Recent protests in Los Angeles, sparked by aggressive immigration raids and subsequent clashes with law enforcement, have become more than local flashpoints; they demonstrate the potency of political rhetoric. Both President Donald Trump and California Governor Gavin Newsom have used intentionally provocative language to shape public perception, heighten tensions, and shift political narratives.
Trump’s Language: Casting LA as a Threat
President Trump has often cast Los Angeles as a lawless city facing crisis, using military imagery and alarmist images. For instance, at Fort Bragg he denounced demonstrators as animals while promising to “liberate” its city (kcra.com +4, apnews +4 and theguardian.com).
This aggressive framing follows historical patterns identified by experts such as NYU historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat, who described it as an authoritarian tactic–reinforcing narratives that justify militarized intervention whilst strengthening authoritarianism within nations. ( The Guardian).
Trump’s administration has relied on tropes of invasion and chaos as justification for deploying approximately 4,100 National Guard troops and 700 Marines (according to reports), who will protect Los Angeles “under siege”, protestors who raise Mexican flags at protests as well as links between Mexican flags, protests and Mexican cartels allegedly operating here as justification for such deployments (https://apnews.com, https://theguardian.com, and https://en.wikipedia.org for reference).
According to The Economist, this move is less about restoring public order and more about initiating confrontation in order to boost an image of law-and-order.
California Governor Gavin Newsom has taken an unconventional tack by framing Trump’s actions as resistance. He has accused federal government agencies of intentionally fomenting unrest to create political spectacle and turn peaceful protest into political spectacle (TIME.com/LATEST, The Guardian/Guardian.co.uk etc). Newsom’s response can be found here (Time/LA Times and Guardian respectively).
Newsom has taken steps to challenge federal mobilization by filing a lawsuit that asserts its deployment without state approval is unconstitutional (kcra.com; wsj.com and time.com).
On social media platforms such as X and TikTok, his meme-laden commentary resonated strongly among young voters – particularly on X. This helped establish him as a grassroots champion against federal overreach and set him up as an influential voice against it, according to Washingtonpost.com.
Media and Analysts: Examining Narrative Strategy Media coverage has explored these competing narrative strategies in detail. For example, The Washington Post covered Chief McDonnell and Mayor Karen Bass’s fears that Trump’s rhetoric could damage effective policing by sowing political division and dissolving trust between community members.
CalMatters noted that while other presidents had pursued more stringent immigration enforcement policies, Trump stands out by using language and military force that differ dramatically from norms–raising questions of executive overreach.
Legal scholars and civil liberties organizations have shared this view. ACLU Director Hina Shamsi described their deployment as “unnecessary, inflammatory, and an abuse of power”, noting the lack of any insurrection or martial law scenarios which warrant such force being deployed (calmatters.org and kcra.com respectively).
Implications for Public Perception Rhetorical strategies go beyond mere political posturing–they actually shape how Americans understand events and who is to blame. Trump’s rhetoric reinvigorates fears of urban decay, strengthening support for federal intervention while Newsom presents his narrative as one involving democratic principle and civil liberties.
Los Angeles is not alone when it comes to stakes: midterm elections looming and debates surrounding executive authority are increasing, offering both sides an opportunity for national campaigns. Trump seeks to inspire his followers with images of disorder, while Newsom seeks to unite Democratic resistance and civic engagement.
Trump’s rhetoric: Evokes fear and chaos while using military imagery to justify federal intervention.
Newsom’s rhetoric: frames federal action as authoritarian overreach and legal challenge as an ongoing process.
Expert view: Analysts caution this moment pushes the limits of presidential power and could normalize domestic military deployment.
Why it Matters: Public understanding and policy development depend upon how Americans perceive authority, protest, and the balance between safety and civil rights.
Los Angeles is witnessing a story-line fight over more than just curfews or troop deployment – it’s about who holds control of symbols, terms, and how this impacts America’s democratic fabric moving forward.