Since federal immigration agencies began a sweeping enforcement campaign in Los Angeles on June 6, daily protests have spread across the city, drawing crowds to City Hall, ICE detention centers, and various federal buildings in a show of public outrage against what demonstrators describe as unconstitutional arrests, forced disappearances, and the effective dismantling of Los Angeles’ sanctuary protections. What began as scattered resistance has grown into a sustained civic mobilization, driven by mounting evidence that local law enforcement—particularly LAPD and the LA County Sheriff’s Department—is not only standing by during these raids but is actively participating in and facilitating the operations of masked federal agents.
Videos circulating online, many of which have been removed or throttled by social media platforms, show LAPD officers forming protective skirmish lines, blocking off intersections, and physically assisting in the removal of detained individuals by agents dressed in unmarked tactical gear who refuse to identify themselves. On June 6, ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons publicly stated that his agency had called LAPD for backup after his agents were surrounded by protesters in downtown Los Angeles and that LAPD officers eventually arrived and worked alongside federal agents to disperse the crowd. These actions contradict the repeated claims from Mayor Karen Bass and LAPD leadership that the city is not aiding federal immigration enforcement, and they raise serious concerns about the erosion of both legal protections and public trust in city leadership.
The federal agents in question often wear masks and lack visible insignia or identification, leaving community members unable to distinguish between official law enforcement personnel and unidentified armed actors. When LAPD officers protect or escort such agents during enforcement actions, their presence lends legitimacy and logistical support to operations that many Angelenos consider extrajudicial and in violation of both local policy and state law. Despite growing public outcry, city officials have not meaningfully addressed these concerns, and their refusal to acknowledge the reality unfolding on the ground is seen by many as a dangerous abdication of responsibility at a moment of escalating repression.
Civil rights attorney Dan Stormer, who has litigated numerous police misconduct cases in Los Angeles, reported that his office has been contacted by several individuals who said they were struck by less-lethal munitions while attending or observing protests. He described reviewing graphic images of injuries, including one in which a protester’s scalp had to be surgically stapled back together. Stormer, who called this the most horrifying use of so-called non-lethal weaponry he has encountered in his decades of legal work, estimates that the city’s exposure to legal liability could surpass one hundred million dollars, a cost that will ultimately fall on taxpayers rather than the officers or policymakers responsible for these actions.
Carol Sobel, another civil rights attorney with a long record of litigation against LAPD, echoed these warnings and said the actual financial toll could be significantly higher if lawsuits extend to include the County of Los Angeles and federal agencies. Sobel cited video footage from the first weekend of protests that showed LAPD mounted officers trampling a demonstrator and striking him with batons, an incident she said reminded her of the 1991 beating of Rodney King. According to Sobel, the use of force captured in these videos, which includes baton strikes to the head and neck, constitutes potentially lethal conduct and directly violates standards governing use of force by law enforcement.
Journalists have also become targets of police violence during the protests. The LA Press Club has documented at least fifty incidents since June 6 in which members of the press were allegedly injured or interfered with by law enforcement, including five reporters who were shot with 40mm less-lethal rounds and others who were gassed or charged by mounted units despite being clearly marked as press. One student journalist from Los Angeles City College described undergoing a complex surgery to reattach part of his finger after being struck by a rubber bullet, while another independent reporter, Nick Stern, had to have shrapnel surgically removed from his leg following an incident with LASD deputies at an anti-ICE protest in Compton. Despite repeatedly identifying himself as a journalist throughout the day, Stern said he was never warned before deputies opened fire with crowd-control munitions.
Attorneys for Stern, along with legal advocates from the LA Press Club and other media organizations, have filed a federal lawsuit seeking injunctive relief to prevent LAPD and LASD from engaging in further unconstitutional actions against journalists covering protests. One of the plaintiffs, Ben Camacho of The Southlander, was reportedly struck in the knee and elbow while trying to assist Stern to safety. The lawsuit argues that such actions have had a chilling effect on press freedom and are a direct violation of state and federal constitutional protections.
In addition to violating civil rights, attorneys say law enforcement has repeatedly ignored the provisions of Assembly Bill 48, which prohibits police from deploying tear gas and less-lethal munitions into crowds without clear warnings and just cause. These actions also appear to violate California’s legal protections for journalists, which bar officers from obstructing or harming media workers engaged in lawful reporting. The repeated injuries to both protest participants and journalists suggest a widespread breakdown in accountability and discipline across multiple agencies.
The financial burden of these actions is already mounting. According to a recent memo from Los Angeles City Administrative Officer Matt Szabo, the city has spent nearly twenty million dollars in response to the protests, with over seventeen million allocated to law enforcement deployments and overtime alone. These costs do not include anticipated legal fees or future settlement payouts, which are expected to dwarf the immediate operational expenses. In the aftermath of the 2020 George Floyd protests, the city faced more than fifty lawsuits related to police conduct and has already paid out over thirteen million dollars in settlements for just twenty-eight of those cases. Sobel has stated that pending cases from 2020 could push the city’s liability well beyond one hundred million dollars.
City Controller Kenneth Mejia has voiced concern about the ballooning costs associated with LAPD’s protest response, stating that Los Angeles was already in financial crisis prior to this wave of enforcement and that preventable legal expenses have long contributed to the city’s fiscal instability. Mejia emphasized that these liability costs are not just numbers on a balance sheet but represent lost opportunities to invest in community services, housing, and public health initiatives that residents depend on and that are increasingly underfunded.
The consequences of these enforcement tactics extend far beyond financial exposure. What is happening in Los Angeles is not simply a question of legal compliance or budgetary trade-offs but a fundamental breach of public trust. Police officers who are supposed to serve and protect the community are instead being deployed to shield masked federal agents, detain peaceful demonstrators, silence reporters, and enforce a campaign of political repression. The city’s leadership has so far failed to meaningfully intervene, and their silence sends a clear message that the rights of Angelenos are expendable in the face of federal pressure and police priorities.
Rather than upholding the law, the city’s law enforcement agencies are violating it, using public funds and resources to assist federal agents whose actions resemble forced disappearances more than lawful arrests. The people of Los Angeles are being brutalized, surveilled, and silenced, and they are being forced to pay for their own repression.