The Unseen Federal Troops Powering Urban Conflict

Over the course of the past summer, the city of Los Angeles saw numerous incidents that attracted wide media attention, most notably involving President Donald Trump’s extraordinary move to dispatch the California National Guard and U.S. Marines to suppress protests against immigration operations. However, lesser-known federal troops were also on the ground from the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Protective Service (FPS), whose primary task is securing federal buildings. The agency, with its far-reaching policing powers that surpass its core mandate, is at risk of political exploit. The FPS’s deployment in Los Angeles may serve as the vanguard for ongoing and future protests sparking across the nation.

This necessitates immediate action from state and local authorities, not only within California but across the country. There is an urgent need to prevent the transgression of their resources and reduce resulting harm. Rooted in the laws passed during the early years of the war on terror, the FPS’s powers extend to supplementing its workforce from a vast pool of nearly 90,000 personnel, drawn from other departments within the DHS, such as the border patrol and secret service agents.

Commenting on the situation in Los Angeles, reports have indicated that border patrol agents activated by the FPS— a group with limited training in crowd control and a record of alleged human rights abuses—were seen discharging tear gas and rubber bullets at the protestors. This heavy-handed demonstration of power goes against the typically less substantial gathering of protestors, often merely ‘dozens’ or ‘hundreds’ strong. This excessive show of force may discourage citizens from exercising their rights to peaceful protest.

It has been reported that both protestors and journalists who claim to have been injured by DHS officers filed lawsuits against the government. The Federal Protective Service also took action amidst calls for racial justice, responding to protests in Portland, Oregon. Here, hundreds of personnel were deployed, a number of which were border patrol tactical officers, to suppress the ongoing demonstrations marked by vandalism of a federal courthouse.

Despite staunch objections from local authorities, federal officers under the command of the FPS fired tear gas and rubber bullets at protesters, and some of the demonstrators were taken into unmarked vans. Earlier this year, financial compensation was awarded in a settlement of a lawsuit brought by protesters and the press against the federal government for the violation of their constitutional rights.

One week before the Los Angeles immigration raids on May 28th, FPS officers forcefully entered Congressman Jerry Nadler’s office in New York City. An aide who had denied them entry was detained and handcuffed. Alleging the office was ‘harboring rioters’ against homeland security agents arresting immigrants in the court located one floor below, agents did not produce any evidence to substantiate their claim. Nadler’s office insisted that this action was in retaliation for inviting immigration advocates into the building.

The heart of the issue lies in the fact that in 2002, Congress granted FPS officers the right to operate off-site to the extent they deemed ‘necessary’ to protect federal property, without setting any boundaries on that authorization. This unrestricted directive, paired with a lack of robust internal controls, has resulted in an expansion of off-site operations. Additionally, the DHS secretary can instruct the agency to undertake unspecified tasks ‘for the promotion of homeland security,’ a nebulous phrasing that bestows officials with ample leeway to determine what such actions may entail.

There are instances where the FPS has utilized its policing authority to monitor individuals based on their political activities and target events. In these cases, FPS personnel have admitted that such activities had no discernible link to federal property. Examples of these are the Occupy Wall Street protests in New York, a convoy of anti-vaccine truckers, and recent university protests over the ongoing conflict in Gaza.

In many jurisdictions throughout the country, federal police such as the FPS and border patrol benefit from considerable access to city, state resources, and private intelligence contractors. The DHS brokers agreements with local jurisdictions to access their database and intelligence centers, like the Los Angeles-based Joint Regional Intelligence Center. Federal agents, in turn, utilize these city or state data in their resident investigations.

However, laws designed to protect immigrant communities, such as Los Angeles’s ordinance of 2024 or the California Values Act, disallow collection or sharing of certain immigration-related data. Yet, these laws do not pose any restraints for collaboration when it concerns protesters, suggesting resources in Los Angeles might be accessible to facilitate the federal crackdown on dissent.

Given this history of inappropriate uses of power, the Los Angeles City Council and California state legislature—along with local and state governments across the nation—should enact legislation restricting coordination with DHS agents when dealing with protesters. This would also ensure DHS cannot appropriate local resources. A spate of court decisions, exemplified by a recent one in Chicago, has overwhelmingly reinforced the constitutional rights of state governments to refrain from assisting federal law enforcement.

A set of principles to guide interactions with federal agencies could form an essential first step for local officials. These restrictions could prohibit the sharing of resident information, remove federal agents from local police facilities, and either revoke or narrow the permissions for enforcing local law.

Nevertheless, to truly restrict the Federal Protective Service and its wide-ranging powers to quell protesters and dispatch the Border Patrol to city streets, an act of Congress would be required. However, cities and states are not obligated to be complicit in the DHS’s encroachment against their residents exercising their constitutional rights to political expression.

The need to define clear boundaries for federal agencies and their interaction with local jurisdictions is clear. Whilst the core responsibility of these agencies is to maintain safety and order, it is crucial that these objectives are pursued in a manner that respects the constitutional rights of citizens to express their political opinions freely.

Any extension of agency mandates must come with adequate checks and balances to prevent misuse. Overstepping the outlined responsibilities threatens to undermine faith in such agencies and constitutes a threat to the democratic rights of the citizens they are intended to protect.

In conclusion, the recent developments in cities like Los Angeles and Portland underscore the need for a swift review of agency mandates, with the aim of providing clear-cut instructions and limitations to ensure the balance between public safety and individual rights is preserved.