Abolfath: The growing rift between the U.S. federal government and states

The city of Los Angeles recently witnessed widespread protests following the launch of a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operation and the detention of migrants.

These protests eventually turned violent due to police intervention, and tensions escalated further.

On the other hand, the U.S. federal government’s involvement — particularly President Donald Trump’s decision to deploy National Guard troops and Marines to suppress the protests — led to deepening conflict between the federal administration and state officials.

In this context, Amir Ali Abolfath, a U.S. affairs expert, discussed the protests from various angles in an interview with Mizan News Agency.

Federal-state divide in the U.S.

Abolfath pointed to the growing divide between the U.S. federal government and state institutions in handling the recent protests. He explained that there has always been disagreement between conservatives and liberals — or between American identity-based nationalism and multiculturalism — over how to deal with undocumented immigrants and their deportation.

He noted that while both camps agree on addressing illegal immigration, their methods differ significantly. Conservatives advocate for harsh, iron-fist policies involving intimidation and force — an approach Trump has taken to the extreme during his tenure.

Highlighting California’s liberal identity and its large immigrant — particularly Mexican — population, Abolfath said Los Angeles is considered a “sanctuary city,” where local officials offer services and protection to undocumented immigrants. As a result, many migrants, when pushed out from elsewhere, often seek refuge in cities like L.A. or Chicago.

Trump vs. sanctuary cities and states

Abolfath stated that Trump has made it a priority to confront sanctuary cities and states that resist his immigration policies. Consequently, he has clashed with both California's governor and L.A.’s mayor — both of whom are Democrats.

According to Abolfath, Trump asserts that as president, national security falls under his jurisdiction and immigration is a federal matter — meaning that states must comply with his directives. If they refuse, he threatens action, such as what unfolded recently in Los Angeles.

Referring to Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops and Marines in L.A. and their clashes with migrants, Abolfath said state officials consider this a federal overreach and believe that such interference should only occur constructively. However, Trump’s actions have only intensified the crisis.

Trump is fueling chaos

Abolfath explained that state officials view Trump’s actions as inciting unrest. His authoritarian behavior is unbecoming of a U.S. president, they argue.

He further stated that the immigration issue — which sparked the initial divide — is now spilling over into other areas of discontent. Other dissatisfied groups, including those critical of Trump’s economic policies, are joining the protests. Conservative opponents of Trump are also seizing the moment to amplify their resistance.

According to Abolfath, whether protests continue or subside across U.S. cities will largely depend on Trump’s next moves. Trump believes that by threatening people, deploying military forces, and putting them face-to-face with protesters, he can instill fear. But this strategy won’t work — the painful events of 2020 after George Floyd’s murder have already proven that.

He added that Trump’s supporters claim they use an “iron fist” approach to prevent another 2020-style breakdown, but this strategy may only inflame further unrest.

What will the government choose: dialogue or force?

Abolfath concluded that the key question now is whether the U.S. government is willing to engage in dialogue with protesters and address their demands — or whether it will continue down the path of repression and military deployment.

He warned that the deployed forces face a dangerous dilemma: they must either attack protesters and risk casualties or do nothing and risk being overwhelmed — both of which would damage their image and legitimacy. Many, therefore, believe Trump’s approach is misguided and that he is heading down the wrong path.