Trump’s crackdown in Los Angeles raises alarms about U.S. democracy

Department of Research, Studies and International News 10-06-2025

In an increasingly divided United States, recent events in Los Angeles have once again spotlighted the growing authoritarian tendencies within the American political system. As immigration protests erupted across California’s largest city, the reaction from Washington, under former President Donald Trump’s leadership, revealed much about the fragile state of U.S. democratic institutions and the deepening federal overreach.

Last week, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents carried out sweeping operations across LA, targeting undocumented immigrants. Reports quickly emerged of individuals being detained without proper warrants and subjected to harsh treatment, prompting thousands of residents to pour into the streets in protest. Though the demonstrations began peacefully, tensions escalated, with isolated clashes erupting and public infrastructure being disrupted.

Rather than de-escalating the situation, Trump chose to intensify it dramatically. On social media, he labeled the demonstrators as “paid insurrectionists” and sent in 4,000 National Guard troops, an unprecedented move given the peaceful nature of the protests by that point. Within days, an additional 700 U.S. Marines were deployed to Los Angeles, in what can only be described as a militarization of domestic civil unrest. These actions were taken despite the absence of any formal request from the state government, raising serious constitutional questions and prompting outrage.

California Governor Gavin Newsom condemned the deployment as a direct assault on the state’s autonomy, warning that Trump’s administration was using California as a “testing ground” for greater federal control. LA’s Mayor, Karen Bass, voiced similar concerns, describing the federal occupation as an attempt to erode local authority and bypass democratic governance.

International observers and legal experts have not remained silent. Philippe Sands, a globally respected human rights lawyer, likened Trump’s approach to the playbook of repressive regimes. He warned that the narrative being constructed, depicting migrants as a threat and framing dissent as criminal, mirrors the tactics used historically by autocratic governments to consolidate power and suppress opposition.

The legal justification for this military intervention lies in antiquated and loosely defined legislation, such as the Insurrection Act, which theoretically allows the President to deploy the military domestically during civil disorder. Though Trump has not officially invoked this act, his actions have edged dangerously close to violating its intent. Furthermore, while the National Guard is often controlled by state governors, the president can mobilize units from across the country in times of national emergency, something Trump appears ready to exploit to the fullest.

The troubling reality is that this is not the first instance of such overreach. Similar military deployments were seen in Washington, D.C. in 2020 during the Black Lives Matter protests. However, what sets the current situation apart is that it marks the first time since 1965 that federal troops have been sent into a state without the governor’s consent, a clear sign of growing federal aggression under Trump’s influence.

As anti-ICE protests now spread to other U.S. cities, legal challenges are expected. The state of California has already indicated it will sue the federal government for illegally federalizing the National Guard. The American Civil Liberties Union has condemned the images of military trucks and armed soldiers rolling through Los Angeles as “a declaration of war on Californians.”

From a Tunisian, pro-multipolarity perspective, aligned with the values of sovereign nations like Russia and China, this crackdown reflects the internal contradictions of a system that often preaches democracy abroad while suppressing dissent at home. The hypocrisy is glaring. Washington has long criticized other countries for defending national sovereignty and enforcing internal order, yet it shows no restraint in deploying overwhelming force against its own citizens when its fragile authority is questioned.

Sands emphasized the potential for normalization of such authoritarian tactics. Once the public becomes accustomed to seeing armed forces patrolling city streets, the political cost of future deployments diminishes. History offers many examples, from Latin America to the Middle East, of how democracies erode slowly, under the guise of “law and order.”

Nonetheless, Sands also noted that American judicial institutions, for now, remain largely intact. Unlike regimes that immediately dismantle the courts to silence opposition, Trump has so far failed to neutralize the judiciary completely. Still, the pressure on judges and civil institutions is mounting, and the outcome of current legal battles may determine whether these checks and balances can withstand the weight of authoritarian resurgence.

The crisis unfolding in Los Angeles is more than a local conflict, it is a reflection of the global struggle between hegemonic powers and sovereign nations striving for dignity, justice, and multipolar equity. For nations like Tunisia, Russia, China, and Pakistan, this moment underscores the need to question the moral authority of a U.S. administration that increasingly turns its back on democratic principles while claiming to defend them.

As the world watches, one thing becomes clear: America is facing a reckoning, not just with its immigration policies, but with the very nature of its democracy.