95bFM The use of military force at anti-ICE protests in LA
17 June, 2025
Interviews by Caeden Tipler and Sara Mckoy, adapted by Sara Mckoy
Yale Daily News’ Andre Fa’aoso and the University of Auckland’s Scott Optican says that Trump ordering military guards and the marine to anti-ICE protests is an “overreaction” to the protest and will significantly impact marginalised communities. Image: Wikimedia Commons
As anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles start to slow, concerns are still present regarding the use of military agents equipped with riot gear at the mostly peaceful protests.
The protests are a response to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids at a Home Depot store and an Ambiance Apparel clothing manufacturer in early June that targeted minority and international communities in attempts to catch undocumented migrants.
This has sparked a renewed fear about the forceful delivery of Trump’s anti-immigration policies and rhetoric.
Last week, Yale Daily News and former 95bFM journalist, Andre Fa’aoso, told 95bFM's International Desk that Trump’s response has “deliberately provoked” the situation.
“It's very unprecedented for a president to mobilise National Guard members to local protests.”
“It's a level of passing state sovereignty that's [led to] a big discussion around Trump's use of his power and level of overreach in the protests.”
Trump’s deployment of the National Guard and Marine troops against Los Angeles protesters will cost $134 million US dollars or roughly $222 million New Zealand dollars.
Along with scrutiny of this use of federal resources, Fa’aoso is also concerned about the implications of this military response for “freedom of speech, the right to assemble, and the safety of immigrant communities”.
Also last week, University of Auckland Associate Law Professor, Scott Optican, echoes these sentiments, telling The Wire that the precedent set by Trump’s invocation of the Posse Comitatus Act is an “overreaction” to the protests.
“From my perspective, Trump was not within his rights to federalise the National Guard, to bypass the governor of California, and assume direct control over those troops and deploy them on the streets.”
“It's not an invasion or rebellion or any kind of insurrection. [They’re] protests, and protests are lawful.”
Optican argues that Trump’s decision to escalate the situation and “add fuel to the fire” through military force is largely driven by his political motivations to inflame anti-immigration rhetoric.
“He wants to use the spectre of violence and an exaggeration of the nature and level of violence in order to justify the use of force, which is part of an agenda to gin up his base politically.”
Both Fa'aoso and Optican emphasise how this heated face-off between protesters and military forces will have serious consequences for the ability of Americans, especially in vulnerable and marginalised communities, to express their concerns to the government through protest actions without facing violent backlash.
Without the opportunity to exercise the legitimate right to protest or engage in “civilised discourse” about immigration policy in the US, Optican says the role of media optics will be very consequential in framing this issue.
“The Trump Administration is going to pick out any individual acts of violence or whatnot and try to magnify it a thousandfold as a way of justifying their conduct and also as a way of capturing the narrative and the optics of L.A. aflame — nothing could be further from the truth.”
“In fact, Gavin Newsom, the governor of California said just the opposite is happening; it's actually the presence of the troops that are inflaming the situation … so they are creating the optics which they are then using to their advantage.”
As these narratives are generating social media disinformation that is spreading anti-immigrant rhetoric throughout the country, Fa’aoso says the biggest consequences will be for the nation’s diverse populations.
“Trump's immigration orders have been a real threat; a jarring threat, to the existential presence of these communities in the U.S — the tapestry of immigrant communities and cultures and even migrant communities that live in and call the United States home.”
Describing Trump’s reaction to these protests as an ‘authoritarian creep’, Optican says the most effective opposition to the spread of false narratives would be the employment of “the well-worn tactics of nonviolent, legitimate protest,” and the communication of stories from those harmed by anti-immigrant rhetoric and violence.
“I think starting to tell the stories of the impact of these raids on people who've lived in the States for years [who have] contributed to society, paid taxes; maybe something that we really need to do.”
“He won't stop until something stops him, either lawsuits, protests, or governors, or his supporters saying he's gone too far.”
As of Thursday last week, US District Court Judge Charles Breyer ruled that President Donald Trump’s mobilisation of the National Guard against the protests was illegal, and has ordered him to return control to the California Governor, Gavin Newsom.
