..



Saturday, June 7, 2025

Los Angeles--Immigration Protests--After Action Report

HEADQUARTERS
Calif. Bear Dispatch
White Lightning Party Press
08 June 2025

To. Media, TBA
Fm. VLR, Laguna Canyon Bureau
Subj. Los Angeles--Immigration Protests--After Action Report

Encl. (1) submitted herewith 

PART I. ORGANIZATIONAL DATA
Los Angeles Anti-Immigration Protests, Paramount & Compton, 07 June 2025

1.  Law Enforcement Agencies Involved
        a.  Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE): Led citywide operations targeting undocumented immigrants, executing search warrants at multiple locations including businesses and day laborer gathering spots.
        b.  Homeland Security Investigations (HSI): Assisted ICE in raids, particularly in the Fashion District and other immigrant-heavy neighborhoods.
        c.  Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) & Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA): Participated in coordinated raids across Los Angeles.
U.S. Marshals Service: Involved in transporting detainees, with marked buses seen at raid sites.
        d.  Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department: Assisted with crowd control, declared unlawful assembly during protests, and formed perimeters around protest hotspots.
        e.  Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD): Deployed officers to shut down freeway overpasses and manage protest spillover.
        f.  California Highway Patrol: Prepared for possible protester marches onto freeways.
        g.  National Guard: President Trump ordered the deployment of at least 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles County to support law enforcement and maintain order.

2.  Protesters & Advocacy Groups
        a.  Protesters: Comprised largely of local residents, immigrant rights advocates, and day laborers, with hundreds gathering at sites of ICE operations such as Home Depot in Paramount and intersections in Compton.
        b.  Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA): Provided public statements and organized rallies, with leadership present at protests.
        c.  Service Employees International Union (SEIU) California: President David Huerta was reportedly detained and injured while documenting a raid.
        d.  Other Advocacy Groups: Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California and local immigrant rights organizations monitored and responded to enforcement actions.

3.  Demographics & Context
        a.  Paramount: 82% Latino, working-class city bordering Compton, Lynwood, and Bellflower; population ~54,000. 
        b.   Los Angeles County: Most populous U.S. county, over 3.4 million foreign-born residents, highly diverse. 

4.   This summary provides a structured overview of the key organizations, law enforcement responses, protester groups, and the sequence of events in Paramount and Compton during the Los Angeles anti-immigration protests on June 7, 2025, based on the latest available reporting.

PART II. NARRATIVE SUMMARY

1.  Key Locations & Events
        a.  Paramount (Home Depot, 6400 Alondra Blvd): Site of a major standoff between protesters and ICE agents, with hundreds gathering, setting fires, and chanting slogans such as “Fuera ICE.” Law enforcement used tear gas, flashbangs, and non-lethal munitions to disperse crowds.
        b.  Compton (Near Dale’s Donuts): Protesters set a car on fire and engaged in confrontations with law enforcement, who maintained a perimeter while fire crews extinguished the blaze.
        c.  Downtown Los Angeles (Federal Building): Protesters attempted to block access, believing detainees were being held inside; LAPD declared an unlawful assembly and ordered dispersal. Other Targeted Areas: Raids and protests also occurred in the Fashion District, Westlake, Cypress Park, and Koreatown, all areas with significant immigrant populations.

2.  Incident Summary (June 7, 2025) 
  a.  Protests began Friday night after ICE arrested at least 44 people for alleged immigration violations, sparking demonstrations across the city.
        b.  Saturday saw escalation in Paramount and Compton, with protesters confronting law enforcement, setting fires, and attempting to block law enforcement vehicles.
        c.  Law enforcement responded with riot gear, tear gas, flashbangs, and declared unlawful assemblies. At least one person was hospitalized, and several were detained for obstruction or other charges.
        d.  National Guard deployment was announced to support local and federal law enforcement amid ongoing unrest.

3.  ICE Raids and Protests in Los Angeles, June 6–7, 2025 
        a.  Background and Raids 
                        (1)   On June 6, 2025, federal immigration authorities launched a series of coordinated raids across Los Angeles, targeting multiple locations including a Home Depot in the Westlake District, an apparel shop in the Fashion District, and a clothing warehouse in South Los Angeles. 
                        (2)  These operations were part of a broader federal immigration enforcement initiative and resulted in the administrative arrest of at least 44 individuals, with one additional arrest for obstruction. 
                        (3)  The raids were carried out by agents from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), often in military-style vehicles and riot gear, and included the execution of search warrants related to suspected harboring of undocumented individuals. 
        b.   Immediate Response and Community Impact 
                        (1)   The surprise raids sparked immediate outrage and fear among immigrant communities and their supporters. Protesters and family members gathered outside targeted sites, with some desperately searching for detained loved ones. 
                        (2)  Many decried the raids as "cruel and unnecessary," and local officials, including Mayor Karen Bass, condemned the actions for spreading terror and uncertainty in the community. 
        c.  Escalation to Protests and Clashes 
                        (1)   By Friday afternoon and evening, protests erupted across downtown Los Angeles and in the Paramount neighborhood. 
                        (2)  Demonstrators attempted to block ICE agents, surrounded federal buildings, and chanted slogans such as "No Human Being is Illegal" and "Fuera ICE" ("ICE, get out"). 
                        (3)  Some protesters threw objects, including rocks and pieces of concrete, at law enforcement, while others attempted to block the movement of federal vehicles and buses transporting detainees. 
                        (4)   Law enforcement, including the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and federal agents, responded with riot gear, deploying pepper spray, tear gas, and flash-bang grenades to disperse crowds. 
                        (5)  Police declared unlawful assemblies at multiple locations, and tactical alerts were issued as confrontations intensified. At least one protester was injured, and several arrests were made for assault on federal agents. 
        d.   Saturday: Continued Unrest and National Guard Deployment 
                        (1)   On June 7, protests continued, particularly in Paramount, where a standoff developed outside a Home Depot known as a gathering spot for day laborers. 
                        (2)  Protesters overturned shopping carts, set fires in the street, and clashed with agents in riot gear. 
                        (3)  The situation escalated to the point that President Trump ordered the deployment of up to 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles County to "restore order," over objections from California's governor. 
                        (4)  Federal officials warned that further immigration raids would proceed and cautioned that interference would result in arrest and prosecution. Political and Public Reaction 

4.   The raids and subsequent crackdown drew condemnation from local and national politicians, who questioned the appropriateness and proportionality of ICE's tactics and called for investigations into the enforcement operations. Community leaders and advocacy groups reiterated calls for the protection of immigrant rights and urged residents not to cooperate with ICE or sign documents during enforcement actions. 


 PART III. CIVIL AFFAIRS

1.  Official Statements
        a.  Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem: Warned protesters against interfering with federal operations, promising prosecution for assaults on law enforcement.
        b.  U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli: Urged the public not to obstruct federal agents, warning of arrests and prosecution for interference.
DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin: Denied reports of an ICE "raid" at         c.  Home Depot, stating DHS was using a nearby office as a staging area and condemning violence against ICE.


2.  Press Coverage 
        a.  Major news outlets reported extensively on the large-scale protests and unrest in Los Angeles following ICE raids on June 6-7, 2025. 
        b.  The Trump administration announced the deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles in response to the protests, which erupted after dozens of arrests in citywide immigration enforcement operations. 
        c.  The raids and subsequent protests were covered with images and live updates showing confrontations between protesters and law enforcement, including reports of non-lethal munitions, flash-bang grenades, and at least one injury. 
        d.  Press accounts noted that protesters blocked streets, set fires, and attempted to obstruct law enforcement vehicles, particularly in Paramount, a city with a large Latino population. 
        e.   Local officials, including Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and several city councilmembers, condemned the raids as "cruel and unnecessary," emphasizing the city's immigrant roots and vowing to protect residents regardless of legal status. 
        e.  The LAPD and LA County Sheriff’s Department stated they would not participate in civil immigration enforcement. 

3.  Social Media Reaction 
        a.  Social media saw intense and polarized reactions. Conservative commentators and Trump administration officials criticized Mayor Karen Bass for opposing the ICE raids, accusing her of supporting "chaos and lawlessness". 
        b.  DHS officials and others posted about violence against federal officers, property damage, and what they described as an inadequate LAPD response. 
        c.  On the other side, immigrant rights advocates and local officials used social platforms to denounce the raids, share live updates from the protests, and call for community solidarity. 

4.   Hashtags and Online Activism 
        a.  Several hashtags trended locally and nationally as the events unfolded, including: #ICEoutofLA, #FueraICE, #ProtectLA, #NoBanNoWall, #AbolishICE               b.   These hashtags were used to organize protests, share real-time footage of confrontations, and amplify calls for elected officials to intervene. 
        c.  Chants such as "Fuera ICE" ("ICE, get out") and "Set them free, let them stay!" were echoed both on the ground and online.

PART IV. INTELLIGENCE ASSESSMENT

1. Federal Officials' Preparedness and Reaction to ICE Arrests in Los Angeles (June 6–7, 2025) 
        a.  Summary: Federal officials appeared unprepared for the scale and intensity of public reaction to the ICE raids and arrests in Los Angeles on June 6–7, 2025.                                 (1)  The enforcement actions, which involved military-style tactics and resulted in dozens of arrests, sparked widespread and at times violent protests, overwhelming both federal and local law enforcement responses. 
        b.   Key Points: 
                          (2)   Scale of ICE Operations and Immediate Fallout: ICE conducted synchronized, military-style raids across Los Angeles, targeting locations with large immigrant populations and labor centers. 
                           (3)  At least 44 people were administratively arrested on Friday, though advocacy groups believe the true number was higher, possibly between 70 and 80. 
                            (4)  The operations were part of an escalated federal push to detain and deport undocumented immigrants, but also ensnared some legal residents, leading to further legal and public backlash. 

2.   Protests and Law Enforcement Response: 
        a.  News of the raids spread rapidly, leading to spontaneous and large-scale protests, particularly outside the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building, where detainees were being processed. 
        b.  Demonstrators blocked access, spray-painted anti-ICE messages, and in some cases threw objects at law enforcement. 
        3.  Riot police and federal agents used tear gas, pepper spray, and flashbang grenades to disperse crowds, and the LAPD declared an unlawful assembly. 

3.   Federal Unpreparedness and Local Tensions: 
        a.  Federal officials, including ICE leadership, expressed frustration with the situation, criticizing the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) for what they described as a delayed response to requests for assistance—reportedly waiting up to two hours to intervene. 
        b.  The scale of the protests and the intensity of resistance, including physical confrontations and property damage, appeared to catch federal authorities off guard. 
        c.  The Department of Homeland Security described the events as a “violent insurrection,” and the Trump administration moved to deploy at least 2,000 National Guard troops to restore order. 

4.   Overwhelmed Detention System: 
        a.  The influx of detainees strained local detention facilities, forcing officials to use alternative sites such as the Glendale City Jail, which was not originally intended for large-scale ICE detentions. 
        b.  Legal advocates noted that detention centers were unprepared for the sudden surge, leading to limited access for attorneys and concerns about detainee rights. 

5.   Political and Community Backlash: 
        a.  Local leaders, including Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, sharply criticized the federal government’s tactics, arguing that they sowed fear and disrupted community safety. 
        b.  Civil liberties groups condemned the raids as oppressive and paramilitary in nature, while legal observers raised concerns about the lack of judicial warrants and the targeting of day laborers and legal residents. 

6.   Conclusion Federal officials underestimated both the scale of public opposition and the logistical challenges posed by the ICE raids in Los Angeles on June 6–7, 2025. 
        a.  The rapid escalation of protests, the overwhelmed detention system, and the need to deploy the National Guard all point to a significant lack of preparedness for the level of resistance encountered.

PART VI. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

1.  Matrix: Federal Officials' Unpreparedness for Public Reaction to ICE Arrests in Los Angeles (June 6–7, 2025)

AspectFederal Officials' Actions/ExpectationsActual Public/Local ResponseEvidence of Unpreparedness
Scale of ICE OperationsLarge-scale, military-style raids targeting multiple sites; aim for record daily arrests.Immediate, widespread protests and public outcry; rapid mobilization of hundreds of demonstratorsOfficials appeared to underestimate the speed and intensity of local mobilization and backlash
Coordination with Local Law EnforcementICE and federal agencies conducted raids independently; LAPD not involved in enforcement, only crowd controlLAPD summoned to manage escalating protests, declared unlawful assembly, used riot gear and less-lethal munitionsReliance on LAPD for crowd control suggests lack of federal planning for civil unrest
Preparedness for Civil UnrestNo clear evidence of pre-emptive planning for mass protests or civil disorderProtests quickly turned confrontational, with vandalism, clashes, and injuries; citywide tactical alert issuedFederal agents did not appear to have protocols for handling mass protest fallout; LAPD had to escalate response
Communication with Local OfficialsFederal officials did not coordinate or notify city leaders in advance; operations kept secretMayor and city council condemned raids as "terrorizing" and "disruptive"; officials demanded investigationsFederal officials were caught off guard by the political backlash and strong statements from local leaders
Detention LogisticsHigh number of administrative arrests; some detainees held in federal buildings overnightReports of overcrowding, lack of basic necessities for detainees, and limited access for legal counselStrain on detention facilities and negative media coverage indicate lack of logistical planning for mass arrests
Media and Advocacy ResponseExpected enforcement to be routine under new federal mandateNational and local media, advocacy groups, and civil liberties organizations condemned tactics as "oppressive" and "paramilitary"Federal officials were unprepared for the scale of negative media attention and organized advocacy response

2. Key Findings

a.  Federal officials, including ICE and the Department of Homeland Security, were unprepared for the rapid, large-scale, and confrontational response from both the public and local leaders following the June 6–7, 2025 raids in Los Angeles

b.  The lack of advance coordination with local authorities, insufficient planning for civil unrest, and logistical strain on detention facilities highlighted significant gaps in federal preparedness

c.  The political backlash from city and state leaders, combined with intense media scrutiny and advocacy group mobilization, caught federal officials off guard, demonstrating a disconnect between federal enforcement expectations and the realities of local reaction.

3. Synthetic intelligence inquiries. Perplexity AI
4. Image.
5. Report prepared by VLR, classified to Whiskey Tango Papa.

End of Report.



Saturday, April 12, 2025

The Newsom Doctrine--California Open Trade--Rejected by China.

 



historic china-california trade revenue
The trade relationship between California and China has evolved significantly over time, reflecting broader trends in U.S.-China economic exchanges. Below is a summary of key historical and recent developments

Historical Trade Trends

  1. Early Trade: Trade between the U.S. and China dates back to the post-American Revolution period, when American merchants sought opportunities in Chinese markets for goods like tea, porcelain, and silk8.

  2. Growth Over Decades: California's exports to China have grown substantially, nearly tripling from $5.4 billion in 2003 to $15.092 billion in 2024, making China one of California's top trading partners74.

Recent Trade Data

  1. Exports: In 2022, California exported $18.15 billion worth of goods to China, with leading categories including computer and electronic products ($4.018 billion), non-electrical machinery ($3.676 billion), and chemicals ($2.15 billion)1. By 2024, exports had decreased slightly to $15.092 billion4.

  2. Imports: Imports from China to California were valued at $147.6 billion in 2022, dominated by computer and electronic products ($48.2 billion), electrical equipment, and apparel1. This trade imbalance contributed to a $107.668 billion deficit with China in 20244.

  3. Services Trade: Services exports from California to China have grown significantly since 2010, increasing by 175% compared to a 65% increase for the rest of the world6. Chinese students, tourists, and business travelers contributed $2.2 billion to California's economy in 20196.

Investment Dynamics

  1. Chinese Foreign Direct Investment (FDI): Between 2000 and 2011, California attracted 156 Chinese investment deals worth $1.3 billion, creating jobs and tax revenues5. In 2020, Chinese FDI supported nearly 20,000 jobs in California across sectors like manufacturing and education1.

  2. Shift in Strategy: Recent years have seen reduced Chinese imports due to U.S.-China trade tensions and tariffs, with some trade diverted through Mexico instead of California ports3.

Challenges and Opportunities

  1. Economic Rivalry: Texas has emerged as a competitor for trade dollars previously flowing through California due to shifts in U.S.-China trade policies3.

  2. Future Outlook: Despite geopolitical tensions, optimism remains for renewed investment and trade growth between California and China as both economies adapt to changing global conditions6.

  3. https://www.perplexity.ai/search/historic-china-california-trad-

  4. ceDAHWrGQ825wSm6KKuylA


proportion of california gdp were china imports pre-tariff

Before the imposition of tariffs, Chinese imports represented a significant portion of California's economy. In 2024, California imported $509 billion worth of goods, with nearly 30% of these imports originating from China23. This equates to approximately $152.7 billion in imports from China.

California's total GDP in 2024 was estimated at $4.6 trillion, meaning Chinese imports accounted for roughly 3.3% of the state's GDP pre-tariff25.


https://www.perplexity.ai/search/proportion-of-california-gdp-w-1

UJ8I9GLR2O05vo0yGB55g

the gavin newsom open trade doctrine with china


Governor Gavin Newsom's "open trade doctrine" with China and other international partners is a strategic response to President Donald Trump's recent tariff hikes, which have triggered global economic instability and retaliatory measures from key U.S. trading partners.

Key Elements of Newsom's Doctrine

  • Strategic Partnerships: Newsom has directed his administration to pursue bilateral trade agreements with countries imposing retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods, encouraging exemptions for California-made products. This includes agricultural exports like almonds, pistachios, and wine, which are vital to the state's economy123.

  • Global Outreach: California has established trade offices worldwide, including in China, Japan, and Mexico. Newsom aims to strengthen ties with international partners to protect California's industries from the fallout of federal trade policies7.

  • Focus on Resilience: Newsom emphasizes California's role as the fifth-largest economy globally, advocating for fair and open trade practices that safeguard manufacturers, farmers, and workers in the state26.

Challenges and Risks

  • Limited Authority: Economists argue that Newsom's ability to bypass federal tariffs is constrained by constitutional limits on state-level foreign relations. His efforts may yield marginal benefits but cannot fully insulate California from the broader impacts of a potential trade war5.

  • Retaliatory Measures: Despite Newsom's outreach, China has reduced U.S. film imports—a significant blow to Hollywood—and threatened further countermeasures against escalating U.S. restrictions6.

  • Economic Vulnerabilities: California's reliance on diversified supply chains and its prominence in agriculture, tech, and entertainment make it particularly susceptible to tariff-induced price hikes and disruptions5.

  • https://www.perplexity.ai/search/the-gavin-newsom-open-trade-do-az_

  • 7GYkoS5KTrlcIDdRSfw

why has china effectively shined on gavin newsom's open trade offer

China has effectively dismissed Gavin Newsom's open trade offer for several reasons tied to broader geopolitical and economic tensions:

  1. Retaliation Against U.S. Tariffs: China's decision to reduce U.S. film imports and impose retaliatory tariffs aligns with its broader response to President Donald Trump's aggressive tariff policies. Despite Newsom's efforts to exempt California-made goods, Beijing appears unwilling to make exceptions, viewing the trade conflict as a national issue rather than one tied to individual states137.

  2. Limited Leverage: While California is a significant trading partner with China, accounting for $166 billion in two-way trade, Newsom's ability to influence international trade policy is constrained by federal authority. Experts suggest that his call for exemptions may be more symbolic than practical, aimed at highlighting California's distinct economic interests rather than directly altering China's stance910.

  3. Skepticism Over Newsom's Ties: Newsom's past connections with China, including initiatives like ChinaSF that facilitated Chinese investments in California, have raised concerns about his relationship with CCP-linked entities. These ties may have complicated perceptions of his trade diplomacy efforts, especially amid heightened scrutiny of U.S.-China relations68.

  4. Escalating Trade War Dynamics: The intensifying trade war between the U.S. and China has overshadowed Newsom's overtures. China's firm stance against U.S. tariffs signals its unwillingness to differentiate between states like California and federal policies, prioritizing national interests over regional appeals37.

Ultimately, China's dismissal of Newsom's offer reflects the complexities of global trade politics and the limitations of state-level diplomacy in resolving international disputes.


https://www.perplexity.ai/search/why-has-china-effectively-shin-u.R.nzMlRv.G6SlcDtlwew



china summarily dismisses gavin newsom's open trade doctrine


China has dismissed California Governor Gavin Newsom's open trade doctrine, which sought to exempt California-made goods from retaliatory tariffs amid escalating U.S.-China trade tensions. Despite Newsom's efforts to position California as a stable and independent trading partner, Beijing has responded unfavorably.

Key developments include:

  • : Following President Donald Trump's tariff hikes on Chinese imports, China imposed a 34% tariff on U.S. goods starting April 10, 2025. This move directly counters Newsom's appeal for California-made products to be spared from such measures15.

  • : China announced a reduction in U.S. film imports, citing the Trump administration's tariffs as the primary reason. This decision undermines Newsom's outreach, given California's central role in the film industry2.

  • : Newsom emphasized California’s economic significance as the fifth-largest economy globally and its leadership in agriculture and manufacturing. He urged global partners to view California as distinct from Washington, D.C., and to maintain strong trade relations with the state14.

Despite these efforts, China's Ministry of Commerce warned it would continue countermeasures if U.S. restrictions persist, signaling that Newsom's proposals have had little impact on easing tensions2.


https://www.perplexity.ai/search/china-summarily-dismisses-gavi-

VAwltG49Qjeksq5ifpgM9w



the gavin newsom open trade doctrine was never realistic


Governor Gavin Newsom's recent initiative to establish independent trade agreements and exempt California-made products from retaliatory tariffs has faced widespread criticism, with many deeming it unrealistic and legally unfeasible.

Key Points of Criticism:

  • Federal Authority Over Trade: Critics argue that Newsom lacks the legal authority to negotiate international trade agreements or override federal tariffs, which are governed by the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. His plan is seen as political grandstanding rather than a viable solution124.

  • Economic Challenges in California: Many have pointed out that Newsom should focus on pressing state issues like homelessness, crime, affordability, and regulatory burdens instead of attempting international dealmaking. California has been ranked poorly for business climate, with businesses and jobs leaving the state16.

  • Impact of Trump’s Tariffs: President Donald Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs impose significant duties on imports, including 34% on Chinese goods and 20% on EU products. Newsom’s request for exemptions for California products has been criticized as unlikely to succeed, given the global retaliatory measures already in place.

  • California's Economic Role: While California is the fifth-largest economy globally and a major contributor to U.S. GDP, critics argue that this does not grant the state unilateral power to bypass federal trade policies or negotiate independently with foreign nations

  • Newsom's efforts to position California as a stable trading partner amid a turbulent tariff environment have drawn skepticism from both political opponents and economic analysts. Many view his doctrine as impractical given the constraints of federal authority and the complexities of international trade dynamics124.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/rthe-gavin-newsom-open-trade-d-b_
IQE4MfQPKvbDgHGwB5ZA

Image: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0038816/