Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Did Trump deploy the National Guard to LA before there were actually any riots
1. Summary of the results
The timeline shows that Trump signed a memorandum ordering 2,000 National Guard personnel to Los Angeles on June 7 around 6 p.m. PDT [1], but the troops were not physically deployed until the morning of June 8, between 5-7 a.m. PDT [2]. This was confirmed by both Mayor Karen Bass's statement at 3:22 a.m. that the Guard was not yet present [2] and National Guard spokesperson's confirmation that the deployment began with 300 troops across three locations [1].
2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints
Several crucial contextual elements were omitted from the original question:
- The deployment was in response to protests against ICE raids that began on June 6 [3]
- Trump bypassed California Governor Gavin Newsom's authority to deploy the troops, invoking a power not used since 1965 [4]
- The initial protests were described by LAPD as "peaceful" but had some escalation involving rocks, Molotov cocktails, and car fires [5]
- The deployment involved 2,000 National Guard members and an additional 700 Marines [6]
- Legal experts debated whether the situation constituted a true "rebellion" that would justify military intervention [6]
3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement
The question itself contains implicit bias by suggesting a binary "before/after riots" scenario, when the reality was more complex:
- Different stakeholders characterized the situation differently:
Trump claimed he had to federalize troops to "address the lawlessness" [7]
Governor Newsom called it a "complete overreaction" that would "escalate tensions" [7]
- While there was property damage and vehicle burning, it's debated whether these constituted "riots" [3]
The political context is important: Trump's administration would benefit from characterizing the situation as more severe to justify the unusual step of bypassing state authority, while state leadership would benefit from minimizing the unrest to maintain control over their jurisdiction. The deployment was specifically tied to immigration policy enforcement [7], adding another layer of political complexity to the situation.