Trump to deploy National Guard in response to Los Angeles immigration protests

Good. Spending more time stopping that and less time grabbing random people off the street.

 

As I stated earlier in the thread, now is the time to reach a gentlemen’s agreement. The Governor got his victory in the district. The President got his victory on appeal. Let’s not push the matter to the Supreme Court. Let these two men (for the love of all that is sacred and holy) reach a deal where the Guard is returned to Title-32 control, the Governor agrees to use them to protect federal property and reinforce law enforcement as necessary, and the federal government pays for the deployment.

 

It's a logical compromise and will probably never happen because both sides (Newsom and Trump) would prefer to continue politicizing the issue.

 

Sadly agree

 

When you have it revealed that Mayor Karen Bass took command and control of the LA police to delay an emergency call from ICE as they were being attacked by rioters for 2 hours, you should know a compromise is not possible in the State of Californication.

The appeals court of 3, 2 pubs and 1 dem, was unanimous. The Commander in Chief is President Trump, not Governor Newsome.

Take it to the full court of 9 and it would likely be unanimous. Take it to SCOTUS and it would likely be unanimous.

The Commander in Chief of the US cannot be challenged by any state authority. No, there is no logical compromise.

 

Meanwhile, Portland riots attacking ICE facility on Wednesday night:



ICE won this battle, but it's just a matter of time before live ammunition is being used by both sides.

Can't say the democrats won't do anything to continue their rioting and anti-American messaging. After all, it was the democrats that started the Civil War. Don't think it can't happen, think again.

What the democrats are calling for is insurrection and their anarchists are responding to the call. I want to know why just 5 were arrested.

 

Even if true (the LAPD disputes some of the facts of what you are asserting there), I don't think this is relevant to the case at hand. What is relevant is the law as written and precedent. The laws that created the National Guard and govern its use under Titles 10 and 32 of U.S. code, dating back to 1903, are pretty clear that the governors of the states and territories are commanders-in-chief under normal circumstances but that presidents can take operational control more at less at their pleasure. There are norms and manners that accompany how that happens but not law. And the precedents all align that whenever there is a dispute on command and control between governors and presidents, presidents win every time.

You may be right that a compromise is impossible because of the nature of these two men. I hope not but fear so. Such a compromise would be in the interest of all concerned. The Governor has made his point. The President has made his. There is a shared interest in restoring order while not having an open political dispute between civilian leaders. There is, in my opinion, a clear need for military assistance in some parts of California, but the military's role needs to be depoliticized in order to be effective at helping achieve the calm.

 

No shared interest and no shared goals.

I heard the Chief of the LA Police say the police were overwhelmed. Whether he made a call for help is irrelevant.

On Friday night, President Trump made a 13-minute call with Governor Newsome the content of which was either you take care of this, or I will. Newsome failed/refused to act so Trump took the action that had to be done. Yes, it had to be done.

Again, President Trump is Commander in Chief with full rights to call up any state national guard when and if needed. Newsome's lawsuit was DOA except for the rogue federal district judge that forced this to go forward in the courts.

With what is going on in Portland, the Oregon national guard is next to be called up.

 

Well, to say they have no shared interest or goals is not accurate. To say that neither recognizes their shared interest or goals is more accurate. Personally, I still hold out forlorn hope that the Governor will gracefully back down from his position before this goes to SCOTUS (and, yes, you are 100% correct; the President will win at SCOTUS, though, I think unanimous is too high a bar), and the President will graciously grant the Governor a face-saving out. I don't want to see this unrest get any worse than it has to. The military needs to be depoliticized.

 

Poster ignores realty when it doesn't serve his narrative.

• LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell denied requesting the National Guard, contradicting statements made by President Donald Trump. He stated that the department was "nowhere near" the point of needing National Guard assistance and that the LAPD would first exhaust its internal resources, then seek mutual aid from other law enforcement agencies in Southern California before requesting the National Guard through the Sheriff.
• McDonnell further stated that he did not support the deployment of the National Guard as he didn't believe the situation warranted it.
• He expressed concern about the deployment of federal military forces to Los Angeles without clear coordination, saying it presents significant logistical and operational challenges.

Regarding resources to combat crime:

• He also mentioned that the LAPD utilizes its own resources to address issues on the streets and can request mutual aid from other law enforcement agencies when needed.
• Former LAPD Chief Michael Moore, who retired in 2024, argued against the use of federal troops to address civil unrest, stating that the LAPD and its partners have a robust emergency management system and mutual aid plan to address such situations.

• LA police not told of Marines' deployment to protests - Axios
• Jun 9, 2025 — Zoom in: LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell said in response to the announcement that the department had received "no formal notification" about the Marines' arrival in LA.

 

Even if that were the whole truth, that's the part the Governor is going to have to set aside in order to move forward. Again, both men are going to have to compromise like adults to get this thing back on the tracks. Both of them going, "Well, he started it!" and riling up their bases does not get anything done here.

 

I would add that I saw an interview with Chief McDonnell in which he made all of those points. Another factor to keep in mind is that although Mayor Karen Bass appointed him to his position he has expressed disagreement with her on occasion in the past so it wasn't just a case of him taking his position with respect to deployment of the National Guard just to please to her or Gov. Newsom.

 

No, the democrats are inciting insurrection. Further escalation and spilled blood will be on their hands. President Trump won't compromise on his mission and what he elected to do. To think otherwise is a fantasy.

 

Sad that this poster is so removed from reality that he believes this tripe. No the Democrats are not inciting insurrection. Step back you embarrass yourself.

 

LOL! 80-20 issue and I'm wrong.

 

Well, let me ask you this. Is an insurrection, by whatever term we use for it, what you want? Because a failure to compromise might be the best way to achieve it if that is your desired end. Speaking for self, what I want is for the cooler heads to prevail and to remove fuel, oxygen, and heat from the extremists at both ends. The only real winners if this thing blows up into full force on force are China and Russia.

 

The question should be directed to those fomenting insurrection.

 

As someone who lives here and is an investor in a business half a mile from the protests, let me tell you, it did NOT have to be done. In fact, it made the whole damn situation a hell of a lot worse and really hurt small businesses in the area already reeling from the Covid downturn and a general depression in the downtown area.

LAPD had this well under control and bringing in the Guard and Marines did nothing but make the whole situation worse, not better (which, cynically, is exactly what 47 wanted)

 

Since I very clearly indicated that the extremists on both ends are the problem and compromise is the solution, you may correctly infer that the question is also directed the people you accuse of fomenting insurrection.