Under federal law, it’s appropriate for President Trump to ensure federal officials are able to discharge their duties effectively and safely. In the case of immigration enforcement, this includes assuring that ICE agents are not obstructed from carrying out their jobs. Agents also need to be protected from harm due to unlawful conduct.  In addition, it’s proper for the president to protect federal facilities from vandalism and destruction. Finally, in consultation with state governors, it’s proper to call in the National Guard when, “the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”

While it’s proper for President Trump to take the actions specified above, we should be concerned if he (or any other president) uses immigration enforcement as a pretext to attack political rivals and pursue a partisan agenda.  In the short run we might be tempted to support a president we like attacking a politicians we dislike. But in the long run, we know it’s just a matter of time before a president we dislike will unjustly attack officials we support. In the long run, focusing on the merits of the situation is not only in the best interests of the country, but also our own best interests..

The trouble is that it’s often difficult to tell whether a president is acting on the merits or playing politics. They can say and do all the right things to lead us to believe their intentions are honorable. Only through analysis, and only by examining all of the evidence, can we discern actual motives.

Thus, for instance, before a president calls in the National Guard, there should be evidence that local and state law enforcement personnel were overwhelmed and that their response was insufficient. We should also evaluate the extent to which local law enforcement personnel were given meaningful opportunity to restore order, protect life and property, and enable ICE agents to carry out their legitimate functions.  And, more broadly, we should scrutinize the president’s actual words and actions to assess what they tell us regarding motives.

In this article I examine the evidence.  I start with ICE enforcement and the protests in Los Angeles in early June.  I then move to subsequent statements and actions taken by the president and members of his Administration.  Let me share what I found.

Trump preemptively called in the National Guard at a time when there was little evidence that the situation was out of control and before local and state law enforcement had a realitic opportunity to respond.

It wasn’t until around 3 pm on Friday, June 6, that crowds began gathering in the Fashion District (see map below) in Los Angeles to protest and hinder ICE agents in making arrests.  By 6 pm there were large groups of protestors outside the nearby Edward R. Roybal Federal Building (see map).  An ABC News report noted, “Video footage shows protesters vandalizing the building, heckling police and throwing bottles and other objects at officers who used shields to protect efforts.”

The Los Angeles Police Department said it responded to a request for assistance from federal authorities at around 6:30 p.m. and arrived at the scene within 55 minutes. The department said its response time was impacted by “significant traffic congestion, the presence of demonstrators, and, notably, by the fact that federal agents had deployed irritants into the crowd prior to LAPD’s arrival.”

For the next three hours local law enforcement exerted extensive efforts to get the situation under control.  An unlawful assembly was declared, and protestors were directed to leave. By 8 pm police blocked the path to the detention center and the Roybal Federal Building.  While these buildings were secure, there were incidents of violence and property damage in the surrounding area. 

At 10:23 pm Friday night, President Trump and Governor Newsom had a 16-minute phone call.  The parties dispute the contents of this call. 

The next morning (Saturday), around 10 am, protestors gathered at a Home Depot in Paramount (see map), an LA suburb.  Protestors were ordered to disperse, and deputies used flash bangs and tear gas to clear the area.  A protest also broke out in Compton around the same time.  There were incidents of vandalism, including a car being sent on fire. There were no incidents where ICE agents were hindered in performing their functions; and there were no new incidents of damage to federal property.

About 5 hours later, at 3 pm (6 pm EST) on Saturday, President Trump signed a Memorandum authorizing the deployment of National Guard troops.  The stated purpose was to,  “temporarily protect ICE and other United States Government personnel who are performing Federal functions, including the enforcement of Federal law, and to protect Federal property, at locations where protests against these functions are occurring or are likely to occur based on current threat assessments and planned operations.”

The troops began arriving in Los Angeles around 4 am on Sunday morning, June 8.  In accordance with law, they did not have the authority to make arrests. They were there to protect federal employees and property, with the ability to detain protesters, but not make arrests.

Thus, at the time Trump called in the National Guard, it had only been 24 hours since the first acts of hindering ICE agents and vandalizing federal property. Local law enforcement had largely established control.  Protests, violence, and vandalism were restricted to very limited communities in the greater Los Angeles area. While there was some damage to federal facilities in the early going, the situation was almost entirely under control by the time the first National Guard troops arrived on Sunday morning, June 8. Importantly, while there were some continuing acts of violence and vandalism by protestors, it wasn’t being directed at federal employees or federal facilities. Such violence and vandalism was the responsibility of local law enforcement, not the National Guard.

This is not to argue Trump broke the law by calling in the National Guard.  Indeed, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently validated his action.  It said that courts should be highly deferential towards presidents and held, “we conclude that it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority.”

But just because Trump likely acted lawfully in activating the National Guard doesn’t mean he didn’t have political motives in taking this action.  It’s not illegal for a president to pursue political ends and a partisan agenda.  And, again, we need to look at all the evidence before we reach a conclusion on this matter.

Trump’s statements regarding the situation in Los Angeles and the need for the National Guard reveal a political agenda rather than a need to ensure the enforcement of immigration law and protect federal employees and facilities.

Trump’s statements on Truth Social speak volumes.  Here are just a few:

In these posts Trump criticizes Governor Newsom and Mayor Bass for a slow response in dealing with the January wildfires and permitting for new homes.  This is an unrelated matter. He brands them as incompetent.  While he sent in the National Guard and Marines to protect federal employees and property, and while these personnel have no authority to arrest protestors, he tells us they quelled an insurrection and prevented LA from being burned to the ground.  He claims that his actions protected all LA citizens and “liberated” a city that was overrun by “illegal aliens and criminals.”  

Incredibly, his Truth Social post of June 7 (Saturday) at 11:41 pm (EST) congratulates the National Guard for a job well done when, in fact, the troops didn’t even arrive in Los Angeles until 4 am (PST) on Sunday, June 8.

Moreover, the National Guard simply protected federal employees and property, and had no authority to arrest migrants. The “insurrection” led by “illegal aliens and criminals” harkens back to partisan narratives Trump repeatedly used on the campaign trail.  In fact, there is no evidence to support the conclusion that the vast majority of protestors were illegal and/or criminal. Instead, a review of all the footage of the protests indicates that most participated in a lawful and peaceful manner. 

More recent statements by President Trump and his team clearly indicate an agenda to attack and blame Democrats for a variety of problems—almost always without evidence—instead of evenhandedly enforcing immigration laws and the Administration’s policies.

Early into a press conference on Thursday, June 12, Kristi Noem, Secretary of Homeland Security said:   

“We are not going away. We are staying here to liberate the city from the socialists and the burdensome leadership that this governor and that this mayor have placed on this country and what they have tried to insert into the city.”

Kristi Noem, Secretary of Homeland Security

This is clearly a political statement condemning “socialists” and “burdensome leadership” rather than addressing the enforcement of immigration laws and policies. The Trump Administration has neither the authority nor the responsibility to “liberate” citizens from “socialist” or “burdensome” leadership.”  The notion that federal personnel and the National Guard will maintain a presence in LA until socialists and burdensome leaders are neutralized is outright authoritarian.

Even more damaging and blatantly political is a Truth Social post by Trump on June 15. Let me quote a key portion of what he said regarding the need for the largest mass deportation in American history:

“In order to achieve this, we must expand efforts to detain and deport Illegal Aliens in America’s largest Cities, such as Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York, where Millions upon Millions of Illegal Aliens reside. These, and other such Cities, are the core of the Democrat Power Center, where they use Illegal Aliens to expand their Voter Base, cheat in Elections, and grow the Welfare State, robbing good paying Jobs and Benefits from Hardworking American Citizens. These Radical Left Democrats are sick of mind, hate our Country, and actually want to destroy our Inner Cities — And they are doing a good job of it! There is something wrong with them. That is why they believe in Open Borders, Transgender for Everybody, and Men playing in Women’s Sports — And that is why I want ICE, Border Patrol, and our Great and Patriotic Law Enforcement Officers, to FOCUS on our crime ridden and deadly Inner Cities, and those places where Sanctuary Cities play such a big role. You don’t hear about Sanctuary Cities in our Heartland!”

President Donald Trump on Truth Social, June 15, 2025

Clearly, the President is attacking and blaming Democrat-run cities for a host of problems unrelated to the enforcement of immigration laws. The Democrats are “sick of mind”, want “transgender for everybody”,  they “hate our country”, they “want to destroy inner cities”, and “there is something wrong with them.”   Moreover, the President condemns Democrats for offences that haven’t been proven.  It has not been shown that undocumented migrants vote in significant numbers.  It has not been shown that Democrats cheat in elections.  And it has not been shown that undocumented immigrants rob good paying jobs from American citizens.

While there is crime in large American cities, it is trending down in recent years.  And large Republican-run cities like Indianapolis and Tulsa are among the 20 most violent cities in America.   

Clearly, the President’s words are designed to stoke his MAGA base.  He blames and villainizes Democrats for just about everything under the sun.  He does this to justify singling out Democrat run cities in his quest for mass deportations.  But in the big picture he is attacking and blaming his political opponents.  He sells mass deportations by arguing that those being removed are mostly criminals who have been co-opted by Democrats.

Despite Trump’s efforts to vilify undocumented immigrants and blame Democrats for problems, public support for Trump’s immigration policies is eroding.

In an EconomistYouGov poll February 2-4, 2025, 51% of respondents approved of Trump’s handling of illegal immigration, while 40% disapproved.  In the most recent EconomistYouGov poll of June 13-16, only 44% of respondents approved of Trump’s handling of illegal immigration, while 52% disapproved.  A June 17 Pew Research Center report found 42% approved of Trump’s handling of immigration, while 47% disapproved.

In an EconomistYouGov poll January 26-28, 2025, 50% strongly or somewhat supported arresting and deporting millions of illegal immigrants, while 40% strongly or somewhat opposed mass deportations.  By June 6-9 support for mass deportations had eroded and respondents instead focused on the reason for deportation.   The chart below breaks it down:

As you can see, the vast majority of US citizens think people who have committed violent crimes should be deported.  As to people who have committed non-violent crimes, 75% of Republicans support deportation, while less than 50% of US citizens say nonviolent criminals should be deported.  As to those who have lived in the US for many years without committing crimes, and people who came to the US as children (“Dreamers”), not even a majority of Republicans support deportation.  Only about 25% of US citizens support deporting such individuals.

An EconomistYouGov poll of June 13-16 found that 41% approved of Trump’s handling of the ICE protests in LA, while 48% disapproved.  60% believed that state and local authorities should take the lead in responding to the protests in LA, while only 25% thought the federal government should take the lead. 

Finally, there’s a large partisan difference when it comes to approving or disapproving a president sending in National Guard troops over the objections of a state governor. As seen below, 82% of Republicans approve of a president taking such action, while 84% of Democrats and 54% of Independents disapprove of a president sending in the National Guard over objections from a governor.

Conclusion:  By making immigration enforcement a highly partisan matter, President Trump is reinforcing his MAGA/Republican base; but he is losing support from the rest of Americans and not acting in the best interests of the country.

If President Trump had called Governor Newsom and tried to work cooperatively, the outcome could have been very different.  The President has legitimate concerns about ICE agents not being interfered with in carrying out their duties.  Their safety is also a legitimate concern, as is the concern for federal facilities. If Trump and Newsom reached some sort of consensus on the need for the National Guard and the timing, public opinion regarding the situation in LA would likely have been much more favorable towards Trump. 

Unfortunately, the President is hard-wired to be divisive and blaming. He must be seen as totally in control.  Ironically, he shoots himself in the foot with the majority of Americans when he behaves in this manner.  Slowly but surely, his credibility is being called into question.  Slowly but surely, the majority support he once enjoyed regarding immigration is eroding. 

The country also loses when the politics of blame and division have a dominant effect on presidential actions. The American people don’t seem to think we need mass deportations except when it comes to violent criminals. They want to see the border secured, and they don’t want to see the economy collapse if vast numbers of otherwise law-abiding migrants disappear from the workforce. 

America would be better served if we worked on these areas of common ground. Trump won’t succeed in forcing his will on policies that are opposed or being questioned by majorities of Americans. He is losing ground in this endeavor and only further dividing the country.