Militarized Response to California Riots Seeks To Expand Federal Power
Militarized riot approach sets the nation on a dangerous course.
One of the dumbest memes I've seen recently shows a photo of a Los Angeles rioter waving a Mexican flag with the tagline, "California 2025." Underneath that image is a photo of young, wholesome folks leaning against a Mustang with their surfboards at a Southern California beach with the words, "California 1965." It's absurd for various reasons, but it's laughable that the meme picks 1965 for the comparison.
That's the same year as the "Watts Rebellion" or "Watts Riots." (The differing titles are a testament to the ongoing culture-war battle over the use of language.) Sparked by frustrations about police brutality and discrimination after the arrest of an African-American man, the riots (yes, they were riots) claimed 34 lives, more than 1,000 injuries, and $40 million in property damage. State and federal officials called in the National Guard.
Seemingly contradictory things can be true at the same time. The Los Angeles mayhem is inexcusable. If those protesting against ICE wanted to sway opinion, they shouldn't be waving the flags of other countries. They should protest peacefully. But the heavy-handed nature of the ICE raids threw fuel on the fire—and the administration has used the crisis to vastly expand its power.
There's a curfew in the small, affected part of LA. Obviously, the authorities must quash civil unrest. How they do so is important. This is the first time since 1965—that supposedly tranquil year—that a president called out the National Guard without approval of the governor. Lyndon Johnson had good reason: to protect Selma-to-Montgomery marchers, given that Alabama's segregationist leaders couldn't be expected to protect them.
It takes unusually bad federal policy for me to quote Gov. Gavin Newsom approvingly, but he was spot on. He called it a "serious breach of state sovereignty." Apparently, Republicans no longer believe in federalism, but at least they've once again opposed riots and attacks on law enforcement—a principle many abandoned when it came to the January 6 Capitol riot.
Conservatives have complained for years about unchecked federal power and often cite the Posse Comitatus Act limiting the use of the federal military on U.S. soil. Yet they've mostly been supportive—often boisterously so—of the president's recent mobilization order to send the Marines to Los Angeles. (They also rightly defend the Second Amendment, forgetting that the impetus for it was the founders' concern about standing armies.)
Per the order, "To carry out this mission, the deployed military personnel may perform those military protective activities that the Secretary of Defense determines are reasonably necessary." The order is remarkably open-ended, apparently allowing the feds to send military personnel anywhere for any reason. It follows Donald Trump's template: declare an "invasion" and then it's fair game to ignore the usual constitutional limits, such as due process.
The ICE raids were problematic. Trump claimed the immigration crackdown was designed to remove violent criminals, but agents—often wearing face coverings, which is reminiscent of the garb of security forces in third-world police states—have swarmed over small businesses, farms, restaurants, and factories. Just as police brutality sparked the Watts riots, masked abductions by ICE agents and militarized raids sparked the recent ones in LA. That doesn't excuse violence, but it's not an unexpected end result.
It's a dangerous precedent to deploy the military in civilian operations. It's deeply disturbing, coupled with other recent events. While speaking at Fort Bragg in North Carolina recently, "Trump unleashed a speech laced with partisan invective, goading jeers from a crowd of soldiers positioned behind his podium—blurring the long-standing and sacrosanct line between the military and partisan politics," reported Military.com. The publication adds that the attending soldiers were first "checked for allegiance, appearance."
Then there's the planned $35-million military parade celebrating the Army's 250th anniversary—and coincidentally scheduled for the Dear Leader's birthday. As the Associated Press reported, this isn't the first time the United States has had a big military parade, but it is "unusual outside of wartime, and Trump's approach stands out." The costs are eye-popping and critics fear "Trump is blurring traditional understandings of what it means to be a civilian commander in chief." It reminds me of Soviet May Day affairs.
Another appalling event: Sen. Alex Padilla (D–Calif.) was forcibly hauled away as he tried to ask questions of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem during a Los Angeles press conference. This is next-level thuggery. In free societies, citizens—and certainly senators—have every right to question federal leaders. If the administration were trying to calm down the situation, then they wouldn't manhandle elected officials who represent the area. They'd politely answer their questions.
The main parallel between 1965 and 2025 is that they are tumultuous years. Sixty years ago the nation largely moved in a positive direction to address the festering problems that sparked the Watts riots. I'm feeling less confident about where the country goes from here.
This column was first published in The Orange County Register.
