Honestly, the summer of 2020 felt like a fever dream for most of us, but in Los Angeles, things got especially heavy. You might remember the headlines flashing images of camouflage-clad officers and National Guard trucks rolling through the streets. People were asking then, and they're still asking now: why did Trump send troops to LA? It wasn’t just one single reason. It was a messy mix of executive orders, a "law and order" campaign strategy, and a massive clash over federal property and immigration enforcement.
To get the full picture, you have to look at the timeline. It started with the George Floyd protests, sure, but it quickly spiraled into something much more legalistic and, frankly, aggressive.
The Breaking Point: June 2020 and the Federal Push
In early June 2020, Los Angeles was already a powder keg. While most people were protesting peacefully, there were pockets of vandalism and looting that gave the White House the opening it wanted. Trump wasn't just talking about "dominating the streets" in some abstract way; he was looking for a way to bypass local leaders like Governor Gavin Newsom and Mayor Eric Garcetti, who weren't exactly rolling out the red carpet for federal intervention.
Trump eventually invoked 10 U.S.C. § 12406. It’s an obscure bit of law that lets a president federalize the National Guard if they think "regular forces" can't handle a "rebellion." He didn't officially pull the trigger on the Insurrection Act—though he threatened it constantly—but by federalizing the Guard, he took them out of the Governor's hands and put them under his own command.
Operation Legend and the "Surge"
By July, the strategy shifted. It wasn't just about riot control anymore. The administration launched Operation Legend, named after LeGend Taliferro, a four-year-old boy tragically killed in Kansas City. On paper, the goal was to fight a surge in violent crime. In practice, it meant sending hundreds of federal agents from the FBI, DEA, and ATF into major "blue" cities.
Los Angeles was a prime target. The administration argued that local "liberal" policies were letting crime run wild. They sent tactical teams to "assist" local cops, but often, the local cops didn't even know they were coming.
The Secret Target: Protecting ICE and Federal Buildings
One thing that often gets lost in the "riot" narrative is the immigration angle. A huge reason Trump sent troops to LA was to protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations.
In June 2020, ICE was ramping up raids in Southern California. Protesters started surrounding federal detention centers and blocking ICE vans. Trump’s June 7 memo specifically mentioned protecting federal personnel. Roughly 700 U.S. Marines were sent to "integrate" with the Guard, specifically tasked with guarding federal property like the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building.
- The Logic: If protesters block a federal building, it’s an "obstruction of federal law."
- The Reality: It put combat-trained Marines in direct contact with civilian protesters, a move that many military experts, including former Defense Secretary Mark Esper, found incredibly dangerous.
Was it even legal?
This is where it gets spicy. A lot of people—including a federal judge later on—argued that this was a straight-up violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. This 19th-century law basically says the military can't do domestic law enforcement. You can't have soldiers arresting people for shoplifting or spray-painting a wall.
The administration tried to play a word game. They said the troops weren't "enforcing the law," they were just "protecting property." But in LA, National Guard units were seen setting up perimeters, blocking traffic, and even apprehending at least one protester. In 2025, Judge Charles Breyer actually ruled that the deployment to LA had indeed broken the law, stating that the administration used the military to bypass Congress and the Constitution.
The Political Calculus
Let’s be real: it was an election year. Trump’s "Law and Order" brand was the cornerstone of his 2020 campaign. By sending troops into "anarchist" cities like LA, Portland, and Chicago, he was creating a visual narrative for his base. He wanted to show that he was the only thing standing between "suburban moms" and total chaos.
Critics, including David Frum, argued that the goal wasn't to calm things down. It was to provoke a fight. If you send guys in camo into a crowd of angry protesters, you’re probably going to get a viral video of a clash. That video then plays on a loop on cable news, reinforcing the idea that the city is "under siege."
🔗 Read more: How the Process of Science Discovering Flint’s Water Crisis Actually Worked
How it ended (and why it matters now)
The troops didn't stay forever. Most of the federalized National Guard units were phased out after about 60 days. But the precedent they set is still being debated in courtrooms and in Congress today.
We’re seeing the echoes of this now with the renewed threats to use the Insurrection Act for things like mass deportations or "clearing out" homeless encampments. The LA deployment was sort of the beta test for using the military as a domestic police force.
What you should take away:
If you’re trying to make sense of this whole era, here are a few practical things to keep in mind:
- Know the difference between the Guard and Federal Agents: The National Guard usually answers to the Governor. When they are "federalized" (Title 10), they answer to the President. This is a massive shift in power.
- The Insurrection Act is the "Nuclear Option": Trump threatened it but didn't actually use it in LA. He used Title 10 instead because it's slightly easier to defend in court, even if it's still legally shaky.
- Watch the "Federal Property" loophole: Most federal deployments happen under the guise of protecting buildings. This allows the executive branch to put "boots on the ground" even if the local Mayor says "no thanks."
If you're curious about the legal side of this, I'd suggest looking into the Brennan Center for Justice's breakdown of the Posse Comitatus Act. It explains why we have these "no-military-on-the-streets" rules in the first place. Understanding that history makes the 2020 LA deployment look a lot less like a standard security move and a lot more like a historic shift in how power is used in America.
To dive deeper, you might want to look at the specific court rulings from 2025 that finally addressed the legality of these 2020 deployments. They provide a roadmap for what a president can—and definitely cannot—do with the military on U.S. soil.