Immigration Enforcement Accelerates in LA Amidst Legal Battle Over Military Deployment
Immigration enforcement operations by federal agents in Los Angeles are reportedly accelerating, becoming faster and more difficult for advocates to track. This intensification is unfolding concurrently with a significant legal challenge in federal court regarding the Trump administration’s deployment of thousands of National Guard troops and U.S. Marines to the city.
A San Francisco federal appeals court is currently reviewing a request from the Trump Administration to maintain control over the California National Guard members deployed to LA. This follows a lower court ruling that found the president’s federalization and deployment of over 4,000 Guard members against California Governor Gavin Newsom’s wishes was illegal, exceeding presidential authority and violating the Tenth Amendment. The appeals court has temporarily blocked that ruling, allowing the federal government to retain control of the Guard troops for now, pending further proceedings.
President Trump initially deployed the troops, later adding 700 U.S. Marines (though the Marines’ status is not currently addressed in the appeals court ruling), stating the action was necessary to protect federal property and personnel during protests against immigration enforcement. He cited instances of violence and described attempts to impede federal agents as a “form of rebellion,” presenting images of burning cars and crowds blocking movements. Governor Newsom, however, has called the deployment an overreaction and counter-productive, arguing that local law enforcement was capable of managing the situation and that the military presence could escalate tensions. California’s legal challenge contended that the federalization was unlawful, that the governor was not properly consulted, and that the situation did not warrant such intervention. Federal attorneys countered that the president acted within his constitutional authority, coordinating through the state’s adjutant general, and that courts shouldn’t question his determination that ‘rioting’ prevented agents from executing federal laws.
Faster Raids Prove Harder to Document
Regardless of the military units’ disputed status, the immigration raids that sparked protests in early June have intensified. Immigrant advocacy groups report that operations by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) are now notably faster.
Vlad Carrasco of the immigrant advocacy group CHIRLA, part of a “rapid response” team monitoring ICE activity, notes that agents are now “in and out” quickly. This speed is a significant change from earlier in June when he could often reach raid locations in time to document federal actions. Now, he frequently arrives only to find agents already leaving or gone. This tactic is seen by advocates as a deliberate strategy to avoid prolonged confrontations and the mobilization of local community members who might protest if agents remained on site longer.
Fear and Confusion Over Agent Identity
Advocacy groups have shared videos showing immigration enforcement officers being confronted by angry civilians. While National Guard soldiers have sometimes appeared to create protective lines, observers say speed is the more common tactic. This, combined with agents sometimes operating in plainclothes, wearing masks, or displaying insignia from agencies other than ICE, including Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), has resulted in widespread fear.
Guillermo Torres of Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice (CLUE) describes the situation as reminiscent of a “totalitarian regime,” where people feel like they are being “kidnapped” and could disappear. Oscar Zarate, also with CHIRLA, echoes this, stating the involvement of personnel from multiple federal agencies, sometimes in unmarked vehicles, has created a “peak level of anxiety.” He explains the confusion makes it difficult for the public to discern who is conducting enforcement or their purpose, even leading to mistaken reports of local police activity being perceived as ICE raids because agents are seen as operating “in disguise.”
Administration Blames Sanctuary Policies, Defends Masks
The Trump administration attributes the need for faster, potentially riskier operations in neighborhoods to Los Angeles’s “sanctuary” policies. Officials like “border czar” Tom Homan and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem argue that these policies limit cooperation with local law enforcement, preventing federal agents from taking custody of targets from local jails after arrests on non-immigration charges. This, they contend, forces agents to conduct operations in public areas or homes.
Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons defended agents wearing masks, stating it’s a necessary response to public efforts to post agents’ photos and names online, which he claims have led to threats against officers and their families.
ACLU Lawsuit Addresses Agent Identification
There may be future changes regarding how some agents identify themselves due to a class action lawsuit filed by the ACLU of Southern California in 2020. The suit challenges immigration officers who allegedly misrepresent themselves as local police to gain entry to homes or secure cooperation.
A federal court has granted preliminary approval to a settlement that would require certain ICE personnel operating in the Los Angeles region to wear more prominent insignia, at least as visible as the word “POLICE.” Stephanie Padilla, a staff attorney with the ACLU, states this requirement aims to reduce confusion among the public when ICE officers are present. However, the potential settlement, if implemented, would have limited effect as it applies only to ICE personnel and not employees from the other federal agencies involved in broader enforcement plans.
As courts continue to debate the legitimacy of the military presence, the complex reality on the ground in Los Angeles involves intensified enforcement tactics and a community grappling with increased fear and confusion.
