The constitutional debate over the deployment of troops in Los Angeles has fundamentally shifted. It is no longer a question of legal authority alone. It has metastasized into a crisis of executive rhetoric, with the President himself announcing a new and dangerous doctrine from the Oval Office: that future protests will be met with “equal or greater force.”

This is not a policy. It is a threat. It is a pre-emptive warning shot across the bow of American dissent, transforming the First Amendment right to peaceably assemble into a perilous gamble. When combined with the President’s taunts against a sitting governor, it signals a deeper erosion—not just of law, but of the democratic norms that give our Constitution meaning.

The Language of Escalation

The promise to meet protestors with “equal or greater force” must be understood as a deliberate escalation. It is a stark departure from the legalistic justifications offered just days ago.

The language of proportionality, a cornerstone of legitimate law enforcement in a free society, has been replaced with the language of overwhelming power.

This serves one primary purpose: to create a chilling effect. It is designed to intimidate citizens into silence. It reframes public protest not as a constitutional right, but as a potential act of aggression that will be met with a state response of unknown and potentially limitless magnitude.

If the force used in Los Angeles—with troops, Marines, tear gas, and freeway shutdowns—is the baseline, what does “greater force” even look like? The ambiguity is the point.

The Language of Conquest, The Reality of Federalism

The constitutional principle of federalism relies on a partnership—sometimes tense, but always predicated on mutual respect between state and federal authorities. The President’s own words reveal how that foundation has been shattered and replaced with the language of personal conquest.

Writing on Truth Social, the President offered not a constitutional defense, but a personal taunt:

“Governor Gaven NewScum had totally lost control of the situation. He should be saying THANK YOU for saving his ass, instead of trying to justify his mistakes and incompetence!!!”

This is the language of a victor speaking of the vanquished, not a president speaking of a co-equal governor. It dismisses the profound legal questions at stake as mere “incompetence” and reduces the complex system of American federalism to a crude power play. When the executive branch views state leaders as enemies to be subjugated rather than partners to be consulted, the cooperative fabric of our republic tears.

Due Process and The Justification of Force

This new doctrine of force requires a justification, and we have been given one: the broad-brush depiction of immigrants as “murderers” from “jails.” This rhetoric is a necessary precondition for the use of disproportionate power. To justify treating people with overwhelming force, you must first convince the public that they are not people worthy of the normal processes of law.

This is a direct challenge to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which guarantee due process to all persons, not just to citizens deemed worthy. By casting an entire group as a criminal monolith, the administration seeks to sidestep the painstaking, individual process of justice that our Constitution demands.

This moment is no longer just about Los Angeles. The President has made that clear. His new doctrine is a national one, and it poses a set of urgent questions to the country.

We must now ask:

• What is the future of public dissent in an era where the government promises not to keep the peace, but to win a confrontation?
• How can our federalist system function when legal disagreements are treated as personal battles for dominance?
• If this rhetoric is acceptable for immigration protests today, what will it be used for tomorrow—environmental protests, labor strikes, tax demonstrations?