Explainer: What to know about the LA clash between protesters and National Guard troops

For the first time since 1965, a president has federalized a state's National Guard without the governor's consent -- an extraordinary step that raises pressing questions about federal overreach and state sovereignty.

SACRAMENTO, the United States, June 9 (Xinhua) -- Over 1,000 protesters clashed with National Guard troops in downtown Los Angeles Sunday, rallying against immigration raids that swept across California over the weekend.

The unrest marks a dramatic escalation in a growing constitutional standoff between U.S. President Donald Trump and California's Democratic-led state government. For the first time since 1965, a president has federalized a state's National Guard without the governor's consent -- an extraordinary step that raises pressing questions about federal overreach and state sovereignty.

WHAT SPARKED THE CONFRONTATION?

The clash came after Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids began on Friday across Los Angeles County, with a particular focus on the downtown fashion district and Latino communities, which sparked mass protests over the weekend.

The raids resulted in more than 100 arrests, drawing angry protesters who confronted agents with tear gas, flash-bang grenades and rocks.

Trump characterized the protests as "violent, insurrectionist mobs" attacking federal agents, claiming the city had been "invaded and occupied by Illegal Aliens and Criminals" in a post on Truth Social.

On Saturday evening, Trump invoked a rarely used federal authority under Title 10 U.S.C. 12406 of U.S. federal law to seize control of California's National Guard, bypassing objections from California Governor Gavin Newsom.

On Sunday morning, National Guard troops sent by the Trump administration arrived in downtown Los Angeles. According to U.S. Northern Command, the 79th Infantry Brigade Combat Team from the California National Guard deployed approximately 300 soldiers to three separate locations in the greater Los Angeles area.

"They are conducting safety and protection of federal property & personnel," the Northern Command announced in an online post.

Late Sunday afternoon, Governor Newsom formally requested that U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth rescind the "unlawful" deployment, calling it "a serious breach of state sovereignty."

"We didn't have a problem until Trump got involved," Newsom posted on X, calling the deployment "purposefully inflammatory" and warning it would "only escalate tensions." Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass echoed the sentiment, calling the deployment a "chaotic escalation."

Democratic governors across the country have denounced Trump's actions.

In a joint statement, a coalition of nearly two dozen Democratic governors condemned what they called an "alarming abuse of power" in federalizing California's National Guard, emphasizing that state governors retain authority over their own National Guard units.

WHAT IS THE ROLE OF NATIONAL GUARD?

The National Guard serves as a unique hybrid force, operating under dual federal-state control. Normally, Guard units respond to state emergencies -- natural disasters, civil unrest, or public health crises -- under the command of the state governor.

However, the president has limited authority to "federalize" a state's National Guard in extreme situations, such as insurrection or obstruction of federal law. Once federalized, Guard units report to the president and can be assigned military support roles, though the Posse Comitatus Act generally bars them from acting as domestic law enforcement.

Critics argue that Trump's use of this authority blurred these boundaries, particularly given the political context and lack of an urgent security threat.

DOES THE DEPLOYMENT OVERREACH FEDERAL AUTHORITY?

Legal experts argue that the deployment raises serious constitutional concerns.

By invoking Title 10 rather than the more widely known Insurrection Act, Trump framed the protesters' actions as a "rebellion against the authority of the United States." This justification, while legally permissible in rare cases, marks an aggressive interpretation of federal power.

Historically, presidents have used such measures under vastly different circumstances. In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson federalized Alabama's National Guard -- without the governor's consent -- to protect civil rights marchers during the Selma-to-Montgomery march, after "Bloody Sunday" violence by state police.

In contrast, Trump's deployment aimed to confront protesters opposing federal immigration enforcement, not to protect them.

Other precedents include the 1992 Los Angeles riots, when President George H.W. Bush federalized California's Guard -- but only at the request of Republican Governor Pete Wilson -- to help quell widespread unrest following the Rodney King verdict. That mission involved over 10,000 Guard members and 4,000 federal troops.

This time, Trump acted without a state request and in direct defiance of it -- a move that civil rights groups say dangerously expands federal authority over domestic matters.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR FEDERAL-STATE RELATIONS?

Trump's decision is only the latest flashpoint in a long-running standoff with California. Since taking office for a second term, he has clashed with the state over a wide range of issues -- from climate policy and wildfire disaster aid to auto emissions standards and education funding.

Tensions are reaching a boiling point.

According to CNN, the Trump administration is preparing to slash a major portion of federal funding to California -- more than 170 billion U.S. dollars, which supports healthcare, education and social services. California, home to 39 million residents, contributes 83 billion dollars more in federal taxes than it receives -- making it the largest "donor state" in the country.

Governor Newsom has threatened to withhold federal tax contributions in retaliation, citing the Revolutionary War-era slogan "no taxation without representation." In response, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent warned that such action would constitute criminal tax evasion, heightening fears of a broader constitutional standoff.

The American Civil Liberties Union plans to challenge the deployment in federal court, calling it an "abuse of power" and arguing that deploying National Guard troops in this context -- against individuals exercising their First Amendment rights -- is unconstitutional.

HOW HAVE OTHER COUNTRIES RESPONDED?

The controversy has drawn international attention, particularly from neighboring Mexico.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum strongly condemned the U.S. response to the Los Angeles protests and immigration raids, criticizing the use of force as both ineffective and harmful in addressing migration issues.

She argued that raids and violence will not resolve the root causes of migration and urged the United States to pursue a more comprehensive and diplomatic approach to immigration reform. Expressing solidarity with Mexican nationals and other Latin American migrants affected by the crackdown, Sheinbaum emphasized, "Mexicans living in the United States are good, hardworking people -- they are not criminals."

She also called on U.S. authorities to respect due process and uphold human rights, warning that aggressive tactics such as deploying the National Guard are not only unjust but ultimately counterproductive. Her remarks reflected a broader appeal for humane, cooperative solutions to migration challenges, rather than militarized crackdowns.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

As of Sunday night, National Guard troops remain stationed around key federal facilities in downtown Los Angeles. Trump has vowed to escalate the response if protests continue, declaring, "We're going to have troops everywhere."

The deepening crisis raises urgent questions about the future of American federalism and the balance of power among states, the federal government, and the military.

As the nation wrestles with the implications of this unprecedented deployment, the outcome may reshape the boundaries of presidential authority for years to come.■