President Donald Trump says he is restoring law and order. But what unfolded in Los Angeles over the weekend looks more like a consequence than a solution: protests, tear gas, flash-bang grenades, clashes with federal forces, and the unprecedented deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops without the authorization of California’s governor.

What else could be expected from an immigration policy designed to show muscle and instill fear?

The spark was a series of raids carried out by federal agents in different parts of Los Angeles and New York. In California, operations included incursions into store parking lots and working-class neighborhoods, where armed, masked agents arrested dozens of migrants. In a New York courthouse, arrests even took place inside hallways.

Images circulating showed violent detentions, armored convoys, and the use of flash-bang grenades to disperse protesters. In a country that defines itself as a defender of freedoms, the scene looked like something from another era—or another logic.

Public response was swift. Hundreds of people took to the streets to protest in downtown Los Angeles. According to witnesses, the demonstrations were peaceful, but even so, they were met with tear gas and force to clear the way for official vehicles entering the federal detention center.

“This is an intimidation tactic,” Thomas Henning told AFP, while watching National Guard soldiers with long guns and helmets outside the building. “They’re trying to intimidate Americans from exercising our right to protest.”

From the White House, Trump defended his decision: “You have violent people, and we are not going to let them get away with it.” He even suggested invoking the Insurrection Act, which would allow a broader deployment of troops in other cities.

But if this episode made anything clear, it’s that the conflict is no longer just between agents and migrants, but between two visions of the country: one from the federal government that imposes its policy by force, and another from local authorities demanding respect for the rule of law and civil rights.

California Governor Gavin Newsom stated bluntly on X: “Trump is sending National Guard troops into LA County—not to meet an unmet need, but to manufacture a crisis. He’s hoping for chaos so he can justify more crackdowns, more fear, more control.”

For analysts like Elizabeth Goitein of the Brennan Center for Justice, the federal deployment of the National Guard represents “a shocking abuse of power.” In her view, the presidential memorandum authorizes troops to be deployed “at locations where protests against federal immigration functions are occurring or are likely to occur.” That is, anywhere in the country.

Trump’s decision evokes other dark moments in American history. Since 1957, when Eisenhower sent troops to Arkansas to enforce school desegregation, to 1970, when the National Guard killed four students at Kent State during a protest against the Vietnam War, federal deployments without state consent have been rare, tense, and deeply divisive.

But even in those cases, the stated objective was to protect rights or respond to visible emergencies. This time, the backdrop is an immigration policy that has become more aggressive since January 20, the day Trump returned to the White House.

Since then, the Department of Homeland Security has revoked restrictions that prevented arrests in protected areas like courthouses. Raids have become more frequent, more forceful, and less predictable. The president himself has compared migrants to “monsters” and “animals.”

It is no surprise, then, that the immigrant community—and many U.S. citizens—see these actions as a declaration of war. Estrella Corral, a citizen, said protesters are angry because hardworking people are being treated like criminals. “Trump deploying the National Guard is ridiculous. I think he’s escalating, he’s trying to make a show for his agenda,” she told AFP.

Senator Bernie Sanders summed it up: “Conduct massive illegal raids. Provoke a counter-response. Declare a state of emergency. Call in the troops. Authoritarianism in real time.”

Polls show a slight majority still supports the immigration crackdown. But if Trump’s goal was to show strength, what he’s revealing is a nation on edge, a legality stretched to its limits, and an increasingly evident institutional fracture.

The question now is whether, in the face of the next wave of protests, the president will respond with more raids, more troops… or a different policy. For now, the chosen path is conflict.

With information from AFP