Riots in Los Angeles and the New Front of Irregular Warfare
by Andrea Molle
Irregular warfare (IW) is commonly understood as a conflict where the struggle is not necessarily over land or conventional military superiority, but rather over legitimacy, influence, and control of populations. Traditionally associated with insurgencies, guerrilla tactics, and non-state actors, irregular warfare has increasingly evolved into a more complex and hybrid phenomenon, especially in democratic societies. If examined through this contemporary lens, the tensions unfolding in Los Angeles between “Angelenos,” local authorities, and the federal government can be seen as a domestic iteration of irregular warfare.
At the heart of the conflict is a fundamental contest over legitimacy and sovereignty. Los Angeles, along with other sanctuary jurisdictions, has actively defied federal immigration enforcement, refused cooperation with certain Department of Homeland Security (DHS) directives, and opposed national crime-control initiatives perceived as unjust or racially biased. These actions reflect not just policy disagreements, but a deeper ideological struggle over who gets to govern and how. By asserting local governance norms over federal mandates, Los Angeles effectively challenges the supremacy of the Federal Government within its own territory—an act reminiscent of the strategic behavior of irregular actors seeking to discredit or undermine centralized authority.
Crucially, the methods employed are asymmetric. Rather than armed resistance, Los Angeles authorities deploy tools of legal warfare (“lawfare”), bureaucratic resistance, and public messaging. Strategic lawsuits, municipal non-compliance, prosecutorial discretion, and ordinances designed to shield undocumented residents are instruments of resistance, analogous to how irregular forces use terrain, time, and unconventional means to outmaneuver superior forces. This bureaucratic insurgency does not seek to overthrow the state, but rather to reshape the boundaries of federal authority from within.
Yet, the conflict has not remained confined to the realm of law and rhetoric. In recent days, it has taken a kinetic turn, as federal agents have clashed physically with protesters, community organizers, and even municipal law enforcement during raids and enforcement operations. These confrontations—at times erupting into street riots, mass detentions, or violent dispersals—mirror the tactical realities of irregular warfare where control over urban space becomes a proxy for legitimacy. The deployment of militarized federal units into city neighborhoods without coordination or consent of local authorities further intensifies the perception of occupation, leading to spontaneous or organized civilian resistance. This escalation into physical confrontation blurs the line between law enforcement and political coercion, a dynamic typical of hybrid conflicts in which the state itself becomes fragmented and contested.
Equally important is the role of narrative warfare. Federal authorities characterize Los Angeles as “lawless,” a city held hostage by crime and chaos, while city officials portray themselves as defenders of human dignity, civil rights, and moral governance. These competing narratives are not peripheral—they are central to the conflict, as both sides vie for public support and political capital. In irregular warfare, victory often hinges not on battlefield wins but on the ability to sway hearts and minds. In this respect, the struggle in Los Angeles fits squarely within the psychological and informational dimensions of IW.
Moreover, this confrontation involves a complex web of non-traditional actors. Civil society organizations, activist networks, legal aid groups, and even religious communities have assumed quasi-political and protective functions, stepping into roles typically reserved for state institutions. Their coordinated efforts to resist federal enforcement and provide alternative forms of governance and justice are hallmarks of irregular conflict, where legitimacy is contested not only through force but through competing institutions.
In conclusion, while there are no conventional armies or insurgent militias involved, Los Angeles presents a modern battlefield of irregular warfare—one where law, identity, narrative, and at times even physical force are the weapons. As the nature of conflict in liberal democracies continues to evolve, it becomes increasingly clear that irregular warfare is no longer confined to distant insurgencies or failed states. It is now playing out in the contested political geography of cities like Los Angeles, where the fight for control is not just over policies, but over the very meaning of sovereignty, legitimacy, and justice in the 21st century.
