Protesters: Allies and Foes-Why Did Trump’s Standard Become Double?
As Los Angeles streets became the epicenter of immigration protests, with federal forces deploying military-grade equipment, questions intensified about the Trump management’s costly, aggressive response-especially when contrasted with his inaction during the January 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection.
During his first term, Trump refused to mobilize the National Guard as his supporters stormed Congress. Today, however, he has unilaterally deployed both the National Guard and Marines to suppress immigration protesters. This stark contrast raises critical questions: Is this disparity rooted in perceived threats or the protesters’ identities? Does Trump show leniency toward his base while crushing dissent from critics?
From Capitol Siege to Immigration Protests: A Political Pivot
The recent Los Angeles demonstrations erupted after ICE raids targeted Latino immigrant communities. Trump’s swift deployment of federal forces-bypassing California’s governor-marked the first unilateral military intervention since 1965. Critics decry it as a blatant violation of state sovereignty.
Comparisons reveal troubling inconsistencies: on January 6, 2021, Trump ignored pleas from security officials to deploy troops as rioters ransacked congress-an event that later fueled his second impeachment for incitement. Yet today,he frames immigrant protesters as a “domestic threat,” claiming unchecked protests would leave Los Angeles “in flames.” Observers dismiss this as political theater; demonstrations remain largely peaceful despite mass arrests.
The Double Standard: Ideology Over Impartiality
Analysts note Trump’s responses hinge on allegiance rather than severity. In 2021, he praised Capitol rioters as “patriots”; now he brands minority-led immigration protests as existential crises requiring militarized force. legal scholars highlight contradictions: Federal law restricts military deployments without state consent or emergencies-a standard ignored during current crackdowns but upheld during January 6.
the Iron Fist Policy: Financial and Political Costs
The operation costs taxpayers $20-30 million daily for anti-riot gear and logistics. Politically, backlash grows even among Republicans like Senator Liz Cheney who condemn federal overreach violating states’ rights.
three Scenarios Ahead
- Tougher Crackdown: Full-scale martial law risks long-term civil unrest despite short-term suppression.
- Tactical Retreat: Mounting pressure could force negotiated concessions if polls show declining support.
- Judicial Intervention: Supreme Court may rule on legality if governors challenge federal authority under insurrection act precedents set during January 6 inaction.
(
)
