By Carlos Taylhardat, 3 Narratives
A City on Edge—But No Casualties… Yet
On June 6, 2025, crowds estimated between 400 and 1,000 gathered across Los Angeles—from downtown to Compton—to protest recent ICE raids that resulted in the detention of 118 undocumented individuals. The LAPD responded with tear gas, rubber bullets, and flash-bangs. At last count: 56 arrested, zero fatalities, but the mood remains volatile.
Three Leaders, One Crossroads
Mayor Karen Bass and California Governor Gavin Newsom insist that the deployment of federal troops would only escalate the situation. “This isn’t a warzone,” Newsom said on Friday, “but it could become one if we treat it like one.”
But LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell and President Donald Trump see things differently. Trump, who returned to office this January, said in a national address Saturday night, “When cities refuse to control lawlessness, it is the duty of the federal government to restore order.”
The political standoff is more than symbolic—it’s strategic. Each statement broadcasts a signal, and in moments like this, crowds tend to grow in response to conflict at the top.
“Unfortunately, in the next few days, LA will be a war zone.”
—Carlos Taylhardat, 3NarrativesLA ICE Conflict
Los Angeles became the latest flashpoint in America’s immigration debate after a series of federal immigration raids sparked three days of unrest in the city. What began with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents arresting at least 44 people on alleged immigration violations quickly escalated into street protests, clashes with police, and an unprecedented intervention by the federal government. By Sunday, President Donald Trump had dispatched hundreds of National Guard troops to Los Angeles — overriding California officials’ objections — to help quell the disturbances. The situation has exposed a stark divide in narratives: Is this a justified effort to enforce the law and restore order, or an alarming example of government overreach against a community defending its residents?
Narrative 1: Federal Lens – Ensuring Law and Order
From the federal law-and-order perspective, the aggressive actions in Los Angeles were necessary to maintain control and uphold the rule of law. Supporters of the ICE raids note that those detained had violated immigration laws, warranting firm enforcement. When demonstrators flooded the streets in response — and some protests turned violent — advocates of this narrative argue that a tough crackdown was justified to prevent chaos. In fact, protesters were accused of dangerous acts – including reports of someone hurling a Molotov cocktail at police and a motorcyclist ramming into a line of officers – underscoring the “lawlessness” that authorities faced. To these supporters, President Trump’s decision to swiftly deploy the National Guard was a proportionate response to restore order in a situation local authorities were struggling to contain. Under federal law, the President is empowered to take such measures in the event of rebellion or an inability to enforce federal statutes, and Trump’s allies believe the unrest in L.A. met that threshold. Some have even argued that California’s own leaders hindered the effort to reestablish order: Trump’s immigration adviser Tom Homan warned that officials like Governor Gavin Newsom should be arrested if they obstructed federal immigration enforcement. From this vantage point, the weekend’s turmoil in Los Angeles exemplified unacceptable “lawlessness” — a crisis that demanded federal intervention to protect citizens and reinforce the authority of immigration law.
Narrative 2: California Lens – Fighting Federal Overreach
Critics of the federal crackdown in Los Angeles tell a very different story – one of overreach and community resistance. From this perspective, the ICE raids that kicked off the unrest were part of a harsh immigration agenda targeting local immigrant communities and families. ICE agents detained roughly 44 people in the sweeps — a move critics say spread fear and anger, prompting an outpouring of protesters into the streets. Although there were isolated incidents of vandalism and clashes, supporters of this narrative emphasize that the demonstrations were largely peaceful expressions of outrage against what they view as injustice. In their eyes, it was the federal government’s heavy-handed response – not the protesters – that truly escalated the conflict.
California officials argue that President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard was both unnecessary and unlawful. They point out that Trump sent troops into Los Angeles unilaterally, without Governor Newsom’s consent – a move virtually unprecedented in modern U.S. history. Local leaders insist there was no valid need for military intervention, as city police and state authorities already had the situation “under control” before federal forces arrived.
Governor Gavin Newsom blasted the National Guard deployment as an illegal abuse of power and swiftly vowed to sue the federal government to block it. He and other California officials accuse Trump of intentionally fanning the flames of confrontation “to show a flex of strength” rather than to resolve the unrest. When Trump publicly suggested that his border enforcement chief should arrest Newsom for hindering ICE operations – a threat Newsom condemned as “an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism” – it only bolstered the critics’ case. From this vantage point, the turmoil in Los Angeles was not about restoring order at all, but rather a dramatic example of a president overstepping his authority and punishing a community under the pretext of law and order.
Echoes from the Past: Three LA Uprisings
Los Angeles knows unrest. And it knows what happens when political leadership fractures in times of crisis:
- Watts, 1965: A traffic stop exploded into six days of riots. The toll: 34 dead, over 3,000 arrested.
- Rodney King, 1992: After four LAPD officers were acquitted in a brutal beating, the city burned for six days. 63 died. Federal troops and 13,500 National Guard troops were deployed to end the chaos.
- MacArthur Park, 2007: A peaceful immigrant rights rally turned violent. LAPD’s use of force triggered lawsuits, a $13 million settlement, and widespread criticism.
Each time, disjointed responses from city, state, and federal officials fanned the flames.
What Lies Ahead
This feels familiar. The protests today are peaceful, but tense. The crowds are organized, but reactive. And the leadership? Publicly divided.
When leaders argue in front of the people, it’s not just a disagreement—it’s an invitation. An invitation for more protestors, more cameras, and more chaos. Without a unified response, history suggests escalation is not just possible—it’s likely.
A Narrow Path to De-escalation
If there’s any hope of avoiding another entry in LA’s long ledger of uprisings, it lies in three coordinated efforts:
- Municipal restraint from LAPD and city officials
- Federal clarity without militarization theatrics
- Community voices being heard before they’re provoked
But time is running short. And the world is watching. Unfortunately, my own narrative is that this situation is but at the start of a bomb waiting to explode, and I hope I am wrong.
Echoes of Unrest: A History of LA Riots
1992: The Fire Lasted Six Days
It began with a verdict. On April 29, 1992, four white LAPD officers were acquitted in the brutal beating of Rodney King, a Black man whose assault had been recorded on video—a rare visual witness in the analog era.
What followed was a six-day eruption of rage.
- Death toll: 63 lives lost
- Injuries: Over 2,300
- Arrests: More than 12,000
- Damage: Estimated at over $1 billion
- Military response: 13,500 troops from the National Guard, U.S. Army, and Marines
Helicopters buzzed over Koreatown. Entire blocks in South Central went up in flames. For many Angelenos, the state didn’t respond until the city was already burning.
2007: The Rubber Bullet Rally
On May 1, 2007, a peaceful immigrant rights rally in MacArthur Park turned into a clash when LAPD officers charged the crowd with batons and rubber bullets.
The protest was over in hours, but its consequences lingered:
- Injuries: 36 (including 9 journalists)
- Arrests: 5
- Lawsuits: Dozens filed, resulting in $13 million in city settlements
It was a protest without flames—but not without fallout. Video clips of officers striking families and reporters reshaped public confidence in the LAPD.
2020: George Floyd and the Digital Uprising
Though it started in Minneapolis, the fury reached Los Angeles fast. By May 27, 2020, the streets were filled again—this time led by phones, livestreams, and a decentralized movement.
Protests continued for more than ten days, drawing thousands:
- Confirmed protest-related deaths in LA: 0
- Arrests: Approximately 2,700 in Los Angeles
- Troop deployment: 1,000 National Guard members
- Damage: Dozens of businesses looted or burned in Fairfax, Santa Monica, and Long Beach
The difference this time? Cameras were everywhere. So were the eyes of the world.
A Pattern Repeating
When leadership falters, streets fill. When justice feels distant, the crowd draws nearer. LA’s history of unrest isn’t a string of isolated incidents—it’s a pattern of pressure met with delay.
The question for 2025 is not whether protests will continue. The question is: how far will the fire spread—this time?
