A Jersey City journalist is recovering after being struck by a vehicle in a hit-and-run that ended in a violent multi-car crash and a string of charges against the driver, authorities said. According to police and witness accounts, the collision occurred in Jersey City when a vehicle struck a pedestrian and left the scene. The victim, a local journalist, was thrown to the ground and suffered injuries that required medical treatment. Instead of stopping, the driver, a resident in Bayonne New Jersey, Laura Castaneda, allegedly fled the area at a high rate of speed. Witnesses told investigators that the vehicle was seen traveling at what they believed to be more than 90 miles per hour along West Side Avenue, heading in the direction of Bayonne. Within seconds, the driver reportedly lost control and crashed into three parked vehicles, totaling all three as well as the vehicle they were driving. Emergency responders arrived on scene to find significant damage to the parked cars and debri...
On June 7, 2025, President Donald Trump authorized the deployment of 2,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles, a decision that sparked intense debate and criticism across the political spectrum. This move, aimed at quelling protests against federal immigration raids, marked a rare use of federal authority to federalize a state’s National Guard without the consent of its governor. The deployment has raised significant legal, political, and social questions about the use of military forces on U.S. soil, particularly in response to civil unrest over immigration policy. This article examines the events leading to the deployment, the legal framework, reactions from key stakeholders, and the broader implications for California and the nation.
Background: Immigration Raids and Rising Tensions
The deployment followed two days of protests in Los Angeles, Compton, and Paramount, triggered by large-scale immigration raids conducted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The Department of Homeland Security reported that over 100 undocumented immigrants were arrested in Southern California during these operations, which targeted workplaces, including a Home Depot in Paramount where day laborers gathered. Protests erupted on June 6 and continued into June 7, with demonstrators clashing with federal agents, including Border Patrol and Homeland Security Investigations personnel. In Paramount, a majority Latino city, protests escalated as federal agents used tear gas and flash-bang grenades to disperse crowds, while some protesters reportedly threw objects and set at least one car on fire.
The unrest was fueled by opposition to the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement policies, which included workplace raids and mass deportations. Protesters, chanting slogans like “Fuera ICE” (ICE, get out), expressed outrage over what they perceived as heavy-handed tactics targeting immigrant communities. The situation in Paramount, located about 20 miles south of downtown Los Angeles, drew particular attention due to its intensity, with video footage showing federal agents in riot gear facing off against demonstrators.
The Deployment Order: A Rare Federal Power Play
On Saturday, June 7, 2025, President Trump signed a presidential memorandum federalizing 2,000 California National Guard troops for a 60-day period, citing the need to “address the lawlessness that has been allowed to fester” in Los Angeles. The decision bypassed California Governor Gavin Newsom’s authority, marking the first time since 1965 that a president activated a state’s National Guard without a governor’s request. The last such instance occurred when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent troops to Alabama to protect civil rights demonstrators.
Trump’s directive authorized the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, to employ the National Guard to protect federal functions and property, specifically to support ICE officers during immigration enforcement operations. Hegseth announced the mobilization on X, stating that the Pentagon was acting “IMMEDIATELY” and that active-duty Marines at Camp Pendleton, approximately 100 miles south of Los Angeles, were on “high alert” for potential deployment if violence persisted.
The legal basis for the deployment rested on Title 10 authority, which allows the president to federalize National Guard units under specific circumstances, such as to suppress rebellion or protect federal operations. Notably, Trump did not invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807, a more commonly cited mechanism for deploying troops during civil unrest. The Insurrection Act permits the president to use military forces to address rebellion or domestic violence that hinders the execution of laws, but it typically requires extreme circumstances. Legal experts, including Steve Vladeck from Georgetown University, noted that the National Guard’s role was framed as supporting ICE officers rather than engaging in direct law enforcement, as the latter would require invoking the Insurrection Act due to restrictions under the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits military involvement in civilian law enforcement.
California’s Response: Outrage and Resistance
Governor Gavin Newsom sharply criticized the deployment, calling it “purposefully inflammatory” and accusing the Trump administration of seeking a “spectacle” to escalate tensions. In a statement on June 7, Newsom emphasized that local law enforcement, including the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, was fully capable of managing the protests without federal intervention. He argued that there was “no unmet need” and that the deployment would “erode public trust.” Newsom also described Hegseth’s threat to deploy active-duty Marines as “deranged behavior,” warning that it risked further inflaming the situation.
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass echoed Newsom’s sentiments, stating that the LAPD and other local agencies were equipped to handle the protests. Bass reported no evidence of National Guard presence in Los Angeles on the night of June 7, despite Trump’s claims on Truth Social praising the Guard for a “job well done.” She emphasized that while peaceful protest was a protected right, violence and destruction were unacceptable, and local authorities were prepared to maintain order.
Other California officials, including Senator Alex Padilla and Representative Nanette Barragán, condemned the deployment. Padilla, in particular, raised concerns about the broader implications of federal overreach, while Barragán criticized the presence of armed National Guard troops at protests, warning of the potential for violence. The arrest of David Huerta, president of SEIU California, during the protests further galvanized opposition, with video evidence of his rough treatment by federal agents prompting outrage from state Democrats.
National Reactions: A Polarized Debate
The deployment sparked a polarized response across the U.S. Independent Senator Bernie Sanders called it a move toward “authoritarianism,” arguing that Trump’s actions disregarded the rule of law. Senator Cory Booker warned that the deployment was designed to “sow chaos and confusion,” particularly by targeting communities attempting to comply with immigration processes. The League of United Latin American Citizens condemned the move as a “troubling escalation” in the administration’s immigration tactics, accusing Trump of employing military-style measures to suppress dissent.
Conversely, Trump’s supporters, including White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt and Border Czar Tom Homan, defended the deployment as necessary to protect federal agents and restore order. Leavitt claimed that “violent mobs” had attacked ICE officers, while Homan warned that local leaders like Newsom and Bass could face arrest for obstructing federal operations. On X, pro-Trump voices, such as @TruePatriotVox and @dustinemills24, framed the deployment as a bold step to “take back our country” and address perceived lawlessness in California.
Legal and Historical Context
The federalization of the California National Guard without state consent is a rare and controversial action. Historically, National Guard deployments in California, such as during the 1992 Los Angeles riots following the Rodney King verdict or the 2020 George Floyd protests, were requested by state authorities. In 1992, Governor Pete Wilson sought federal assistance to quell widespread unrest, and in 2020, Newsom himself deployed the Guard to manage protests. The 2025 deployment, however, stands out due to its unilateral nature and the absence of widespread civil unrest comparable to past events.
Legal scholars like Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley Law School, described the move as “chilling,” noting that federalizing the National Guard to suppress protests is typically reserved for extreme circumstances. Chemerinsky and others expressed concern that the deployment could be a precursor to broader use of military forces, potentially under the Insurrection Act, to address dissent or enforce immigration policy.
The Posse Comitatus Act further complicates the situation, as it prohibits federal military forces from engaging in civilian law enforcement unless explicitly authorized. By framing the National Guard’s role as protecting ICE officers rather than conducting arrests, the Trump administration sought to navigate these legal constraints. However, critics like Vladeck warned that the presence of armed troops in a “protection” role could still lead to the use of force, raising risks of escalation.
Broader Implications
The deployment of National Guard troops in Los Angeles has significant implications for federal-state relations, civil liberties, and immigration policy. California, a state with a history of progressive immigration policies and “sanctuary” laws, has long been at odds with federal enforcement efforts. The Trump administration’s actions signal a willingness to override state authority, potentially setting a precedent for similar interventions in other Democratic-led states.
The move also intensifies debates over the militarization of immigration enforcement. Critics argue that deploying troops to manage protests risks escalating tensions and alienating communities, particularly in areas like Paramount, where 82% of residents are Latino. The use of tear gas, flash-bang grenades, and riot gear by federal agents has already drawn comparisons to heavy-handed tactics used in past protests, further eroding trust in federal authorities.
Moreover, the deployment raises questions about the Trump administration’s broader immigration strategy. Posts on X, such as one from @Zack_lope, suggested that the unrest in California could be the “opening chapter” of a larger conflict over immigration policy, with some warning of a “mini civil war.” While such claims may be hyperbolic, they reflect the deep divisions and heightened emotions surrounding the issue.