Most headlines in the US media these last few days are devoted to the events, protests, or extraordinary occurrences, depending on how you describe them, taking place in the city of Los Angeles, California.

These events are also impacting the information circulating in the rest of the world, where images of protesters being confronted by “law enforcement” are repeated.

But in the face of simplifications hidden in a few words or a few seconds of video, it is always necessary to dig a little deeper. What are the real origins of these events and why did they multiply so quickly?

Perhaps the most immediate cause was the hostile and ongoing actions of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers toward possible undocumented immigrants.

In the weeks immediately preceding these events, hundreds of officers were deployed in the city to literally hunt down their potential targets in and around shopping malls, schools, shelters, churches, and ICE offices.

On June 6, 44 individuals were detained, and the next day the number nearly tripled to 118. None of them had caused any exceptional circumstances.

As part of the context, it should be noted that the population of the state of California is 39% Latino and 14% Asian.

The Los Angeles metropolitan area is home to nearly 13 million people, 48% of whom are of Latino origin, with 3.5 million immigrants, including more than 800,000 undocumented immigrants. There could hardly be another place in the country with more social tension in the context of excessive use of force.

With very different social data, in 1992 (April-May), a crisis of extreme violence erupted in the same city following the acquittal of four police officers who abused and used excessive force against Rodney King, an African American man.

This decision was added to other racist acts against local minorities that had accumulated over the years. In total, 63 people died, more than 2,000 were injured, and 12,000 were arrested.

This is one of the few instances in recent US history in which members of federal military forces have been mobilized to control a local situation.

Now, at the beginning of June 2025, there have been daily reports of mothers separated from their young children, arrests of unaccompanied teenagers, abuse of force against unresisting detainees, and the treatment as criminals of individuals leaving a simple interview to legalize their immigration status in the country.

The repetition of these actions in a short period of time, which were also extraordinary across the board in relation to what was happening in the rest of the country, provoked a logical reaction of popular indignation, which manifested itself in the streets by a small number of people, some of whom took to violence.

According to local authorities, only about 100 individuals had demonstrated in a specific location in the city center at the beginning of the “crisis.”

However, at this stage of events, National Security Secretary Kristi Noem claimed that the demonstrations were perfectly well organized by professionals, a statement that served the essential purpose of creating an “enemy.”

This was the spark that the US federal government was waiting for (or had provoked) to trigger a disproportionate reaction with the mobilization and deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops, an exceptional decision that is only taken when all local authorities have failed and the situation points to the development of a crisis of greater proportions, whether due to a pandemic, an environmental disaster, or acts of terrorism.

When analyzing the images of the National Guard’s actions in the early hours of the “crisis,” it is clear that on one side there are groups of protesters shouting slogans or holding up signs, while on the other side, uniformed officers with heavy combat gear advance, constantly firing rubber bullets and tear gas from armored vehicles.

This balance of forces in itself led to an escalation of violence rather than helping to reduce it.

By June 9, the federal government had deployed 700 marines to the area and mobilized another 2,000 members of the National Guard, without any request for support from the police or other local law enforcement agencies.

As is well known, marines are professionals trained to use force by various means in combat situations. None of the information about this decision clarified how the various commanders would coordinate their actions or what the chain of command would be, which added further tensions to the handling of the situation.

According to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, the new troop additions were justified to “protect federal agents” already in the city, not to accompany the civilian population, institutions, guard property, or simulate support for local police.

These are the facts that are before the eyes of any observer, but the question remains: what are we not seeing?

The efforts during Donald Trump’s first term that were devoted to the supposed construction of a wall on the border with Mexico and other initiatives to denigrate various immigrant groups and deny them any right to political activity are now more directed at criminalizing virtually any inhabitant who was not born within the borders, who, according to their assumptions, is there to steal the “wealth” produced by the Anglo-Saxon population and which is also responsible for all the social disaster caused by the excessive concentration of wealth in the hands of a few.

But in his actions in recent days, Trump has added more specific targets. The first of these has been to open a front against at least two Democratic politicians (and several potential ones) who do not share and vehemently oppose his domestic and foreign policy.

By creating the image of “inability to govern,” Trump is targeting both Mayor Karen Bass and Governor Gavin Newsom, two different generations of Democrats, with his political rifle.

The former is an 11-year former federal congresswoman who was the leader of the Black Caucus in the House and was on the short list of potential vice presidential candidates to accompany Joe Biden in his 2020 presidential race. Ms. Bass, 73, is known for her inclusive policies toward the diverse communities that make up the city of Los Angeles.

Mr. Newsom, for his part, is considered a rising star among Democrats, who had a good chance of being chosen as his party’s candidate for the 2024 presidential election if Biden had not insisted on running for re-election and, after his resignation, if the party had held an open convention. It can be said that Trump and his team are already thinking about the 2028 scenario.

The artificial crisis created for the Los Angeles area could work in other cities or states with large immigrant populations that are governed by potential future Democratic candidates.

There is another small detail that has not yet caught the eye of observers, but which is weighing heavily on the minds of real estate mogul Donald Trump and his union: Los Angeles has been officially chosen as the host city for the XXXIV Olympic Games, which will generate a lot of local construction investment.

There are repeated and well-documented cases in US history of the artificial creation of security problems around areas or facilities that are “devalued” and then acquired at very low prices by opinion and stock market manipulators.

The articulation of “crises” such as the one at hand distracts attention from other issues that are potentially more important but, for reasons of newspaper space and television time, are conveniently relegated to second and third place.

The Trump team must be happy these days because attention is being diverted from events such as:

– The genocide in Gaza.

– Europe’s disengagement from the crisis in Ukraine.

– Trade negotiations with China in London, which were preceded by a tariff dance.

– Negotiations on nuclear issues with Iran, after the authorities in Tehran have been extremely demonized.

– The gubernatorial elections in the state of New Jersey, which both Democrats and Republicans hope will be an indicator of trends toward the 2026 midterm elections.

– The predictable passage of the “big and beautiful bill” by the Republican majority in Congress, which severely cuts social programs and increases tax breaks for the wealthiest.

– The love-hate relationship with Elon Musk.

– The shutdown of federal institutions and the expulsion of American scientists involved in both human health and the environment.

The list could be even longer, but these are just some of the issues that Trump manages to isolate from public scrutiny with his supposedly improvised actions, or what appear to be the product of temperamental outbursts.

Unfortunately, the situation in Los Angeles could spread at an unnecessary social cost. A similar scenario could be replicated in other areas, to the extent that it is in the White House’s interest. At the moment, there is no concerted political effort to address this with any real chance of success.

Nor can we rule out the possibility that the situation will reach a tipping point beyond which Trump and his supporters will lose control over the temperature of violence.

IN THIS ARTICLE

The opinions expressed in this section do not necessarily represent those of teleSUR