This resolution recognizes the right to peaceful protest while condemning violence and criticizing the federal government's controversial deployment of military forces during recent Los Angeles demonstrations.
Nanette Barragán
Representative
CA-44
This resolution formally recognizes the constitutional right to peaceful protest while strongly condemning violence and illegal acts committed during demonstrations. It criticizes the federal government's deployment of military forces during recent events, arguing the actions were an overreach that bypassed proper legal and state authority. Ultimately, the bill asserts the importance of transparency in law enforcement and denounces rhetoric that escalates community tensions.
House Resolution Condemns $134M Military Deployment in LA Protests, Citing Illegal Bypassing of Governor
This resolution, coming from the House of Representatives, is essentially Congress putting its foot down and issuing a formal statement about a chaotic situation: the recent ICE raids in Southern California and the protests that followed. It doesn’t create new law, but it explains exactly why a large chunk of Congress is furious about how the federal government handled things.
The Line Between Protest and Crime
The resolution starts by drawing a crystal-clear line that most people can agree on. It strongly affirms the First Amendment right to peacefully protest—the right to gather and voice dissent without fear. At the same time, it strongly condemns the criminal acts that happened during the protests: the vandalism, looting, and violence against police officers. For the small business owner whose storefront was broken, or the worker whose commute was shut down, this is an important distinction. The resolution makes it clear that while protesting is protected, using a demonstration as cover for crime is not.
Accountability for Federal Agents
But the core of the resolution is a major critique of the executive branch's actions. It criticizes ICE for using unmarked agents to detain people in Southern California, whether on the street, at home, or at work. The resolution demands that all federal law enforcement agencies, including ICE, operate with transparency and accountability. Think of it this way: if you’re a tradesperson or a server, and you see someone in plain clothes detaining a coworker outside your job site or restaurant, you want to know who they are and why they are doing it. This section is about demanding that level of open operation.
When the Military Shows Up Uninvited
The most serious part of the resolution targets the President’s decision to deploy military forces. Despite local police leadership reportedly saying they didn't need the help, the President activated 2,000 members of the California National Guard and sent in 700 active-duty Marines. The resolution argues this was done without following the rules—specifically alleging the President bypassed the California Governor, which is usually required for National Guard activation. It also points out that sending in active-duty Marines might violate the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally forbids the military from doing domestic police work.
The Price Tag for Bypassing the Rules
This alleged overreach wasn't cheap. The resolution highlights that this deployment—which the House calls illegal and irresponsible—is estimated to cost taxpayers around $134 million over 60 days. That’s a massive chunk of change spent on a deployment that the resolution argues only escalated tensions and increased the chance of violence. For the average person juggling rising costs, seeing that much money spent on a legally questionable domestic military deployment is a serious concern about fiscal responsibility and executive power. This resolution is Congress saying, “You can’t just skip the legal steps and send in the military, especially when it costs this much and makes the situation worse.”