Trump’s National Guard Deployment in L.A.: Speaker Johnson’s Full-Throated Defense Ignites Debate

June 8, 2025 | Boncopia.com | News & Politics: U.S. News & Politics

Los Angeles is a city under siege—not just from protests over aggressive immigration raids, but from a national political firestorm. On June 8, 2025, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) unequivocally backed President Donald Trump’s decision to deploy 2,000 California National Guard troops to L.A., declaring on ABC’s This Week that Trump did “exactly what he needed to do” to restore order. The move, sparked by violent clashes following Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids, has deepened divides between federal and local leaders, with California Gov. Gavin Newsom slamming it as “purposefully inflammatory.” As L.A. braces for more unrest, Johnson’s defense of Trump’s authority raises urgent questions about federal power, local economies, and the future of immigration policy. Here’s what’s at stake and why it matters.

The Flashpoint: ICE Raids and Protests Turn Violent

On June 6, 2025, ICE launched sweeping raids across Los Angeles, targeting workplaces like Home Depot parking lots, a clothing warehouse, and a doughnut shop, arresting 118 people for alleged immigration violations. The raids, part of Trump’s 2025 push for 3,000 daily arrests nationwide, included legally residing immigrants, fueling outrage. Protests erupted outside the Metropolitan Detention Center in downtown L.A., with crowds chanting “Free them all!” and some defacing federal property.

By Saturday, June 7, demonstrations in Paramount and Compton turned violent, with protesters burning cars, throwing Molotov cocktails, and clashing with federal agents. Videos showed tear gas and flash-bang grenades lighting up the night, with two deputies injured and 20 arrests in Paramount alone. The chaos prompted Trump to federalize 2,000 National Guard troops under Title 10, bypassing Newsom’s authority—a rare move not seen since the 1992 L.A. riots. The first 300 troops arrived Sunday, June 8, staging at federal buildings like the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building.

Johnson’s Defense: “Real Leadership”

Appearing on ABC’s This Week with Jonathan Karl, Speaker Johnson defended Trump’s deployment as a necessary response to “lawlessness.” “I think the president did exactly what he needed to do,” Johnson said. “These are federal laws, and we have to maintain the rule of law. [Newsom] has shown an inability or unwillingness to do what is necessary.” He framed Trump’s action as a duty, stating, “That is real leadership, and he has the authority and the responsibility to do it.”

Johnson also supported Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s threat to mobilize active-duty Marines from Camp Pendleton if violence persists, calling it a “deterring effect” rather than heavy-handed. “We have to be prepared to do what is necessary,” he told Karl, invoking “peace through strength” as a guiding principle. This stance aligns Johnson with Trump’s hardline agenda, cementing his role as a loyal ally after securing the speakership in January 2025 with Trump’s last-minute intervention.

California’s Pushback: A Clash of Powers

California’s Democratic leaders have fiercely opposed the deployment. Gov. Newsom called it “purposefully inflammatory,” arguing that the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and Sheriff’s Department were managing the situation, with only 11 arrests for failure to disperse reported by Sunday. “The federal government is sowing chaos so they can have an excuse to escalate,” Newsom posted on X, urging protesters to remain peaceful.

Mayor Karen Bass echoed this, labeling the deployment “completely unnecessary” and warning it could “escalate tensions.” She clarified on X that no Guard troops were in the city proper as of early Sunday, despite Trump’s claim of a “great job” on Truth Social. Rep. Maxine Waters confronted troops outside the Metropolitan Detention Center, demanding, “Who are you going to shoot?” The U.S. Northern Command confirmed only 300 troops were deployed, far fewer than the 2,000 announced, raising questions about the operation’s scope.

The 287(g) Factor: Local Police as ICE Agents

A key driver of the unrest is the 287(g) program, which allows local law enforcement to enforce immigration laws. In 2025, ICE expanded to 649 agreements nationwide, including 315 Task Force Model (TFM) agreements that permit officers to detain suspected immigrants during routine duties. In L.A. County, these agreements, though not adopted by the LAPD due to sanctuary policies, have led to increased patrols in nearby areas, intensifying community fear. The TFM’s revival has been criticized for enabling racial profiling, with a 2018 Texas A&M study showing Hispanic drivers were stopped more often in 287(g) jurisdictions.

This program amplifies economic and social strain. Immigrants, fearing detention, avoid public spaces, reducing consumer spending in areas like the Fashion District. Businesses face labor shortages, particularly in construction and hospitality, where immigrants fill critical roles. The raids’ disruption of workplaces, like Ambiance Apparel, has left employers struggling, with potential cost increases for consumers.

Economic Fallout: L.A.’s Immigrant-Dependent Economy

Los Angeles’ economy, with a GDP of $1.2 trillion, relies heavily on its 34% foreign-born population. Immigrants contribute billions in spending power and fill 70% of new jobs in sectors like construction, retail, and hospitality. The June raids have triggered labor shortages, with businesses reporting fewer workers willing to show up. A 2017 National Academy of Sciences report highlights immigrants’ role in fueling growth, and their removal could raise prices for goods and services.

Consumer spending has plummeted in immigrant-heavy neighborhoods like Paramount, where protests disrupted commerce. Small businesses, such as Latino-owned groceries, report declining sales as fear keeps customers away. The 287(g) program’s expansion erodes trust, deterring crime reporting and potentially increasing unreported crimes, which could destabilize commercial areas. Long-term, deportations risk economic contraction, with the Peterson Institute estimating that removing 8.3 million unauthorized workers could stagnate U.S. GDP growth.

Johnson’s Political Calculus

Johnson’s staunch support for Trump reflects his precarious position as speaker. Elected on January 3, 2025, after a tense vote where Trump’s calls swayed defectors like Reps. Ralph Norman and Keith Self, Johnson has aligned closely with the president’s agenda. His defense of the National Guard deployment and potential Marine mobilization signals loyalty to Trump’s base, particularly on immigration, a key GOP priority.

However, this risks alienating moderates and urban voters. Johnson’s dismissal of California’s concerns as Newsom’s “inability” to govern ignores local leaders’ claims that protests were largely peaceful before federal escalation. His rhetoric also sidesteps the economic toll, focusing instead on “rule of law.” Posts on X show mixed sentiment:@SpeakerJohnson praised Trump’s decisiveness, while@kyblueblood called the deployment a “declaration of war on L.A.”

Legal and Ethical Questions

Trump’s use of Title 10 to federalize the National Guard, bypassing Newsom, is legal under 10 U.S.C. § 12406, which allows the president to deploy troops to protect federal functions like ICE operations. However, it raises ethical concerns about militarizing civilian protests. The Posse Comitatus Act limits federal troops in domestic law enforcement, making Hegseth’s Marine threat legally contentious. Critics, including Sen. Bernie Sanders, warn of “authoritarianism,” while supporters like Sen. James Lankford see it as de-escalation.

The 287(g) program’s expansion further complicates matters. By deputizing local officers, it blurs lines between local and federal roles, undermining L.A.’s sanctuary status. A 2011 Migration Policy Institute report found lower crime reporting in 287(g) areas, suggesting public safety trade-offs. The program’s costs—borne by local agencies—could strain L.A. County’s budget, potentially raising taxes or cutting services.

The Bigger Picture

The L.A. unrest is a microcosm of America’s immigration divide. Trump’s policies, including revoking DACA and TPS, aim for mass deportations, with 100,000 arrests in his first 100 days. Johnson’s backing reinforces this agenda, prioritizing enforcement over economic and humanitarian concerns. However, 6 in 10 Americans oppose arrests in sensitive locations like schools, per recent polls, suggesting public pushback.

For L.A., the stakes are high. The city’s recovery from January 2025 wildfires, which killed 29, depends on immigrant labor for rebuilding. Continued raids could delay projects, increase costs, and deepen economic woes. Protests are set to continue, with organizers planning rallies at City Hall, while ICE vows 30 days of enforcement.

Why This Matters to You

Johnson’s defense of Trump’s National Guard deployment isn’t just about L.A.—it’s about the future of federal power, local economies, and community trust. For Angelenos, it means higher prices, labor shortages, and fear in immigrant neighborhoods. For the nation, it’s a test of how far enforcement can go before economic and social costs outweigh benefits. As the 2025 mayoral race looms and protests persist, L.A. is ground zero for a defining American debate.

Thought Questions:

1. Does Speaker Johnson’s support for Trump’s National Guard deployment reflect a necessary stand for law enforcement, or does it overlook the economic and social costs to Los Angeles?

2. How can L.A.’s local leaders balance sanctuary policies with federal pressure while minimizing economic disruption from ICE raids and 287(g) agreements?

3. With public opinion opposing aggressive immigration tactics, what role should Congress play in addressing the economic fallout of mass deportations?

Sources: Information compiled from ABC News, CNN, NBC News, The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, AP News, ICE.gov, American Immigration Council, Peterson Institute of International Economics, and posts on X, accessed June 8, 2025.