How Los Angeles riots challenge American federalism – Firstpost

Just when the public and messy end of the Trump-Musk bromance seemed to be making prime news, mass street protests against immigration raids and the mass deportation plan of the Trump administration are now occupying new airwaves from one of America’s largest and wealthiest cities, Los Angeles (LA). This city, otherwise known all over the world for the glitz and glamour of Hollywood, is in the news all over the world, with sights of deserted streets, rows of law enforcement officials ready to confront street protestors and burnt-down self-driving cars.

How did these all start? Hundreds of protestors have been thronging the LA streets, contesting the immigration raids carried out by the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a federal law enforcement agency under the Department of Homeland Security. President Trump’s hard-core political message on illegal immigration was well known since his first term, but in his second innings, with a stronger electoral mandate, with the Republican Party in control of the US Congress, and with a team ideologically aligned to him, immigration crackdowns and deportations have occupied centre stage. With Stephen Miller, Deputy Chief of Staff at the White House, at the helm of affairs, a showdown between federal executive decisions and responses from states, particularly governed by the Democratic Party, was imminent.

Much of the politically divisive issues in American politics, from gun control, healthcare, and race relations to immigration, carry the quintessential ‘federal government vs state government’ tussle. The power arrangement between the federal and the state governments, the interpretation of constitutional law through changing times, and the role of American courts are at the heart of the political elbowing between the Trump team and the Californian government, with Governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass as major protagonists. At one level, this reflects a classic tug-of-war between the federal executive’s national security prerogatives and a state’s constitutional right to manage its own internal affairs. On the other hand, it is an attempt by President Trump to reshape the narrative in which federal strength, personal leadership, and political gamesmanship all converge.

In the Hollywood movie Joker, Arthur Fleck, before turning into the iconic character ‘Joker’, asks his psychiatrist, “Is it just me, or is it getting crazier out there?” So, why is it getting ‘crazier’ in Los Angeles? What was the threshold that drove this political confrontation down this path? Is there a real constitutional law and order crisis there, since President Trump himself and his team members have often described the scenes there using words such as ‘rebellion’, ‘insurrection’ and ‘anarchy’?

President Trump is yet to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1792 but has warned of using it. This incident spotlights the blurred lines between federal assistance and federal intrusion. While the Insurrection Act does permit the President to deploy troops under certain conditions, its application in politically charged domestic unrest raises questions about motive, legitimacy, and proportionality.

So, the showdown in the ‘La-la-Land’, or the ‘Tinsel Town’ of America, erupted primarily as a clash on the question of legality over President Trump’s decision to deploy the US National Guard troops (the deployment numbers have reportedly increased over the days), without consulting the state of California. In addition, the Trump administration also mobilised 700 Marines. Did the protests in Los Angeles merit such a response from the federal government, or was it an over-reaction to a situation that could be handled at the state level, avoiding such a federal vs state confrontation? The Trump team, obviously, thinks such a response was warranted to allow the ICE agency to carry out federal law enforcement without interference. The Californian authorities think otherwise and blame Trump for making a mountain out of a molehill and sued the Trump administration over the case.

A number of provisions from the US federal law have been cited and counter-cited from both sides that direct the use of National Guards and the US military in state law enforcement. Keeping the details aside, it really boils down to how the situation in the LA streets is interpreted. Is it a ‘rebellion’, ‘insurrection’, or ‘invasion’, or none of the above? Are the National Guards and Marines only there to protect agents of the ICE who are carrying out immigration raids? Is their mere presence, nonetheless, adding fuel to the fire in this case?

Although there have been different cases of National Guards being used in contemporary presidencies, like President Lyndon B Johnson using them against a segregationist governor in Alabama during the Civil Rights movement, or President Richard Nixon calling upon them to deliver mail during the 1970 Postal Strike. However, none of these cases resembles the situation that the United States faces this time in Los Angeles.

The President’s move to send in federal troops — reportedly without a clear request or consent from the state — has been seen by many as an overreach, challenging the spirit of cooperative federalism that underpins the US Constitution. Governor Gavin Newsom’s resistance underscores the state’s insistence on autonomy in policing and maintaining civil order, especially in a politically sensitive environment.

More broadly, it reflects a growing trend of partisan federalism — where the federal-state relationship is shaped less by institutional boundaries and more by ideological divides. In a deeply polarised America, such flashpoints in LA are not isolated. They serve as harbingers of a fractured federal consensus, where states increasingly assert their independence — whether on immigration, climate policy, or public order — even as the federal government pushes for national uniformity.

The Los Angeles episode may thus be less about law and order and more about a deepening redefinition of American federalism in the 21st century.

Shishir Priyadarshi is President at Chintan Research Foundation (CRF), New Delhi. Monish Tourangbam is Senior Research Consultant at Chintan Research Foundation. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.