LA Riots: Newsom’s Defiance, Trump’s Restraint, and the Legal Tightrope
Los Angeles descends into chaos as protests over federal immigration raids spiraled into riots, thrusting California Governor Gavin Newsom and President Donald Trump into a high-stakes showdown. Amid the unrest, Newsom issued a provocative challenge to Trump: “Arrest me already and stop being a tough guy.” The taunt underscored a tense political standoff, with Trump deploying federal forces to quell the violence but hesitating to escalate further—likely wary of the backlash that could follow.
Immigration Raids and Rising Tensions
The unrest erupted in early June 2025, triggered by aggressive U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids targeting undocumented immigrants in Los Angeles County. Protests quickly turned violent, with clashes between demonstrators, federal agents, and local police. Governor Newsom condemned the raids as a federal overreach, accusing Trump of manufacturing a crisis. As the situation deteriorated, Trump deployed 2,000 National Guard troops and 700 active-duty Marines to the city, citing the need to protect federal personnel and property.
Newsom’s response was swift and defiant. In a televised address, he challenged Trump directly: “If you’re going to keep threatening me, then arrest me already and stop being a tough guy. Do it, or stand down.” The statement was a calculated dare, reflecting Newsom’s belief that Trump lacked the resolve—or the political capital—to follow through. Trump, while hinting at arrests and calling Newsom “incompetent,” has so far refrained from acting on his rhetoric, likely mindful of the public and legal repercussions.
Trump’s Calculus: Restraint Over Escalation
Despite his bluster, Trump has not moved to arrest Newsom, a decision that aligns with a strategy to avoid backlash. Arresting a sitting governor would be an unprecedented escalation, risking widespread condemnation and legal challenges. However, if Trump were to pursue this course, he might opt for a subtler approach: inviting Newsom to a location where federal law enforcement has clear jurisdiction, such as a federal facility or Washington, D.C., under the guise of negotiations. This tactic could minimize immediate conflict, presenting Trump as amicable while ensuring access to federal agents.
Initially, this approach might reduce tensions compared to a direct confrontation in California. Federal law enforcement could detain Newsom without clashing with state forces, at least in the short term. However, such a move would open a Pandora’s box. Newsom’s arrest could galvanize California’s government and populace, potentially sparking resistance that escalates into civil conflict. This scenario stands in stark contrast to a more aggressive alternative: sending federal agents into California to apprehend Newsom outright. Such an operation would likely be met with resistance from state and local law enforcement, who remain under Newsom’s command, setting the stage for a violent standoff.
The Marine Deployment: A Constitutional Quandary
Adding complexity to the situation, Trump has deployed 700 active-duty Marines to Los Angeles alongside the National Guard. This move has raised constitutional questions, as the use of federal military forces in domestic settings is heavily restricted. Unless an insurrection is declared, deploying Marines for law enforcement purposes would be unconstitutional under existing legal frameworks. The administration has argued that the Marines are present to protect federal property and personnel, not to enforce civilian laws—a justification that skirts the edge of legality.
Critics, including Newsom, have called the deployment “unconstitutional” and “deranged,” warning that it risks militarizing a civilian crisis. The Pentagon has maintained that the Marines are on “high alert” but not engaged in law enforcement, a distinction that hinges on the interpretation of two key laws from the 19th century.
The Legal Framework: Two Laws and The Overton Window
The deployment of federal forces and the potential arrest of Newsom are governed by two landmark statutes: the Insurrection Act of 1807 and the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. Together, these laws delineate the president’s authority to use military power domestically, creating an "Overton window"—the range of actions deemed politically and legally acceptable at a given time.
The Insurrection Act of 1807
Origins and Evolution: Enacted in 1792 and amended in 1807, the Insurrection Act empowers the president to deploy federal troops to suppress insurrections, rebellions, or domestic violence when state authorities cannot maintain order or when federal laws are obstructed. It was last invoked in 1992 during the Los Angeles riots, when President George H.W. Bush sent troops at the request of California’s governor.
Key Provisions: The act allows the president to use the military, including active-duty forces like the Marines, for law enforcement purposes under specific conditions. These include instances of “insurrection against the government of the United States” or when “unlawful obstructions” prevent the execution of federal law (10 U.S.C. § 252-254).
Application in 2025: Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act, instead relying on Section 12406 of Title 10, which permits him to federalize the National Guard during a “rebellion against the authority of the United States.” This narrower authority limits troops to protecting federal interests rather than enforcing civilian laws, keeping the Marine deployment within a legal gray area unless an insurrection is formally declared.
The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878
Origins and Purpose: Passed in 1878 in response to Reconstruction-era abuses, the Posse Comitatus Act restricts the use of federal military forces for domestic law enforcement. It was designed to prevent the military from acting as a civilian police force, reflecting a deep-seated American aversion to militarized governance.
Key Provisions: The act states, “Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both” (18 U.S.C. § 1385). The Insurrection Act serves as a primary exception, allowing military intervention when explicitly authorized.
Application in 2025: The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the Marines and other active-duty forces from enforcing civilian laws unless Trump invokes the Insurrection Act or another exception applies. The current deployment, framed as support for federal agents, does not cross this line—but any expansion of their role could violate the statute.
The Overton Window: These laws create a spectrum of permissible action. At one end, Trump can deploy the National Guard under Title 10 to protect federal interests, as he has done, without breaching the Posse Comitatus Act. At the other, invoking the Insurrection Act would unlock broader powers, including the use of Marines for law enforcement, but risks public and legal backlash. Trump’s current strategy—deploying forces without declaring an insurrection—falls within this window, pushing boundaries while avoiding a full constitutional crisis.
The Risk of Civil War: A Slippery Slope
Newsom’s dare and Trump’s restraint highlight a critical tension: any attempt to arrest the governor could tip the nation into civil conflict. If Trump invited Newsom to a federal stronghold and detained him, California might respond with legal and physical resistance, mobilizing state resources to challenge federal authority. Alternatively, sending federal agents into California would almost certainly provoke a confrontation with state and local law enforcement, who are under orders to protect Newsom and resist federal overreach.
This scenario evokes historical parallels, such as the Civil War-era standoffs between federal and state powers. Newsom has warned of such an outcome, stating, “This is Donald Trump’s problem, and if he escalates, it could become America’s tragedy.” The deployment of Marines, while not yet unconstitutional, amplifies these risks, signaling a willingness to flex military muscle in a domestic crisis.
A Nation at the Brink
The LA riots of 2025 have laid bare the fragility of America’s federal-state balance. Newsom’s challenge to Trump—“arrest me already”—is both a taunt and a warning, daring the president to cross a line he seems reluctant to breach. Trump’s restraint, driven by fear of backlash, keeps the situation in a tense stalemate, but his deployment of the National Guard and Marines tests the limits of the Insurrection Act and the Posse Comitatus Act. These laws, rooted in the 1800s, frame an Overton window that Trump navigates with care—pushing boundaries without fully shattering them.
Yet the potential for escalation looms large. An arrest, whether executed subtly or forcefully, could ignite a civil war, pitting federal power against state sovereignty in a way not seen since the 19th century. As Los Angeles smolders and the nation watches, the interplay of law, politics, and power will determine whether this crisis resolves peacefully or descends into chaos.