The United States has witnessed moments of profound civil unrest throughout its history, and one of the most explosive was the Los Angeles Riots of 1992. Triggered by the acquittal of four LAPD officers who were videotaped beating African American motorist Rodney King, the riots erupted into six days of chaos. More than 60 people lost their lives, thousands were injured, and large swaths of the city were engulfed in fires and looting. These events reflected the deep racial tensions and socioeconomic divides that had long plagued communities in Los Angeles and beyond. The riots became a defining symbol of systemic injustice and the urgent need for police reform in the U.S.
Fast forward to the present, California once again finds itself at the centre of national debate—this time not over police brutality, but over immigration policy and federal overreach. Governor Gavin Newsom recently condemned President Donald Trump’s deployment of the National Guard and active-duty Marines to Los Angeles amid growing immigration protests. He called the move “unlawful,” “un-American,” and accused the federal government of deliberately manufacturing chaos for political purposes. The deployment, which was carried out without California’s consent, sparked a legal and constitutional clash, as Newsom vowed to challenge the action in court. He invoked the Tenth Amendment, which reserves significant powers to the states, and warned that California would not be “bullied into compliance.”
In an especially provocative statement, Governor Newsom dared federal authorities to arrest him, declaring he would rather face jail than stand idly by while undocumented, tax-paying federal forces target Californians. His remarks followed days of intensifying standoffs between protesters and federal agents in southern California, drawing national attention to the fragile balance of power between state and federal governments.
These tensions have reignited discussions about whether a state like California could legally secede from the United States or join another country, such as Mexico. The short answer, grounded in constitutional law and historical precedent, is no. The U.S. Constitution provides no mechanism for a state to unilaterally leave the Union. This issue was effectively settled after the Civil War and confirmed in the Supreme Court case Texas v. White (1869), which held that secession is unconstitutional without the consent of both Congress and three-fourths of the other states—a political impossibility in today’s divided America.
Although symbolic movements such as “Calexit” have gained periodic media attention, they remain political fantasies without legal grounding. Any proposal for California to merge with another nation would not only violate U.S. constitutional law but also pose insurmountable logistical, economic, and diplomatic challenges. The United States functions as a federal union, meaning states do have autonomy in many areas, but cannot act as independent countries.
Despite the rhetorical flourishes from both sides, the current standoff between Sacramento and Washington highlights deeper issues: immigration policy, the militarization of federal response, and the limits of presidential authority. While the president may intervene in state matters under specific circumstances—such as enforcing federal law, responding to emergencies, or safeguarding national security—these actions must respect constitutional boundaries. States, meanwhile, retain broad authority over public safety, civil rights, and governance within their borders.
In both the 1992 riots and the present conflict, California has found itself grappling with federal forces amid civil unrest. Yet, while the context and causes differ, the fundamental tension remains the same: how to balance federal authority with state sovereignty in a diverse and democratic society. The Constitution provides a framework for resolving such disputes, but it cannot substitute for the political will and mutual respect needed to uphold it.