Showdown in La-La Land: How Los Angeles riots challenge American federalism

The Los Angeles episode may be less about law and order and more about a deepening redefinition of American federalism in the 21st century read more
Just when the public and messy end of the Trump-Musk bromance seemed to be making prime news, mass street protests against immigration raids and the mass deportation plan of the Trump administration are now occupying new airwaves from one of America's largest and wealthiest cities, Los Angeles (LA). This city, otherwise known all over the world for the glitz and glamour of Hollywood, is in the news all over the world, with sights of deserted streets, rows of law enforcement officials ready to confront street protestors and burnt-down self-driving cars.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
How did these all start? Hundreds of protestors have been thronging the LA streets, contesting the immigration raids carried out by the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a federal law enforcement agency under the Department of Homeland Security. President Trump's hard-core political message on illegal immigration was well known since his first term, but in his second innings, with a stronger electoral mandate, with the Republican Party in control of the US Congress, and with a team ideologically aligned to him, immigration crackdowns and deportations have occupied centre stage. With Stephen Miller, Deputy Chief of Staff at the White House, at the helm of affairs, a showdown between federal executive decisions and responses from states, particularly governed by the Democratic Party, was imminent.
Much of the politically divisive issues in American politics, from gun control, healthcare, and race relations to immigration, carry the quintessential 'federal government vs state government' tussle. The power arrangement between the federal and the state governments, the interpretation of constitutional law through changing times, and the role of American courts are at the heart of the political elbowing between the Trump team and the Californian government, with Governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass as major protagonists. At one level, this reflects a classic tug-of-war between the federal executive's national security prerogatives and a state's constitutional right to manage its own internal affairs. On the other hand, it is an attempt by President Trump to reshape the narrative in which federal strength, personal leadership, and political gamesmanship all converge.
In the Hollywood movie Joker, Arthur Fleck, before turning into the iconic character 'Joker', asks his psychiatrist, 'Is it just me, or is it getting crazier out there?' So, why is it getting 'crazier' in Los Angeles? What was the threshold that drove this political confrontation down this path? Is there a real constitutional law and order crisis there, since President Trump himself and his team members have often described the scenes there using words such as 'rebellion', 'insurrection' and 'anarchy'?
President Trump is yet to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1792 but has warned of using it. This incident spotlights the blurred lines between federal assistance and federal intrusion. While the Insurrection Act does permit the President to deploy troops under certain conditions, its application in politically charged domestic unrest raises questions about motive, legitimacy, and proportionality.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
So, the showdown in the 'La-la-Land', or the 'Tinsel Town' of America, erupted primarily as a clash on the question of legality over President Trump's decision to deploy the US National Guard troops (the deployment numbers have reportedly increased over the days), without consulting the state of California. In addition, the Trump administration also mobilised 700 Marines. Did the protests in Los Angeles merit such a response from the federal government, or was it an over-reaction to a situation that could be handled at the state level, avoiding such a federal vs state confrontation? The Trump team, obviously, thinks such a response was warranted to allow the ICE agency to carry out federal law enforcement without interference. The Californian authorities think otherwise and blame Trump for making a mountain out of a molehill and sued the Trump administration over the case.
A number of provisions from the US federal law have been cited and counter-cited from both sides that direct the use of National Guards and the US military in state law enforcement. Keeping the details aside, it really boils down to how the situation in the LA streets is interpreted. Is it a 'rebellion', 'insurrection', or 'invasion', or none of the above? Are the National Guards and Marines only there to protect agents of the ICE who are carrying out immigration raids? Is their mere presence, nonetheless, adding fuel to the fire in this case?
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Although there have been different cases of National Guards being used in contemporary presidencies, like President Lyndon B Johnson using them against a segregationist governor in Alabama during the Civil Rights movement, or President Richard Nixon calling upon them to deliver mail during the 1970 Postal Strike. However, none of these cases resembles the situation that the United States faces this time in Los Angeles.
The President's move to send in federal troops — reportedly without a clear request or consent from the state — has been seen by many as an overreach, challenging the spirit of cooperative federalism that underpins the US Constitution. Governor Gavin Newsom's resistance underscores the state's insistence on autonomy in policing and maintaining civil order, especially in a politically sensitive environment.
More broadly, it reflects a growing trend of partisan federalism — where the federal-state relationship is shaped less by institutional boundaries and more by ideological divides. In a deeply polarised America, such flashpoints in LA are not isolated. They serve as harbingers of a fractured federal consensus, where states increasingly assert their independence — whether on immigration, climate policy, or public order — even as the federal government pushes for national uniformity.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The Los Angeles episode may thus be less about law and order and more about a deepening redefinition of American federalism in the 21st century.
Shishir Priyadarshi is President at Chintan Research Foundation (CRF), New Delhi. Monish Tourangbam is Senior Research Consultant at Chintan Research Foundation. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Hindustan Times

26 minutes ago

• Hindustan Times

Mahmoud Khalil ICE detention case: Federal judge orders release of Columbia protester

NEW YORK (AP) — A federal judge on Friday ordered the U.S. government to free former Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil from the immigration detention center where he has been held since early March while the Trump administration sought to deport him over his role in pro-Palestinian protests. Federal judge has ordered the release of Columbia protester Mahmoud Khalil.(REUTERS) Ruling from the bench in New Jersey, U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz said it would be 'highly, highly unusual" for the government to continue to detain a legal U.S. resident who was unlikely to flee and hadn't been accused of any violence. 'Petitioner is not a flight risk and the evidence presented is that he is not a danger to the community,' he said. 'Period, full stop.' Later in the hourlong hearing, which took place by phone, the judge said the government had 'clearly not met' the standards for detention. Khalil could walk out of the detention center in rural Louisiana by Friday evening, which is when lawyers for the Trump administration said they expect to release him. He must surrender his passport and can't travel internationally, but he will get his green card back and be given official documents permitting limited travel within the country, including New York and Michigan to visit family, New Jersey and Louisiana for court appearances and Washington to lobby Congress. Khalil was the first person arrested under President Donald Trump 's crackdown on students who joined campus protests against Israel's devastating war in Gaza. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said Khalil must be expelled from the country because his continued presence could harm American foreign policy. Farbiarz had ruled earlier that the government couldn't deport Khalil on those grounds, but gave it leeway to continue pursuing a potential deportation based on allegations that he lied on his green card application. Trump administration lawyers repeated that accusation at Friday's court hearing. It's an accusation Khalil disputes. In issuing his ruling Friday, the judge agreed with Khalil's lawyers that the protest leader was being prevented from exercising his free speech and due process rights despite no obvious reason for his continued detention. The judge noted that Khalil is now clearly a public figure. Khalil's lawyers had asked that he either be freed on bail or, at the very least, moved from Louisiana to New Jersey so he can be closer to his wife and newborn son, who are both U.S. citizens. Khalil's wife, Dr. Noor Abdalla, said she can finally 'breathe a sigh of relief' after her husband's three months in detention. 'We know this ruling does not begin to address the injustices the Trump administration has brought upon our family, and so many others,' she said in a statement provided by Khalil's lawyers. 'But today we are celebrating Mahmoud coming back to New York to be reunited with our little family.' The judge's decision comes after several other scholars targeted for their activism have been released from custody, including another former Palestinian student at Columbia, Mohsen Mahdawi; a Tufts University student, Rumeysa Ozturk; and a Georgetown University scholar, Badar Khan Suri. Khalil was detained on March 8 at his apartment building in Manhattan over his participation in pro-Palestinian demonstrations. The international affairs graduate student isn't accused of breaking any laws during the protests at Columbia. He served as a negotiator and spokesperson for student activists and wasn't among the demonstrators arrested, but his prominence in news coverage and willingness to speak publicly made him a target of critics. The Trump administration has argued that noncitizens who participate in such demonstrations should be expelled from the country as it considers their views antisemitic.

Hindustan Times

44 minutes ago

• Hindustan Times

Donald Trump hints at Israel-Iran ceasefire, warns Iran has ‘maximum' two weeks

President Donald Trump on Friday indicated he may support a ceasefire in the ongoing aerial conflict between Israel and Iran, now in its second week, but said it would depend on how events unfold. US President Donald Trump expressed doubt over Europe's ability to mediate the ongoing Israel Iran conflict.(Bloomberg) Asked by reporters if he would back a truce while diplomatic talks continue, Trump replied, "I might, depending on the circumstances." He also warned that Iran has a limited timeframe to avoid possible U.S. military action. "I'm giving them a period of time, and I would say two weeks would be the maximum," Trump said, hinting that a decision could come sooner. Trump expressed doubt over Europe's ability to mediate the conflict. "Iran doesn't want to speak to Europe. They want to speak to us. Europe is not going to be able to help in this one," he said. On the same day, Iran's foreign minister held talks with British, French, German, and EU counterparts in Geneva to discuss restarting diplomatic efforts on its nuclear program. European leaders urged Tehran to engage directly with Washington, but the discussions ended without a breakthrough. When asked whether U.S. ground troops would be required if conflict escalates, Trump said, "Well, I'm not going to talk about ground forces, because the last thing you want to do is ground forces." The Israel-Iran air war began on June 13, when Israel launched strikes on Iranian territory, claiming the goal was to stop Iran from advancing its nuclear weapons capability. Israel, which is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons, is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Iran, which insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, is a member of the NPT and responded with retaliatory strikes. According to the Human Rights Activists News Agency, Israel's attacks have killed 639 people in Iran. Meanwhile, Israel has reported 24 civilian deaths from Iranian strikes. Trump and the White House have said a decision on US involvement in the conflict will be made within two weeks. So far, Trump's stance has ranged from promoting a diplomatic resolution to signalling potential military support for Israel, leaving global observers uncertain about the US course of action. Europe joins Tehran talks as two-week clock ticks President Donald Trump on Friday dismissed the prospects of European diplomacy resolving the Israel-Iran conflict, reiterating that Iran is uninterested in engaging with European leaders. "Iran doesn't want to speak to Europe. They want to speak to us. Europe is not going to be able to help in this," Trump said upon arriving in Morristown, New Jersey. He also played down the possibility of urging Israel to pause its military actions, responding to Iran's demand that Israel cease its strikes before Tehran resumes dialogue with Washington. When asked if he would press Israel to halt attacks, Trump said it was "very hard to make that request right now," adding, "If somebody's winning, it's a little bit harder to do than if somebody's losing, but we're ready, willing and able, and we've been speaking to Iran, and we'll see what happens." Addressing the timeline for a potential US military response, Trump said, "I'm giving them a period of time, and I would say two weeks would be the maximum," explaining that the goal was to "see whether or not people come to their senses." A day earlier, Trump had said he would "make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks" because of a "substantial chance of negotiations" with Iran. That statement was interpreted as opening a short diplomatic window, prompting European leaders to meet with Iran's foreign minister in Geneva. However, Trump said the discussions "didn't help," and his latest remarks suggest he may act sooner if there's no progress on Iran's nuclear programme. (With inputs from agencies)

Time of India

an hour ago

• Time of India

Said no to Trump invite as I had to visit land of Lord Jagannath: Modi

1 2 Bhubaneswar: Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Friday finally explained the reason for declining US President Donald Trump 's recent invite for a stopover in Washington on his way back from Canada. Addressing a gathering in Bhubaneswar on Friday, PM Modi said he had to say no to Trump's invite as he did not want to miss his scheduled visit to the "land of Lord Jagannath". Speaking at an event to mark one year of Mohan Charan Majhi-led BJP govt in Odisha, Modi said, "The President of the United States called me, saying, 'Since you are in Canada, please come over. We will have a meal together and talk.' He extended a warm invitation. I thanked him for the invitation and politely declined, expressing that visiting the land of Mahaprabhu was essential for me. The devotion for Mahaprabhu and your love drew me here. " The explanation puts to rest speculations that had built up ever since foreign secretary Vikram Misri put on record that PM Modi had to skip the Trump meeting due to "prior commitments". While Majhi's first anniversary as CM was on June 12, the Odisha govt timed the main celebration on Friday to accommodate the PM's schedule. Any change in plan could have put the govt in an awkward position in a state where the BJP swept the Lok Sabha polls, winning 20 of the 21 seats, and stormed to power by winning 78 of the 147 assembly seats. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Stunning 2-Bed Senior Houses: Take A Peek Inside! GoSearches | Search Ads Undo In what was Modi's sixth visit to the state in the past one year, the PM praised Odisha's progress under the BJP govt, emphasizing the state's role in India's cultural and economic development. He highlighted various initiatives aimed at improving infrastructure, healthcare, and economic opportunities for the people of Odisha, particularly tribal communities. The PM also highlighted the significant role of eastern India in the country's growth trajectory and underscored the region's potential as a catalyst for India's progress in the 21st century. "The development of 21st century India will gain momentum from eastern India. This is the era of Purvodaya," the PM said.