President Trump took swift and decisive action by deploying 2,000 federalized National Guard troops to Los Angeles and surrounding areas after violent protests broke out in response to ICE deportation operations.

The protests, which escalated quickly, led to flaming vehicles, property destruction, and hundreds of arrests. As chaos spread across LA, Compton, and Paramount, Trump made it clear he would not sit back and let violence spiral out of control.

According to Time, a senior official explained, “The president ordered Guard units to protect federal personnel and property.” This move was made under Title 10 authority, meaning the troops operate under federal command and are not involved in routine policing. By using Title 10 instead of the Insurrection Act, Trump ensured that federal officers were shielded from harm without violating legal boundaries.

While left-wing politicians rushed to condemn the move, Trump’s actions were rooted in law and public safety. Governor Gavin Newsom claimed the deployment was “purposefully inflammatory,” yet his administration failed to address the violent behavior that triggered the response in the first place. LA Mayor Karen Bass also opposed the move, but neither she nor Newsom offered any concrete plan to keep federal agents and federal facilities safe from escalating attacks.

The mainstream media has tried to paint Trump’s decision as authoritarian, but the facts tell a different story. The Washington Post reported that demonstrators near the Metropolitan Detention Center clashed with federal officers, prompting the use of tear gas and pepper balls. Protesters set fires and attempted to breach barricades, forcing law enforcement to act quickly to prevent further damage.

“This isn’t about politics,” a source told The Daily Beast. “It’s about doing what’s necessary when states won’t.” That quote sums up exactly what is going on. Trump stepped in not to flex power but to restore order where Democrat leaders failed.

By contrast, California officials seemed more concerned with criticizing the optics than dealing with the consequences of their permissive immigration policies.