WASHINGTON, D.C. — Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has strongly condemned the federal government’s militarized response to recent anti-ICE protests, particularly in California. She accused the Trump administration of using disproportionate force and highlighted what she called a “dangerous double standard” in how federal power is being exercised.
The protests, which erupted following intensified Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids in Los Angeles, led to the deployment of over 2,000 National Guard troops and hundreds of active-duty military personnel. These measures sparked widespread concern among civil rights advocates and lawmakers who view the response as excessive and politically motivated.
Related posts
This Article Includes
- 0.1 Related posts
- 0.2 California DMV Now Allows Online Renewal for Commercial Driver’s Licenses
- 0.3 People from 12 Countries Banned from Entering New York Under Renewed Trump-Era Travel Ban
- 0.4 🔴 Pelosi Points to a Troubling Double Standard
- 1 ICE Raids Trigger Mass Protests in Los Angeles
- 2 Federal Crackdown Sparks Bipartisan Concern in California
- 3 Pelosi: “This Is Not About Safety, It’s About Control”
- 4 Legal Experts Weigh In
🔴 Pelosi Points to a Troubling Double Standard
Speaking to the press in San Francisco, Pelosi drew a direct comparison between the federal response to the anti-ICE protests and the events of January 6, 2021. She recalled how congressional leaders had pleaded with then-President Trump to send the National Guard to protect the U.S. Capitol — but to no avail.
“We begged the president of the United States to send in the National Guard [on January 6]. He would not do it. But now he is quick to send troops to Los Angeles over peaceful demonstrations,” Pelosi said. “This is the hallmark of authoritarianism.”
She further warned that the administration’s actions reflected a deeper erosion of democratic norms and an attempt to stifle dissent.
ICE Raids Trigger Mass Protests in Los Angeles
Tensions escalated in early June when ICE officers detained more than 100 individuals in coordinated operations across Los Angeles, many of whom were reportedly asylum seekers and undocumented workers. The move sparked massive protests outside detention centers and federal buildings, with demonstrators calling for an end to what they describe as inhumane immigration enforcement tactics.
While most of the protests were peaceful, federal officials claimed they had intelligence indicating potential violence, justifying the large-scale military presence.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) defended the decision, stating that the deployment was aimed at protecting federal property and ensuring public safety.
Federal Crackdown Sparks Bipartisan Concern in California
California Governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass joined Pelosi in decrying the federal government’s actions. Newsom filed an emergency motion to block the deployment, calling it a “gross overreach of federal authority” and a violation of state sovereignty.
“We will not allow the federal government to occupy our streets with armed troops under false pretenses,” said Newsom, citing California’s constitutional rights. You can read the California state government’s legal response here.
Civil rights groups like the ACLU and Human Rights Watch also issued strong statements condemning the use of military force against civilians engaged in constitutionally protected protests.
Pelosi: “This Is Not About Safety, It’s About Control”
Pelosi framed the federal action as a calculated political move rather than a legitimate law enforcement measure. She emphasized that peaceful dissent is not only legal but essential in a functioning democracy.
“This is not about safety. This is about control. About intimidation. About sending a message that if you protest federal actions, you will be met with force,” she stated.
She also warned that this kind of domestic militarization sets a dangerous precedent and urged Congress to take steps to curb unchecked executive authority.
Legal Experts Weigh In
Legal analysts say the federal deployment walks a constitutional tightrope. While the Insurrection Act of 1807 allows presidents to deploy federal troops in certain emergencies, its application in domestic protest scenarios remains controversial.
“There is a real question of proportionality and whether this meets the threshold required under federal law,” said Georgetown Law professor Rosa Brooks. “When peaceful protests are met with military troops, democracy itself is in peril.”
