Link copied!
Join
Donate
Join

Newsom v. Trump: Military troops in LA fact sheet

June 18, 2025

 

Toplines

  • Local policing is the job of local government.
  • The public has a constitutional right to peacefully protest.
  • Deploying military forces — without request from state or local authorities — is dangerous to people and policies.
  • Local officers know their communities better than military troops.
  • Military troops should always be a last resort.
  • Local governments continue to be on the frontlines for civil rights, even as the fight gets harder.

Issue background

Local policing is the job of local government.
  • Communities across the country rely on municipal police and county sheriff departments to protect their communities.
  • Even during the most tumultuous times in our nation’s history, cities and counties have successfully maintained peace and order.
  • Local law enforcement agencies have extensive experience managing protests and demonstrations. They have policies and practices that intentionally balance individual rights with public safety needs.
The public has a constitutional right to peacefully protest. 
  • Freedom of speech and assembly is a constitutional right, even when the point of contention are actions by the government. The First Amendment is one of our core values as a democracy.
  • That’s why local jurisdictions have training and procedures that balance public safety with individual liberty.
  • Most protests in the U.S. are peaceful. For example, 93% of national demonstrations connected to the Black Lives Matter movement were peaceful.
  • Police departments from San Francisco, California, to Madison, Wisconsin, support both free speech activities and community peace.
  • When police work with organizers, they can maintain public safety together. Pittsburgh and New Haven are examples of this type of collaboration.
Deploying military forces — without request from state or local authorities — is dangerous to people and policies.
  • Let’s not mince words: military troops don’t belong in the streets of our communities.
  • When the Trump administration sent the National Guard and U.S. Marines to Los Angeles — without consent or coordination from the state of California or the local community — they inflamed tensions, put people in peril, and undermined the ability of local law enforcement to preserve peace.
  • If this can happen in one community, it can happen in others. Every local community leader — and every local community member — should be gravely concerned that any protest, no matter how small, could result in the deployment of military tanks and soldiers to neighborhoods and streets.
  • The Trump administration’s actions are not only unlawful — they increase the risk of violence and property damage. That’s the opposite of public safety.
  • Local police officers and county sheriffs are accountable to the people they serve. They’re committed to building and maintaining public trust. And in many states, they have rigorous training, policies, and civil oversight around the use of force.
  • In contrast, military troops aren’t accountable to the people and leaders of local communities affected. Their unnecessary deployment can cause a host of issues: miscommunication and lack of coordination; conflicting responses; more risk for law enforcement and the public; and more.
Local officers know their communities better than federal troops.
  • Cities and counties face serious harm when the federal government mobilizes the National Guard and the U.S. military to intimidate local protests — without request by state or local officials.
  • Local law enforcement is better equipped to manage public demonstrations, even if they become violent.
  • Municipal police and county sheriffs have specialized training and local expertise to protect the rights of both individuals and businesses — and to deescalate tense situations. Federal troops do not.
  • Local law enforcement has deep knowledge of their communities. They know their neighborhoods, local infrastructure, and community organizers and leaders.
  • Cities like San Francisco devote significant time and resources to engage the community and build public trust.
  • And when situations require more resources, local governments have safer options besides federal interference.
    • In San Francisco, the city can activate an emergency operations center to coordinate planning, information sharing, and responses among all city departments and partner agencies.
    • California has had a law enforcement “mutual aid system” in place since 1961. If a jurisdiction lacks the resources to respond to an emergency, it can call on neighboring law enforcement or regional and statewide assistance.
Military troops should always be a last resort.
  • The main purpose of the military is to defend our country against external threats — not quell public protests already being handled by local law enforcement.
  • Using military troops domestically like this overturns the democratic process of having local elected officials oversee policing efforts in their communities.
  • Deploying military tanks and soldiers into neighborhoods and streets should be reserved for extremely rare cases of foreign invasion, violent revolution, or a severe disaster. It should be only meant to reinforce local resources, not replace.
  • This thinking isn’t new: The authors of the U.S. Constitution understood that local matters are best addressed at the local level, directly stating that the “lives, liberties, and properties of the people” should be the purview of local government officials — and not a distant federal bureaucracy.
Local governments continue to be on the frontlines for civil rights, even as the fight gets harder.
  • This federal overreach and abuse of power is another stage in the Trump administration’s war on communities with sanctuary policies.
  • The administration is intervening in Los Angeles and doing aggressive immigration enforcement because it wants to coerce local governments into carrying out its bidding. This is happening, regardless of how the law actually works or the safety and humanity of the people and families being harmed.
  • Federal intimidation, fear tactics, and militarized responses aren’t protecting our communities — they’re doing the opposite.
  • The smoke and mirrors aren’t working: We can see the administration is both antagonizing the community and blaming them.
  • We knew this might happen, but it’s still painful to watch federal agents violating the rights of people protesting immigration raids.
  • We know more cities are at risk in the days to come as the federal government keeps dismantling civil rights, overriding local autonomy, and eroding public trust, all while claiming to care about public safety.
  • There is power in numbers: We’ll continue to stand alongside other communities across the country who are standing up and saying no to the authoritarian playbook. If we capitulate in advance, they will ramp up their efforts even more.

 

Coalition background

Timeline of activities
  • June 6, 2025: ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents carry out a series of sweeps in southern California. Crowds gather and protests begin in downtown Los Angeles.
  • June 7, 2025: Crowds gather in the city of Paramount, amid rumors that ICE is preparing to raid a Home Depot store in the community.
    • 6 p.m. PT: President Trump signs a presidential memo authorizing the deployment of 2,000 National Guard members to “address the lawlessness” in Los Angeles. Mayor Karen Bass and Governor Gavin Newsom immediately object while the protests continue.
  • June 8, 2025: The Trump administration deploys the National Guard around 4 a.m. PT in Los Angeles. 22 Democratic governors release a joint statement calling the decision an “alarming abuse of power.” Larger groups of people rally and march in LA.
  • June 9, 2025: 700 Marines are deployed to LA.
  • June 10, 2025: Local emergency is declared by Mayor Bass. The Department of Defense announces the addition of 2,100 National Guard members—total number now at 4,000. Governor Newsom files a motion in federal court seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO).
  • June 12, 2025: A TRO hearing is held before Judge Charles Breyer in the Northern District of California. That day, the district court issued a decision granting California’s request for a TRO, finding that the president’s “actions were illegal — both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
    • The federal government asked the Ninth Circuit to pause the district court’s decision, which was granted. This temporarily stopped the earlier order  from being enforced.
  • June 15, 2025: A coalition of 53 local governments and local government leaders file a “friend of the court” amicus brief supporting California’s challenge of the Trump administration. The brief argued that the unlawful deployment of the National Guard and U.S. Marines is against public interest as local jurisdictions have for years effectively kept their constituents safe — including during periods of public protest.
  • June 17, 2025:  A hearing is held in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to determine whether the temporary stay of the lower court’s decision will continue while the case is pending.