Former Vice President Kamala Harris launched a scathing attack against President Donald Trump’s decision to deploy the National Guard to Los Angeles, describing the move as part of a calculated strategy to create division and fear among communities.
Harris posted her criticism on X, formerly Twitter, on June 8, 2025, expressing her strong disapproval of the federal intervention. She characterized the deployment as a dangerous escalation designed to provoke chaos rather than address legitimate public safety concerns. Harris stated that “this Administration’s actions are not about public safety — they’re about stoking fear.”
The National Guard deployment represents an unprecedented federal intervention, marking the first time a president has activated the force in a state while bypassing gubernatorial authority since 1965. Trump signed the memorandum over the weekend, directly contradicting California Governor Gavin Newsom’s opposition to the federal intervention.
Harris connected the National Guard deployment to broader immigration enforcement actions, noting that recent ICE raids in Southern California and across the nation formed part of what she described as Trump’s agenda to spread panic and division. She emphasized that the administration’s actions targeted communities demanding dignity and due process rather than addressing genuine security threats.
The deployment came in response to immigration protests that erupted in Los Angeles following federal immigration raids in the area. Trump cited a need to address what he characterized as lawlessness that had been allowed to develop during the demonstrations.
Former second gentleman Doug Emhoff echoed his wife’s condemnation of the federal action, emphasizing the constitutional right of Angelenos to voice their concerns through peaceful demonstration. Emhoff argued that standing up for others through peaceful protest represented an exercise of democratic principles rather than a threat to public order.
Governor Newsom strongly opposed the federal intervention, asserting that the city experienced no significant problems until Trump’s involvement. The governor described the deployment as illegal and announced plans to file a lawsuit challenging the president’s authority to bypass state leadership in deploying National Guard troops.
The political implications of Harris’ criticism extend beyond the immediate controversy, as she has relocated to the Brentwood area of Los Angeles following her defeat in the 2024 presidential election. As a former California attorney general, Harris maintains strong connections to the state’s political landscape and legal community.
Political observers note that Harris is reportedly considering a gubernatorial campaign for 2026, when Newsom will be term-limited after serving eight years as governor. She is expected to announce her decision regarding the gubernatorial race by the end of summer, making her current criticism of federal intervention in California particularly significant for her potential political future.
The confrontation between federal and state authorities over the National Guard deployment highlights broader tensions over immigration enforcement and federal versus state jurisdiction. The legal challenge promised by Newsom could establish important precedents regarding presidential authority to deploy federal forces without gubernatorial consent.
Harris’ statement represents her most direct criticism of Trump’s immigration policies since leaving office, positioning her as a prominent voice of opposition to federal enforcement strategies. Her background as a prosecutor and former state attorney general lends additional weight to her criticism of the administration’s approach to law enforcement and civil liberties.
The National Guard deployment and subsequent political fallout underscore the complex relationship between federal immigration enforcement, state authority, and civil liberties. The legal and political ramifications of this unprecedented federal intervention are likely to continue developing as both sides prepare for potential court battles over presidential authority and state sovereignty.
