White Lightning Press
Santa Cruz Bureau
08 June 2025
To. Media TBA
Fm. Victor Lima Romeo, Editor
Subj. Battle Los Angeles--Deconfliction, State vs. Federal, TAOR--Command Chronology
Encl. (1) submitted herewith.
PART I. ORGANIZATIONAL DATA
1. Potential Breakdown Points in Chain of Command During Multi-Agency Response in Los Angeles
a. Key Areas Where Chain of Command May Break Down:
(1) Jurisdictional Conflicts
When multiple agencies—including the LAPD, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LASD), federal agencies, and the National Guard—are involved, there is often confusion over who has operational control over specific areas or incidents.
(2) For example, during the 1992 Los Angeles riots, the city of Los Angeles bypassed county protocols and sent requests for National Guard support directly to the California National Guard (CANG), rather than through the county sheriff as mutual aid doctrine required.
(3) This created confusion for the National Guard, which struggled to prioritize requests without a unified law enforcement point of contact.
2. Federalization and Authority Shifts
a. When the National Guard is federalized under Title 10 authority, as recently ordered by President Trump, the chain of command shifts from the state governor to the President.
(1) This can lead to disputes between local, state, and federal leadership over who is ultimately in charge of the Guard's actions on the ground.
(2) In the current situation, Governor Newsom and Mayor Bass have publicly objected to the federal deployment, insisting they remain in control and that the deployment is unnecessary, while the federal government asserts authority.
3. Lack of Unified Command Structure
a. The absence of a unified command system—such as the Incident Command System (ICS), which is designed to coordinate multiple agencies—can result in agencies operating independently, duplicating efforts, or even working at cross-purposes.
b. For example, LAPD and LASD made separate troop requests to the National Guard, with differing priorities and levels of specificity, leading to inconsistent allocation of resources.
4. Communication Breakdowns
a. Effective chain of command relies on clear communication channels.
b. In a chaotic, multi-agency environment, communication can break down, resulting in conflicting orders, delayed responses, and confusion among frontline personnel.
(1) For instance, LAPD requested hundreds of troops without specific missions, while LASD made targeted requests, complicating the National Guard's deployment decisions.
5. Political Interference and Public Messaging
a. Public disagreements between local, state, and federal officials can undermine operational unity and morale.
b. Statements by local leaders rejecting federal involvement, while federal officials threaten further escalation, can send mixed signals to both responders and the public, further eroding the chain of command.
c. A breakdown in the chain of command during efforts to restore order in Los Angeles is most likely to occur at points where jurisdictional authority is unclear, unified command structures are absent, or political disputes override operational coordination.
d. These issues can lead to confusion, inefficient use of resources, and potentially escalate tensions on the ground.
PART II. NARRATIVE SUMMARY
1. National Guard Deployment During Los Angeles Unrest
a. Background and Escalation
(1) The unrest in Los Angeles began after U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), with support from the Department of Homeland Security, conducted a series of aggressive immigration raids across the city starting Friday, June 6, 2025.
(2) These sweeps targeted areas with large immigrant populations, including Westlake, Paramount, and the Fashion District, and resulted in over 100 arrests within two days.
(3) The operations, which legal observers say involved arrests without judicial warrants, sparked outrage among local residents, labor groups, students, and civil rights organizations.
2. Protests and Clashes
a. Demonstrations erupted outside the Los Angeles Federal Building and quickly spread to other neighborhoods.
b. Protesters carried signs such as “Stop the Raids” and “No National Guard in Our Neighborhoods.”
c. Clashes between demonstrators and law enforcement intensified Friday night and continued into Saturday, with police deploying tear gas, flash-bang grenades, and pepper balls to disperse crowds.
d. In Paramount, a heavily Latino city south of Los Angeles, protesters reportedly threw rocks and cement at Border Patrol vehicles, while small fires burned in the streets.
e. Law enforcement made multiple arrests and used riot control tactics, leading to injuries and further inflaming tensions.
3. Federal Response and Guard Deployment
a. On Saturday, June 7, President Donald Trump ordered the deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles, citing threats to federal infrastructure and personnel and the need to address what he called “lawlessness”.
b. This action was taken under Title 10 authority, which does not require the approval of the state governor.
c. The White House and Trump administration officials described the move as necessary to restore order, with the Defense Secretary warning that active-duty Marines could also be mobilized if violence continued.
4. Local and State Reaction
a. California Governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass strongly condemned the deployment, calling it “purposefully inflammatory” and warning it would only escalate tensions.
b. Newsom accused the federal government of seeking a spectacle and undermining public trust, while Mayor Bass criticized ICE for “sowing terror” in the city.
c. Local officials emphasized that they had not requested federal intervention, and legal experts raised concerns about the legality of deploying federal troops in a sanctuary city without state consent.
5. Current Situation and Outlook
a. By Sunday, June 8, National Guard units had begun arriving in the Los Angeles area, with roadblocks and a heavy security presence reported around key intersections.
b. Protests are expected to continue, and the situation remains tense, with both state and federal officials exchanging sharp rhetoric.
c. The deployment has sparked debate over executive authority, civil liberties, and the impact on California’s migrant communities.
PART III. INTELLIGENCE ASSESSMENT, DECONFLICTION
1. Key Locations of National Guard Deployment in Los Angeles (June 8, 2025)
a. Primary Areas of Focus:
Paramount (Home Depot, 6400 Alondra Blvd):
(1) Site of a major standoff between protesters and federal agents on Saturday, June 7.
(2) Protesters gathered at the Home Depot and near the Alondra exit of the 710 Freeway.
National Guard and local law enforcement deployed for crowd and traffic control following violent clashes, use of flash-bangs, and multiple injuries.
b. Downtown Los Angeles:
(1) Raids and subsequent protests occurred around the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building and the Metropolitan Detention Center.
(2) LAPD and National Guard established checkpoints and cleared streets, especially after protests were declared unlawful assemblies.
(3) Heavy military and law enforcement presence reported early Sunday morning in the downtown core.
c. Compton:
(1) Additional protests and skirmishes reported, with law enforcement and National Guard responding to unrest.
d. Other Notable Locations:
(1) MacArthur Park: Site of federal immigration raids and subsequent protests.
(2) Chinatown: ICE officers were blocked by protesters after a raid.
(3)
Warehouse District (Downtown): Raids at businesses and fashion stores, leading to detentions and protests.
2. Checkpoints and Tactical Areas of Responsibility (TAOR)
a. Checkpoints: Established around key protest sites, especially:
(1) Entrances/exits to the Home Depot in Paramount.
(2) Main arteries near the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building and Metropolitan Detention Center in downtown L.A.
(3) Major intersections near protest concentrations, such as Alondra Blvd and the 710 Freeway in Paramount.
4. TAOR:
a. National Guard units, primarily from the 79th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, are tasked with:
(1) Securing federal buildings and critical infrastructure in downtown Los Angeles.
Supporting law enforcement in Paramount, Compton, and other protest hotspots.
(2) Assisting with crowd control, traffic management, and protection of federal property.
b. Deployment Scope and Mission
Force Size:
(1) At least 2,000 National Guard personnel federally mobilized under Title 10 authority, with deployment expected to last a minimum of 60 days or as determined by the Secretary of Defense.
c. Mission: To support federal law enforcement, protect federal property, and assist in restoring order during ongoing immigration unrest and protests.
PART IV. COMMUNICATION FAILURE
1. Failure of Federal Agents to Anticipate Citywide Immigration Unrest After ICE Raids in Los Angeles, June 6, 2025
a. Summary:
Federal agents conducting surprise immigration enforcement raids across Los Angeles on June 6, 2025, were met with widespread and intense protests, resulting in significant civil unrest that federal authorities appeared unprepared to fully anticipate or contain.
2. Key Points of Failure
a. Underestimation of Community Response
(1) The ICE raids targeted multiple high-profile locations, including a Home Depot, apparel stores in the Fashion District, and a clothing warehouse in South Los Angeles.
(2) These actions sparked immediate and organized resistance from immigrant advocacy groups, labor unions, and local residents, who rapidly mobilized protests at raid sites and key city locations.
(3) Demonstrators blocked enforcement vehicles, formed barricades, and massed outside federal buildings and jails, indicating a level of coordination and intensity that federal agents did not seem to expect.
b. Escalation of Tactics and Heavy-Handed Response
(1) Federal agents deployed in riot gear, used flash-bang grenades, tear gas, smoke bombs, and military-style armored vehicles to disperse crowds.
(2)
These aggressive tactics further inflamed tensions, leading to violent clashes, property damage, and boulevard closures, rather than quelling unrest.
(3) The use of force against protesters, including labor leaders such as SEIU California President David Huerta, who was injured and detained while documenting a raid, drew sharp criticism from elected officials and civil rights advocates.
c. Lack of Coordination with Local Authorities
(1) The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and L.A. County Sheriff’s Department publicly stated they did not participate in the immigration enforcement and would not enforce civil immigration laws.
(2) Local officials and community leaders condemned the raids as "cruel and unnecessary," and criticized the federal approach for stoking fear and discord in immigrant communities.
(3) The absence of a unified law enforcement strategy contributed to confusion and hampered efforts to maintain public order.
d. Political Fallout and Federal Escalation
(1) President Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem responded to the unrest by threatening further federal intervention and deploying 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles.
(2) The federal government’s rhetoric and actions were seen as reactive, rather than proactive, focusing on restoring order after unrest had already erupted, rather than preventing it through community engagement or advance planning.
Analysis
(3) The scale and speed of the protests following the ICE raids suggest that federal agents failed to adequately anticipate the depth of opposition and the organizational capacity of immigrant advocates in Los Angeles.
(4) The reliance on militarized tactics to disperse crowds, rather than de-escalation or community outreach, exacerbated tensions and led to a citywide crisis that overwhelmed both federal and local resources.
(5) The lack of coordination with local law enforcement and elected officials further undermined the federal response, fueling public outrage and contributing to a perception of heavy-handedness and disregard for civil liberties. (6) The subsequent deployment of National Guard troops and threats of further federal action highlighted the reactive nature of the response, underscoring the initial failure to anticipate and manage the unrest.
3. Conclusion
a. Federal agents' failure to anticipate citywide unrest in Los Angeles following the June 6, 2025, ICE raids was marked by an underestimation of protest mobilization, an overreliance on force, poor coordination with local authorities, and a reactive rather than preventative strategy.
b. This sequence of missteps allowed protests to escalate into significant civil disorder, prompting a major federal intervention only after the situation had already spiraled beyond initial control.
PART V. CIVIL AFFAIRS
1. Civil, Press, and Social Media Response to National Guard Takeover in Los Angeles (June 8, 2025)
2. Overview of Events
a. On June 8, 2025, the Trump administration deployed 2,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles in response to escalating protests over recent Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids.
b. The move was made under a rarely used federal authority, bypassing Governor Gavin Newsom's jurisdiction and sparking widespread controversy and unrest across the city.
Civil Response
3. Public Reaction:
a. Large-scale protests erupted in Los Angeles following ICE raids, with demonstrators opposing federal immigration enforcement and mass detentions. b. The protests, which began Friday, quickly grew in size and intensity, particularly after reports of aggressive federal actions and arrests.
4. Local Government:
a. Governor Gavin Newsom strongly condemned the federal takeover of the California National Guard, calling the action "purposefully inflammatory" and warning it would "only escalate tensions."
(1) He accused the federal government of seeking a spectacle rather than responding to a genuine law enforcement need.
Los Angeles
b. Mayor Karen Bass echoed these concerns, stating,
(1) "Everyone has the right to peacefully protest, but let me be clear: Violence and destruction are unacceptable, and those responsible will be held accountable."
(2) She also criticized the ICE operations for instilling fear in immigrant communities and disrupting public safety.
5. City Council and Advocacy Groups:
a. All 15 L.A. City Council members issued a joint statement condemning the raids and federal intervention, reaffirming the city's commitment to its immigrant population.
b. The ACLU denounced the National Guard deployment as unjustified and announced plans to challenge the administration in court.
6. Security Situation
Deployment and Clashes:
a. National Guard troops began arriving in downtown Los Angeles early Sunday morning, with vehicles stationed near key government buildings.
b. There were multiple clashes between protesters and law enforcement, especially in neighborhoods like Paramount and Compton.
c. Authorities used tear gas and riot gear to disperse crowds, and several arrests were made for failure to disperse after unlawful assembly orders.
7. Federal Justification:
a. The Trump administration characterized the protests as "violent mobs" and cited a clause in federal law that allows the president to mobilize the National Guard in cases of rebellion or threats to federal authority.
b. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced that active-duty Marines at Camp Pendleton were placed on "high alert," further escalating the sense of crisis.
8. Press and Social Media Response
a. Mainstream Media:
(1) Major outlets reported extensively on the unprecedented nature of the federal intervention, drawing historical parallels to past uses of the National Guard during civil rights unrest.
(2) Coverage highlighted the sharp divide between federal and state/local leaders, as well as the broader implications for civil-military relations and protest rights.
b. Social Media:
(2) Social media platforms were flooded with real-time updates, videos of confrontations, and statements from political leaders.
(2) Hashtags like #LAProtests, #NoICEraids, and #GuardOutOfLA trended nationally.
(3) Advocacy groups, including the Coalition for Humane Immigrants Rights and the L.A. Rapid Response Network, used social media to organize, reassure immigrant communities, and call for peaceful resistance.
c. Federal Messaging:
(1) President Trump and White House officials used social media to justify the deployment, labeling demonstrators as "radical left" agitators and vowing to restore order.
(2) Trump also announced a ban on masks at protests, questioning the motives of masked demonstrators.
PART VI. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
1. Summary Table: Common Breakdown Points
| Breakdown Point | Example/Impact |
|---|---|
| Jurisdictional Conflicts | LAPD bypassing county sheriff for Guard support, creating confusion |
| Federalization of Guard | Shift from governor to president as commander, causing disputes |
| Lack of Unified Command | Agencies making separate, conflicting requests to National Guard |
| Communication Failures | Conflicting orders, unclear missions for deployed troops |
| Political/Public Messaging | Leaders publicly disputing authority, eroding operational unity |
2. Summary Table: Location Matrix
| Location | Activity/Incident | Security Presence |
|---|---|---|
| Paramount (Home Depot) | Violent protest, ICE raid, injuries, fires | National Guard, LASD |
| Downtown L.A. (Roybal Fed) | Protests, detentions, street clearing | National Guard, LAPD |
| Compton | Skirmishes, protest escalation | National Guard, local PD |
| MacArthur Park | ICE raid, protests | Federal agents, LAPD |
| Chinatown | ICE raid, protester blockade | LAPD |
3. Summary Table: Key Stakeholder Responses
| Stakeholder | Position/Response |
|---|---|
| Governor Newsom | Condemned federal action as "inflammatory," warned of escalating tensions |
| Mayor Karen Bass | Called for peaceful protest, condemned ICE raids and federal intervention |
| City Council | Jointly condemned raids and National Guard deployment, affirmed support for immigrants |
| ACLU & Advocacy Orgs | Denounced deployment, announced legal challenges, called for peaceful resistance |
| Trump Administration | Justified deployment as response to "lawlessness," cited federal authority |
| Media & Social Media | Extensive coverage, historical comparisons, widespread mobilization and debate |
4. Conclusion The National Guard deployment in Los Angeles has triggered a fierce backlash from state and local leaders, civil rights groups, and much of the public, who view the move as an escalation rather than a solution. Press coverage and social media activity reflect deep polarization, with the situation continuing to evolve as protests and official responses unfold.
5. Synthetic intelligence inquiries. Perplexity AI
6. Image. Los Angeles City Hall - Wikipedia
7. Report filed by VLR for White Lightning Press (c) 2025.
End of Report....unclassified.
This is total BS and is so full of errors and falsehoods that it will confuse and distract the reader. It needs to be corrected and rewritten.
ReplyDelete