Demonstrators wave U.S. and Mexican flags as U.S. Marines stand guard outside the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building in Los Angeles on June 14, 2025.
(
Mike Blake
/
Reuters
)
Topline:
California Republicans who agreed to speak with CalMatters endorse President Donald Trump’s military deployment in Los Angeles as necessary to save the state from its Democratic leadership.
Responses from some lawmakers: CalMatters asked all 29 Republican lawmakers in the state Legislature whether they support Trump’s troop deployment. Only six answered, and all sided with Trump. The Democrats had it coming, those lawmakers argued, because their lenient immigration and crime policies — including a 2017 state “sanctuary” law that limits local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement agents — forced Trump’s hand.
Why it matters: That alignment could cost Republicans in 2026, said Mike Madrid, a longtime GOP strategist and a vocal critic of Trump. Polling in recent weeks has shown that Trump’s immigration policies and military deployment in Los Angeles are growingly unpopular among Americans. “I don’t think people are seeing this as an immigration issue anymore. They are seeing it the way the governor has framed this, which is a constitutional issue, a federal overreach issue, a due process issue,” Madrid said. “That puts Republicans on very troubling ground.”
Read on... for responses from California Republicans and what it could mean.
When is it OK for a president to use military forces on civilians in a state over the objections of their governor?
When that governor is Gavin Newsom, California Republican leaders say.
In a rare move, President Donald Trump overrode Newsom and local leaders in sending 4,000 National Guard members and 700 active-duty Marines to Los Angeles in response to protests against the president’s immigration enforcement.
California is challenging Trump’s order in federal court. While the president argues that he has the sole authority to deploy the military, legal scholars and judges have warned that the move risks intruding upon state sovereignty and tilting the constitutional balance of power between the federal and state governments.
But most California Republican lawmakers, who have vehemently opposed “government overreach,” would not say where they stand on Trump’s military intervention in Los Angeles.
CalMatters asked all 29 Republican lawmakers in the state Legislature whether they support Trump’s troop deployment. Only six answered, and all sided with Trump.
The Democrats had it coming, those lawmakers argued, because their lenient immigration and crime policies — including a 2017 state “sanctuary” law that limits local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement agents — forced Trump’s hand.
“It is the root cause of the rioting and violence that we are witnessing this year,” state Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil of Modesto said of the sanctuary law in a video last week.
State Republicans also seized on sporadic violent clashes, captured in viral videos on social media, as proof of Newsom and other Democrats’ failure to rein in violence. The GOP lawmakers argued that’s why Trump had to step in, even though local police had said they did not need help from federal troops.
“What do you do when you have a governor who’s not leading (and) is not doing anything about unrest and violence in his own state?” said Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher of Chico.
Republican Assemblymember James Gallagher argues against Gov. Newsom’s oil profit penalty plan at the Capitol on March 27, 2023.
(
Miguel Gutierrez Jr.
/
CalMatters
)
But would the Republican lawmakers say the same if a Democratic president descended the military upon a red state over the head of its governor? Some said yes as others bit their tongues, arguing it should be judged on a case-by-case basis and refusing to entertain hypotheticals.
“It depends on the situation,” Gallagher told CalMatters. “What are the times when you can and when you can’t? That’s what the court’s going to decide.”
It’s no surprise that state Republicans are using the opportunity to slam Democrats on immigration and crime: Those strategies have worked for the minority party in the past. It’s also a chance for them to demonstrate their loyalty to Trump, who wields a definitive influence over the party.
But it is particularly worrisome when Republicans are aligned with Trump in a move to override state authority, which tears at the fabric of the U.S. Constitution, said Eric Schickler, political science professor at the University of California, Berkeley.
“If you think about what the framers were worried about when they created the Constitution, it’s exactly this kind of dynamic,” he said. “It’s not an exaggeration to say the nature of the U.S. political system has changed. And it’s changed not just because of Trump’s force of will as an individual, but it’s changed because members of his party, when he’s asserted authority, have sided with him consistently.”
That alignment could cost Republicans in 2026, said Mike Madrid, a longtime GOP strategist and a vocal critic of Trump. Polling in recent weeks has shown that Trump’s immigration policies and military deployment in Los Angeles are growingly unpopular among Americans.
“I don’t think people are seeing this as an immigration issue anymore. They are seeing it the way the governor has framed this, which is a constitutional issue, a federal overreach issue, a due process issue,” Madrid said. “That puts Republicans on very troubling ground.”
California GOP lawmakers: Trump 'stepped up'
While Trump’s executive order told the troops to guard federal personnel and properties, he and his administration have also repeatedly suggested that the troops are there to crack down. U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem last week even said the military was there to “liberate the city from the socialists.”
The military presence has stoked fear among legal experts and some law enforcement officials, who argue there is no legal standing for Trump’s use of authority. Unleashing military forces on domestic protesters can also have a chilling effect, risk escalating the situation further and create confusion among civilians, they said.
CalMatters also reached out to U.S. Reps. David Valadao, Young Kim and Ken Calvert, three Republicans who will likely face fierce challenges from Democrats in 2026. None of them responded.
While acknowledging California’s sovereignty, some state Republican lawmakers told CalMatters Trump needed to intervene due to what they perceived as a lack of leadership from Newsom. They cited videos of brick-throwing, Molotov-cocktail-tossing protesters and made unsubstantiated claims that paid agitators stoked violence among protesters — a claim Trump has made.
Assemblymember Jeff Gonzalez, a Coachella Republican and the only incumbent lawmaker who is a retired Marine, initially would not say if the scale of the Los Angeles protests warranted federal intervention, stating he did not have the “confidential intelligence” to weigh in. He also did not commit to supporting the same actions if they came from another president, arguing each situation is different.
Assemblymember Jeff Gonzalez speaks during session at the state Capitol in Sacramento on Jan. 23, 2025.
(
Fred Greaves
/
CalMatters
)
But when a CalMatters reporter pushed for comments, Gonzalez pointed to videos of violence as justification for Trump’s deployment.
“When you have leaders that don’t step up, someone needs to step up, and that’s what took place,” he said.
State Sen. Steven Choi of Irvine told CalMatters that while he supports states’ rights, when immigration agents face violence or interference, “it is appropriate for federal authorities to protect both those agents and federal properties.”
Sen. Tony Strickland a former mayor of Huntington Beach, said there is precedent for federalizing the California National Guard to quell domestic riots, referencing the 1992 turmoil in Los Angeles over the acquittal of police officers who severely beat Black activist Rodney King.
But in that example, then-President George H.W. Bush deployed troops at the request of then-Republican Gov. Pete Wilson and then-Democratic Mayor Tom Bradley. The riots were also far more violent, resulting in 63 deaths.
Strickland argued that deaths have been avoided in Los Angeles only because Trump sent in the military, echoing the president’s assertion that the city otherwise would have burned to the ground.
“Do you wait till 63 people die before you call them in?” Strickland said.
Blaming California's sanctuary law
The Republicans argued that Trump’s use of military force was necessary because of California’s 2017 sanctuary state law, which has been upheld in federal court.
Their logic goes like this: Had California police been more cooperative with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, federal agents wouldn’t have had to arrest immigrants in the streets, Californians wouldn’t have been so riled and Trump wouldn’t have had to deploy troops to protect those agents.
State Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones, a San Diego Republican, during the state Senate Appropriations Committee session in Sacramento on Sept. 1, 2023.
(
Rahul Lal
/
CalMatters
)
It is California’s lack of cooperation that forced federal immigration agents to hunt down “violent criminals” in public, Jones argued. He dismissed arrests, such as that of a 4-year-old girl on life-saving medication in Bakersfield, as “collateral.”
“When the federal agents are having to go into neighborhoods and find these violent felons to capture and report and prosecute … there are going to be collateral arrests in that, and that’s the state that Gov. Newsom and the Democratic leadership have created,” Jones told CalMatters.
Assemblymember Tom Lackey, a Palmdale Republican who served in the California Highway Patrol for 28 years, said the sanctuary law “created all of this fear and chaos.”
“What we are seeing now is a situation where the supermajority has limited tools to manage immigration; creating a communication breakdown between local and federal law enforcement, and a vacuum that invites a heavier hand from Washington,” he said in a statement.
But Madrid said blaming the tension all on the state’s sanctuary law is an “extraordinarily weak” argument.
“If that were the case, this would have been a situation long before,” he said. “It is consciously deceptive in telling a very, very small part of the problem.”
While Madrid called the state’s sanctuary law a “patchwork” policy, he argued immigration is an issue entirely “on the doorstep of the federal government.” The Trump administration has missed opportunities to rein in the border, Madrid argued, noting Trump last year helped kill a bipartisan legislative deal over border security.
“What California has decided to do is to say: ‘Fine, if you are not going to control border security and … leave us as the largest border state in the country to deal with it, we are going to accommodate it. We are going to ingratiate people into the fabric of our culture, our politics and our economy,’” he said.
Could support for troops cost Republicans?
Aligning with Trump has its perks. The president — the face of a growingly populist party — can galvanize Republican voters and help legislators cement their conservative base. Even as the president’s approval rating slips among Americans, Republican voters continue to show strong support for him.
But Republicans could lose ground, especially among Latino voters, over Trump’s fierce crackdown on immigration and the protests, Madrid predicted.
While Latinos flocked toward Trump in 2024 despite the president’s promise of mass deportation, that threat is no longer “abstract” but “existential,” Madrid said. Moreover, more Americans are alarmed by Trump’s use of the military on its own people, he said.
“He so overplayed his hand on immigration crackdowns that it’s now about overreach and not about border security,” Madrid said.
David Wagner
covers housing in Southern California, a place where the lack of affordable housing contributes to homelessness.
Published June 23, 2026 6:09 PM
A for-sale sign hangs outside a $1.6 million house on L.A.’s Westside.
(
David Wagner
/
LAist
)
Topline:
The Los Angeles City Council decided Tuesday to put off the full effects of a major new state housing law by allowing low-rise apartment buildings in some neighborhoods where such housing has long been banned.
The details: All council members voted in favor of those plans except for Traci Park, who was absent from the meeting. California’s Senate Bill 79 is set to take effect July 1.
What is SB 79? The law overrides local limits on housing development by allowing apartment buildings between five and nine stories tall near train stations and rapid bus stops. However, cities are allowed to postpone those changes until 2030 by developing their own incremental plans for more housing. L.A. elected leaders have chosen to delay. They’re doing so through the city’s new Low-Rise Ordinance, which aims to allow buildings up to four stories tall in 57 neighborhoods near transit lines.
Why it matters: L.A. lawmakers have tried many approaches to bring down L.A.’s high rents. But they have consistently voted to stop apartment developers from encroaching on the nearly three-quarters of city residential land reserved for single-family homes. Pushed by state lawmakers, city leaders are now having to accept some changes in single-family neighborhoods located near public transit lines.
Read more... to learn whether new apartment buildings could be allowed in your neighborhood.
All council members voted in favor of those plans except for Traci Park, who was absent from the meeting.
California’s Senate Bill 79 is set to take effect July 1. The law overrides local limits on housing development by allowing apartment buildings between five and nine stories tall near train stations and rapid bus stops.
However, cities are allowed to postpone those changes until 2030 by developing their own incremental plans for more housing. L.A. elected leaders have chosen to delay. They’re doing so through the city’s new Low-Rise Ordinance, which aims to allow buildings up to four stories tall in 57 neighborhoods near transit lines.
Why it matters
L.A. lawmakers have tried many approaches to bring down L.A.’s high rents. But they have consistently voted to stop apartment developers from encroaching on the nearly three-quarters of city residential land reserved for single-family homes.
Pushed by state lawmakers, city leaders are now having to accept some changes in single-family neighborhoods located near public transit lines.
The reaction
Some local officials and homeowners have expressed frustration over new state limits on their ability to stop development in low-density zones. But advocates for more development said the council’s decision will help address high rents by allowing more housing in areas that have long been off-limits to new apartments.
“The City Council voted to open up high-resource single-family neighborhoods near transit stations,” said Scott Epstein, policy director with Abundant Housing L.A. “This reform is long overdue and will help build a future where Angelenos of all incomes can find homes in the neighborhoods of their choice.”
Where will the projects be allowed?
Officials with the city’s planning department said residents can see whether Low-Rise Ordinance projects will be allowed in their neighborhood by clicking on this interactive map and making two selections from the “layer list” menu: “Opportunity Station Sites Eligible for Low Rise” and “Sites Eligible for Low Rise Outside of Opportunity Station.”
The map shows that some of the areas eligible for new apartment buildings under this plan include Westside neighborhoods within a half-mile of the E Line’s Westwood/Rancho Park station, pockets of the San Fernando Valley near G Line stops, and parts of Eagle Rock along Colorado Boulevard’s planned North Hollywood to Pasadena rapid bus line.
Is this a done deal?
Both plans — the decision to delay full SB 79 implementation, and the new Low-Rise Ordinance — now go to Mayor Karen Bass for final approval. Council members are also considering some tweaks they say would help Low-Rise Ordinance projects get built.
Those changes would include letting developers build denser projects if they reserve more units for low-income renters, as well as rules that would let developers build ground-level parking instead of costlier underground parking. The council’s planning committee voted Tuesday to forward those suggestions to the full City Council for further debate.
A drone is on display at a Los Angeles Police Commission meeting earlier this year. You might spot one overhead this Fourth of July.
(
Martin Romero
/
The LA Local
)
Topline:
SoCal is adopting a new form of surveillance to monitor illegal firework use: drones.
Why now: The devices are now an easier way to patrol local neighborhoods after a call to the police department has been made, allowing officers to determine if someone should be sent to the scene or a citation should be given.
Read on… for more information about this system.
There’s a new tool to fight illegal fireworks this Fourth of July: drones.
“A drone’s real-time aerial view can help officers assess situations faster, improve safety, support faster response times and ensure the right resources are sent where they’re needed most,” the Anaheim Police Department stated in an Instagram post.
Anaheim's department is the latest law enforcement agency using the technology to quickly identify illegal fireworks use. The Downey City Council is expected to vote Tuesday night on potential new fines and new rules that would allow local law enforcement to use drones to patrol neighborhoods for illegal fireworks usage.
How it works
Here's how the tech is put to use: Seconds after authorities receive a call reporting illegal fireworks activity, drones can take to the air, hovering above neighborhoods and businesses to find a specific location and an offender. The surveillance devices are equipped with night vision and zoom lenses that allow first responders to record high definition videos right from their Real Time Crime Center at the station.
Then, officers can determine whether to send out a patrol car or issue a citation for the incident.
Why it matters
The city’s drone usage comes as law enforcement agencies across Southern California brace for the annual flood of complaints about illegal firework use at this time of the year. Drones make the most effective use of time and resources, experts say.
“We'll typically see about 2,000 calls and about 300 related to fireworks,” Anaheim’s chief communications officer Mike Lyster explained about the Fourth of July. “It really is a better use of resources on what is always a very, very busy holiday for us.”
Drones allow officials to collect enough evidence to issue these citations. In Anaheim, the punishment starts at $1,000 and climbs to $3,000 by the third offense. But authorities say the goal is to curb illegal fireworks use altogether due to the risk of injury and wildfires.
Lyster hopes that people will think twice about using illegal fireworks this holiday — not just because of the fines — but because of its negative impact on local communities.
“The Palisades fire was ultimately started by illegal fireworks, and sadly, not in our city, but in our neighboring city, a young Anaheim girl died in an illegal fireworks incident last year,” Lyster said.
Where are drones already in use?
More cities are testing this method in order to crack down on illegal firework use. Sacramento, San Bernardino and Riverside are just a few of the other areas that have adopted this technology in recent years.
How do I know what's legal?
If you have any questions about what is legal or not in your community, a quick Google search can help.
Each county goes by different regulations for the types of fireworks you can use — if at all.
For example, parts of Anaheim allow “safe and sane” fireworks to be used only on the Fourth of July between 10 a.m and 10 p.m. This includes non-explosive, non-aerial devices like fountains, sparklers and smoke balls. State-approved fireworks will have a State Fire Marshal seal.
LAist staffer Anjanette Gile also contributed to this report.
Keep up with LAist.
If you're enjoying this article, you'll love our daily newsletter, The LA Report. Each weekday, catch up on the 5 most pressing stories to start your morning in 3 minutes or less.
The LAist community engagement team spoke with Altadena residents outside Fair Oaks Burger in Altadena on January 17.
(
Nubia Perez
/
LAist
)
Topline:
Your neighborhood has a reporter. Have you met them yet? On Saturday, coffee shops across L.A. are turning into places where you can tell a journalist exactly what’s been bugging you about your block…while drink amazing coffee.
More details: From Boyle Heights to Silver Lake to Inglewood to Long Beach, local reporters will be set up at neighborhood coffee shops from from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. — to hear what’s on your mind. Got a tip about a pothole that’s been eating tires for years? A landlord the city keeps ignoring? A community hero nobody’s written about? We want to hear it all!
Connect with us: LAist has been meeting community members in person through LAist Listens tabling events by popping up at local businesses.
Read on ... for more on where LAist and other local news outlets will be across L.A.
Your neighborhood has a reporter. Have you met them yet?
On Saturday, coffee shops across L.A. are turning into places where you can tell a journalist exactly what’s been bugging you about your block … while drinking amazing coffee.
From Boyle Heights to Silver Lake to Inglewood to Long Beach, local reporters will be set up at neighborhood coffee shops from from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. — to hear what’s on your mind. Got a tip about a pothole that’s been eating tires for years? A landlord the city keeps ignoring? A community hero nobody’s written about? We want to hear it all!
It’s part of Local News Day LA, a pop-up series organized by The LA Local that connects you with your local reporter and give you a chance to become the source instead of just the reader.
LAist has been meeting community members in person through LAist Listens tabling events by popping up at local businesses.
See below for the full list of participating media outlets and coffee shops — The LA Local and our media partners hope you’ll join us:
LAist will be joining The LA Local and other local media partners for Local News Day LA on June 27.
(
The LA Local
)
Where to find a journalist
The LA Local – Koreatown, Pico Union, Westlake will be hosted by Open Market
The LA Local – Inglewood and South LA will be hosted by Asteroid Vinyl Cafe
Boyle Heights Beat will be hosted by Picaresca Cafe
CalMatters will be hosted by Yia Caffe
Calo News will be hosted by Cruzita’s Deli and Cafe
The Eastsider will be hosted by Rosebud Coffee (Highland Park location)
LAist will be hosted by Cafe Calle
Los Angeles Radio Collective will be hosted by Spoke Bicycle Cafe
LA Sentinel will be hosted by Patria Coffee
LA Taco will be hosted by Cafecito Organico (Silverlake location)
LA Public Press will be hosted by Holy Grounds Coffee & Tea
Long Beach Post will be hosted by Wrigley Coffee
Q Voice News will be hosted by Hot Java
USC Annenberg Media will be hosted by South LA Cafe (Western location)
Come enjoy a cup of coffee (or tea) with us while supplies last.
Bottles of Pantene conditioner are displayed at a Costco in San Diego.
(
Kevin Carter
/
Getty Images
)
Topline:
A coalition of 17 states and a trade association representing U.S. wholesalers and distributors have sued California to block the enforcement of a stringent recycling law that aims to reduce plastic packaging waste.
The backstory: The lawsuit, filed yesterday in federal court, argues that California’s recently finalized regulations that will gradually require companies to scale back single-use plastics and ensure all packaging is recycling or compostable should be struck down.
Why now: The plaintiffs called the regulations “onerous mandates” that will cause steep price increases in everyday necessities that will be passed on, at least in part, to consumers.
What California officials say: Melanie Turner, a spokesperson for CalRecycle, said in an emailed statement that the agency does not comment on pending litigation and that it remained focused on implementing the law.
A coalition of 17 states and a trade association representing U.S. wholesalers and distributors have sued California to block the enforcement of a stringent recycling law that aims to reduce plastic packaging waste.
The lawsuit, filed Monday in federal court, argues that California’s recently finalized regulations that will gradually require companies to scale back single-use plastics and ensure all packaging is recycling or compostable should be struck down. The plaintiffs called the regulations “onerous mandates” that will cause steep price increases in everyday necessities that will be passed on, at least in part, to consumers.
“Once again, California is trying to enact a policy that negatively impacts the rest of the country. If California goes unchecked, consumers will be forced to pay more for basic necessities,” Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers, who led the coalition, said in a news release.
The law, called the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, was enacted in 2022.
“Virtually every product packaged or shipped in plastic containers, as well as a significant number of other types of packaging materials that merely incorporate plastics, fall into the Act’s remarkable sweep,” the lawsuit said.
The National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, which represents companies that import and distribute goods in California, also joined the lawsuit.
“California is not entitled to pronounce nationwide policies,” Eric Hoplin, the trade association’s president and CEO, said in a statement. “Because the Act extends California’s regulatory reach far beyond its borders and brings within its sweep conduct wholly unconnected to California, the Act violates principles of federalism, the horizontal separation of powers, and due process.”
The lawsuit argues the law violates both the U.S. and California constitutions. It asks the court to declare California’s law invalid and unenforceable, and halt its implementation.
The lawsuit names as defendants Zoe Heller, director of California’s recycling agency known as CalRecycle, and the Circular Action Alliance, a nonprofit involved with implementing the law.
Melanie Turner, a spokesperson for CalRecycle, said in an emailed statement that the agency does not comment on pending litigation and that it remained focused on implementing the law.
The alliance said in a statement that it was aware of the lawsuit and closely monitoring developments while at the same time working to implement the law’s “ambitious goals.”
In a May news release announcing regulations under the law, state officials said the changes would fight plastics pollution while protecting the interests of taxpayers and local governments.
“California is shifting the responsibility of managing single-use plastic and packaging onto the producers. New packaging reforms lower waste costs for communities and decrease garbage and pollution across the state,” Environmental Protection Secretary Yana Garcia said in a statement. “This approach pushes producers to innovate and design packaging that truly supports a circular economy.”
Joining Nebraska in the lawsuit were 16 other states with Republican attorneys general: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and West Virginia.Environmental groups also have sued over the law. A coalition that included the Natural Resources Defense Council recently filed a complaint over what it said in a news release were “weakened” final regulations for the “landmark” law.
