Trump faces bipartisan backlash over LA troop deployment as protests and political tensions escalate.

Lawmakers Clash Over Federal Response to LA Unrest

President Donald Trump’s decision to deploy National Guard troops to Los Angeles has ignited sharp debate among lawmakers as protests over immigration enforcement spiral into civil unrest. The federal mobilization marks the first unilateral deployment of the Guard without a governor’s request in over six decades.

Anti-ICE demonstrations erupted in downtown LA last weekend, leading to widespread riots and property damage. In response, the Trump administration ordered thousands of National Guard soldiers and Marines into the city to restore order. The move has triggered contrasting reactions along party lines, as Republicans blame local policies and Democrats denounce the federal escalation.

“The riots that we are seeing in LA are a direct reflection of sanctuary city policies,” said Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., criticizing California’s stance on immigration. Echoing her concern, Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., warned that anti-ICE rhetoric “is going to get somebody killed.”

Democrats, however, squarely blamed the administration for the chaos. “The Trump administration owns this,” stated Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. She accused President Trump and White House advisor Stephen Miller of deliberately provoking unrest through aggressive immigration raids. “This administration is intentionally creating chaos,” she added.

California Governor Gavin Newsom, a vocal critic of the deployment and rumored 2028 presidential hopeful, has led the legal and political resistance. A federal judge initially ruled that Trump must return command of the California National Guard to Newsom, but an appeals court swiftly stayed the order, allowing the deployment to continue.

Further fueling tensions, Senator Alex Padilla, D-Calif., was forcibly removed and handcuffed after confronting Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem at a press conference. Republicans criticized Padilla’s actions while Democrats condemned what they described as a heavy-handed federal response.

Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., framed the protests not as anti-ICE but as a defense of constitutional rights. “It’s pro-constitutional rights, pro-due process,” she said. Tlaib emphasized longstanding concerns from immigrant communities about ICE’s conduct since its formation in 2003.

The White House defended the president’s authority to mobilize federal troops. “The district court has no authority to usurp the President's authority as Commander in Chief,” said spokesperson Anna Kelly. “The President exercised his lawful authority to mobilize the National Guard to protect federal buildings and personnel in Gavin Newsom’s lawless Los Angeles.”

This marks the first such federal military action since the 1965 Selma to Montgomery civil rights march, raising profound legal and political questions about the limits of executive power in domestic affairs. With the court battle ongoing and protests spreading, the implications for federal-state relations and the 2028 political landscape remain uncertain.