., and other alarming actions by the U.S. Government will, like so much else, play out before the courts. Given the serious nature of the situation, it is, indeed, unsettling to hear the President himself and members of his administration sum up this potential constitutional crisis with a silly sound bite, “they spit, we hit.”  In a speech to members of the military on Tuesday, Trump called Los Angeles protestors “animals,” and “a foreign enemy.” He claimed again that he planned to “liberate” the City of Los Angeles. On June 11th, Trump threatened to expand his use of the military to other U.S. cities as protests have begun to spread. Does this suggest that the entire country is undertaking insurrection, or, perhaps, that there is a more insidious issue motivating the President’s threat? 

On June 14th, Trump has planned a major military parade on his birthday. Protests, generally being referred to as “No Kings” protests, are planned around the country that same day. In discussing his planned military parade, Trump described protestors as “people who hate our country,” and promised that protests will be “met with heavy force.” At least in that statement, the pretext of responding to “violence” or “invasion” was dropped, and Trump specifically said this about protestors. 

While this post focuses on some of the different narratives about whether there has been violence, that is not the exact point. Even if there have been incidents of violence, the level of violence that would be required to justify the President deploying the Marines against civilians on U.S. soil would have to be astronomical. It is certainly not found in a situation in which local authorities deny systemic issues with violence at all. 

This situation is escalating quickly, and in a way that is frightening for individuals and for the Rule of Law. Anti-ICE protests took place across the U.S. on Tuesday night, and it seems unlikely that those objecting to U.S. actions regarding migration will be deterred in their protests, nor should they be, as peaceful protest is a constitutional right. Time will tell whether the constitutional guardrails will hold, but events are already presenting the possibility of a significant crisis unfolding before us.