Los Angeles: Trump’s National Guard Mobilization May Backfire

Washington Monthly Politics Editor Bill Scher, Executive Editor Matt Cooper and Contributing Editor Anne Kim discuss the recent deployment of the National Guard by Trump in response to protests over immigration raids, the public’s reaction to this escalation of power, and the implications for civil liberties. They also touch on the political fallout from the breakup between Trump and Musk, the challenges facing the reconciliation bill in Congress, and the potential consequences of work requirements in Medicaid.

Subscribe to the Washington Monthly’s podcast.

Anne Kim:
Good morning everyone, and welcome to the Washington Monthly Politics Livestream. Today is June 9th, 2025. I’m Anne Kim, and I’m joined this morning by politics editor Bill Scher and executive editor for digital Matt Cooper. Good morning, guys.

Bill Scher:
Good morning.

Matthew Cooper:
Morning.

A.K.:
We’re seeing a potentially dangerous escalation of Trump’s exercise of power. He’s deployed the National Guard to Los Angeles over the weekend, and there’s a military parade planned for DC this weekend as well. Just to catch everyone up: Trump deployed about 2,000 National Guard troops to LA in response to protests over immigration raids. Governor Gavin Newsom did not request the mobilization. In fact, he called it “purposely inflammatory” and filed a formal request to withdraw the troops.

The last time a president activated the National Guard without a governor’s request was in 1965, when Lyndon Johnson sent troops to Alabama to protect civil rights demonstrators. This time, we’re seeing the opposite—troops deployed to crack down on peaceful protesters. So guys, what worries you most about what the administration is doing and where it’s headed this week?

M.C.:
Everything. I mean, it’s unnecessary. There’s a reason governors typically request National Guard support—for things like natural disasters or the occasional riot. This is unprecedented. It feels like the administration is trying to escalate rather than deescalate.

Look, this isn’t to excuse anyone committing violence or vandalism during the anti-ICE protests. But as The New York Times said, they’re relishing this conflict. That’s dangerous. It could lead to more deployments and crackdowns on civil liberties.

B.S.:
I don’t disagree. What I want to understand is the public reaction. It’s hard to get a clear read in real time. People are citing pre-existing polling on immigration, but that’s a tricky business—opinions swing dramatically depending on how you frame the question.

For example, deporting people with criminal records polls well. But once you get into deporting people who are just here working, support drops fast. The Garcia case, for instance, polled very differently than Trump’s team hoped.

This is a move toward authoritarianism, but whether it sticks depends on how much the public tolerates or welcomes it. If it doesn’t produce results—like improved order or a better immigration system—it may not be easily replicated in the future.

A.K.:
If you were Gavin Newsom or LA Mayor Karen Bass, how would you respond right now?

B.S.:
I think Newsom’s response so far is on point. And maybe this will memory-hole his earlier attempts to sidestep immigration—framing it as an 80/20 issue or trying to focus on the economy instead of Garcia.

You don’t get to opt out of this issue. The Trump administration is putting it front and center in the most horrific ways, and you have to deal with it.

Newsom is suing. He’s saying, “Don’t arrest the four-year-old—arrest me.” He’s being defiant, insisting on the rule of law and respect for the Constitution. That’s about all you can do.

M.C.:
Right. And when Trump officials are threatening to arrest elected officials—like they did with a member of Congress in New Jersey—it’s politically treacherous for the administration. I think it helps Newsom and Bass.

Politically, it’s a sweet spot for Democrats: strong condemnations of vandalism, combined with pushback against federal overreach. That’s a good place to be.

A.K.:
And don’t forget Trump’s threats to withhold federal funding from California. It’s an empty threat. California is a major donor state—it sends $83 billion more to the federal government than it gets back. Newsom even threatened not to send income taxes to the federal government. I’m not sure how he could do that, but it makes a point: the nation needs California more than the other way around.

M.C.:
Of course.

B.S.:
These threats don’t produce good policy outcomes. They just keep the culture war going. That might be enough to feed the MAGA base, which loves a fight for fight’s sake.

But most Americans want stability. They don’t want to live in a state of constant disruption. Even if some think, “Let Trump be tough and get things done,” if the result is more chaos, it won’t hold.

And Trump doesn’t care—he’s focused on the short term. But for the Republican Party long-term? I’m skeptical this is sustainable.

M.C.:
Yeah, and the more they use the threat of cutting off funding, the less effective it becomes. It just leads to chaos—in the courts, in the streets, on campuses. These things get litigated forever. Diminishing returns, if you ask me.

A.K.:
Right.

B.S.:
One thing I want to add—this is also about a shift in Trump’s immigration strategy. They’re targeting workplaces now, not just “criminals.” Even an anti-immigration source in The New York Times noted: going after criminals takes more staffing, more resources.

But if you raid a workplace, you get big numbers fast. You get TV cameras. You can show off your “progress.” The downside? You’re hitting the economy—locally and nationally.

A.K.:
Right. Agriculture, construction, hospitality—double-digit shares of workers in those industries are immigrants, many undocumented.

M.C.:
Exactly. And if you want the kind of deportation numbers Trump and Tom Homan are talking about, you’d have to go after workers in red states too. That would cause real economic and political damage.

There was that Times story last week—about a small Missouri town where a beloved waitress, Carol, was detained during her regular ICE check-in. She’d lived there for decades, had kids. The town voted for Trump—but they were aghast. “We wanted criminals locked up, not Carol.” I think we’ll see more of that.

A.K.:
Let me ask you both a journalism question. Coverage of LA has focused heavily on burning Waymo cars—great video, sure. But friends in LA say the coverage is totally misrepresenting what’s really happening. That kind of sensationalism plays into Trump’s hands.

So what’s your recommendation for journalists? How do we stay fair and alive to the facts without giving cover for authoritarian crackdowns?

M.C.:
You have to tell the truth and provide context. If violence is confined to a few blocks around Parker Center, say that. LA is 500+ square miles. The Southland even more. Don’t make it sound like the city is in lockdown.

I covered the 1992 riots. They were widespread—but even then, the media exaggerated their reach. Now? It doesn’t seem nearly as bad. But of course, TV’s going to show the burning car, not the peaceful block in Echo Park.

B.S.:
And each ideological side benefits from sensationalism. The right wants to highlight the violence; the left wants to highlight the authoritarianism. Everyone wants this to be seen as a five-alarm fire.

And the media has no incentive to dial it down—outrage drives clicks and views.

M.C.:
Right. I hate to say it, but it makes you nostalgic for Trump’s first term. Back then, they were at least pointing the finger at Antifa. This time, it’s the democratically elected governor of the most populous state.

A.K.:
And this is legally significant. The executive order cites 10 USC §12406—allowing federal deployment of the Guard in case of a rebellion. But it also says the troops are there to “protect federal functions,” which scholars say looks like domestic law enforcement—banned under the Posse Comitatus Act.

That act, passed in 1878, bars federal troops from civilian law enforcement unless expressly allowed. So this whole thing is on very shaky legal ground.

M.C.:
Exactly. Posse Comitatus may have had problematic origins, but it evolved into a bipartisan norm: the military stays out of domestic law enforcement. We don’t do tanks in the streets.

A.K.:
And yet we’re getting just that.

B.S.:
Right. I’m not a lawyer, but I suspect Newsom’s lawsuit will make exactly that argument. And it may put the conservative Supreme Court in a bind.

They’ve shown sympathy for the unitary executive theory—but I don’t think they want to open the door to unrestrained military deployment on U.S. soil. Whatever they decide here could come back to bite them under a future Democratic president.

A.K.:
This will definitely be one to watch. Meanwhile, the situation in L.A. managed to eclipse another big story last week: the Trump–Musk breakup. There’s been endless commentary, but I’m curious—who do you think wins this cage match, and why?

B.S.:
A lot of pundits say Trump’s going to win—Musk doesn’t have Trump’s base or influence in the party. That’s mostly true.

But it depends on what Musk actually does. If he spends big on ads attacking the “One Big Beautiful Bill” as a budget buster, he could shift the conversation. He doesn’t need to flip the whole GOP—just enough Republicans to tank the bill.

And it doesn’t have to be personal. He can just fan the flames and make it about the debt. If his endgame is killing the bill, he has a real opening.

M.C.:
Yeah, and that could embolden the Freedom Caucus folks who caved the first time but might stand firm during conference.

That said, I still don’t totally understand this feud. Is it real? Is it ketamine-fueled? Is it about Tesla stock?

They’ve always been a weird pair. It wouldn’t surprise me if they patch things up like a dysfunctional couple that can’t quit each other.

A.K.:
Which brings us to reconciliation—your favorite topic, B.S. Where do things stand this week?

B.S.:
The House barely passed its version. The Senate hasn’t taken it up, and there’s pushback from all sides.

Far-right senators like Ron Johnson are saying it still spends too much and want to roll back to pre-pandemic levels—which would mean deep cuts, especially after inflation. Others don’t like the SALT cap expansion, which was designed to appease blue-state Republicans but costs revenue.

Meanwhile, some red-state Republicans actually like the clean energy tax credits because they bring in jobs. But the House bill phases those out fast to satisfy the Freedom Caucus.

Now the caucus is warning: if the Senate messes with SALT or the credits, the deal’s off.

The Trump administration wants this done by July 4, but there’s no Senate text yet. And then there’s the looming debt ceiling—Trump says he wants to abolish it entirely.

A.K.:
Right, and he even agrees with Elizabeth Warren on that.

B.S.:
Exactly—and I’ve written the same. It’s a dumb mechanism. But Republicans don’t think they can get rid of it with bipartisan support, so they’re trying to do it through reconciliation.

We don’t have a precise deadline yet, but most think August is when the crisis hits. So July 4 is more political theater than anything. We need to see some actual text soon. This bill is still very much in limbo.

A.K.:
Do you think the messaging around Medicaid work requirements—that it ensures benefits only go to the “deserving”—is actually working?

B.S.:
Hard to say. There’s so much noise, it’s tough for any single message to stick.

Democrats are hammering that this bill could knock 8 to 12 million people off health insurance—between Medicaid work rules and ending ACA subsidies.

Republicans argue that those people “shouldn’t” be getting coverage in the first place. But that’s a tough sell in swing districts. When real people show up at town halls and say, “I lost coverage because of you,” that’s not abstract—it’s personal.

M.C.:
Right, and as you pointed out in your video, A.K., these work requirements have already been tried in states—and failed. They’re hard to document and easy to mess up.

Most Medicaid recipients are already working. This is about paperwork, not work.

A.K.:
Exactly. Senator Warnock called it a “paperwork requirement,” not a work requirement. The idea is to overwhelm people with bureaucracy until they drop off—or get kicked off for some technicality.

That’s what happened after the 1996 welfare reform. The number of people on aid dropped, but poverty didn’t.

M.C.:
Right. And unlike welfare, health insurance doesn’t lend itself to the same “work incentive” logic. People need coverage whether they’re working or not. This isn’t a population loafing around for benefits—they’re already juggling jobs and instability.

A.K.:
Yeah, and back in the ’90s, Bill Clinton at least paired welfare reform with a big expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit. There was a clearer incentive and a softer landing.

Here, it’s just punitive.

M.C.:
Totally. And post-Obamacare, I think the public has grown more uncomfortable with people getting kicked off insurance. They expect some safety net now.

B.S.:
At least with Clinton-era reforms, there was a genuine effort to improve outcomes. You can debate whether it worked, but the intent wasn’t to punish poor people.

This feels like the goal is to reduce the number of people getting help—period. If you’re a Republican in a swing district, that’s not a stat debate. That’s a constituent standing in front of you, saying, “I used to have coverage. Now I don’t. And it’s your fault.”

M.C.:
And let’s not forget: big employers like Walmart rely on Medicaid to help cover their workers. They don’t want more churn and chaos. Their workforce is unstable enough as it is.

A.K.:
Exactly. So, final question. With everything happening, what’s the one thing you’ll be watching most closely this week?

M.C.:
I’m always watching the bond markets. Borrowing costs are rising, and that’s going to have ripple effects on reconciliation and the broader economy. Trump’s backed off some of his tariff threats, which helped. But that could change fast.

B.S.:
Reconciliation is my main focus, but I’m also keeping an eye on the DNC drama.

Over the weekend, audio leaked of Chair Ken Martin criticizing Vice Chair David Hogg for getting involved in primaries through his PAC. That’s a serious conflict—DNC officials aren’t supposed to play favorites.

There’s speculation Hogg leaked the tape himself. Other DNC members are furious, and they’re rallying around Martin.

At a time when Republicans are on the ropes, Democrats don’t need a circular firing squad—especially not over something avoidable like this.

M.C.:
Right. Martin fought hard for that chair position. For him to even suggest he might quit? That’s incredible.

B.S.:
So I’m watching whether pressure builds on Hogg to step down.

A.K.:
As if the Democrats needed more problems.

As for me, I’ll be watching Saturday’s parade—and the protests. Will D.C. become the next L.A.? We’ll find out.

Until next week, take care.

The post Los Angeles: Trump’s National Guard Mobilization May Backfire appeared first on Washington Monthly.