The Conversation

After President Trump deployed Marines and National Guard troops to quell immigration protests in Los Angeles, California Gov. Gavin Newsom called the move a show of “authoritarianism.”

Newsom’s reference is appropriate, argues U.S. history scholar Justin Randolph of Texas A&M University. He points out that the last time a president federalized troops over a governor’s objection dates to the Civil Rights Movement, when Black Americans stood up against the authoritarianism of Southern governors and their militarized National Guard troops. In those cases, however, presidents protected people with federal troops, whereas Trump has federalized troops to protect the government from protesters.

Trump’s view of law enforcement, Randolph argues, mirrors the militarized authority that some Southern governors cemented under Jim Crow policing. Arkansas Gov. Orville Faubus’ deployment of the National Guard to resist the desegregation of Little Rock Central High School offers one example. Other instances would follow with the desegregation of interstate transportation in the South, when political leaders used the National Guard in some cases to maintain segregation and preserve the interests of racial authoritarians.

The Los Angeles protesters, Randolph writes, reflect the continued struggle for social change. Their work may be criticized as “rebellion” by the Trump administration, but it follows a long American tradition of fighting authoritarianism.

Also in this week’s politics news:

Alfonso Serrano

Politics + Society Editor

The National Guard and protesters stand off outside of a downtown jail in Los Angeles on June 8, 2025. Spencer Platt/Getty Images

The use of federal troops to quell Los Angeles protests recalls militarized law enforcement during the Civil Rights Movement

Justin Randolph, Texas A&M University

During Jim Crow segregation, political leaders used domestic military power to preserve the interests of racial authoritarians.

Protesters parade through the Marigny neighborhood of New Orleans as part of the nationwide No Kings protest against President Donald Trump, on June 14, 2025. Patt Little/Anadolu via Getty Images

Millions rally against authoritarianism, while the White House portrays protests as threats – a political scientist explains

Jeremy Pressman, University of Connecticut

Protests can serve two opposing purposes. They can represent a mass movement in favor of democracy – and simultaneously serve a nascent dictator in their efforts to undermine democracy.

U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla of California is pushed out of the room after he interrupted Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem during a news conference in Los Angeles on June 12, 2025. David Crane/MediaNews Group/Los Angeles Daily News via Getty Images

Forcible removal of US Sen. Alex Padilla signals a dangerous shift in American democracy

Charlie Hunt, Boise State University

A combination of factors, including Democrats and Republicans feeling more and more animosity for the other side, led to the roughing up of Sen. Alex Padilla at a press conference.

US and Iran have a long, complicated history, spanning far beyond Israel’s strikes on Tehran

Jeffrey Fields, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Some of the major events in US-Iran relations highlight the differences between the countries’ views, but others presented real opportunities for reconciliation.

A radical proposal to abolish state government and strengthen American democracy

Stephen Legomsky, Washington University in St. Louis

What would the United States be without its states? A better, more democatic country, says one legal scholar.

Violent extremists like the Minnesota shooter are not lone wolves

Alex Hinton, Rutgers University - Newark

The lone wolf metaphor used to describe mass shooters misinforms views of extremists – and hampers law enforcement efforts to deter the violence.

Supreme Court ignores precedent instead of overruling it in allowing president to fire officials whom Congress tried to make independent

Claire B. Wofford, College of Charleston

Can the president fire leaders of more than 50 independent agencies overseen by Congress because he wants to? The Supreme Court may say yes, upending decades of constitutional law.