 "US President Donald Trump speaks as he participates in a roundtable discussion with the Fraternal Order of Police at the White House in Washington, DC, US, June 5, 2025. File Image/Reuters")
The ongoing protests in Los Angeles which were sparked by immigration enforcement raids were met with a swift federal response from Washington.
United States President Donald Trump’s move to deploy thousands of US troops to the city has resulted in a legal battle.
At the heart of the controversy lies a simple question with complex implications: will Trump once again reverse course if opposition continues to mount?
Trump’s decision to send military personnel into LA — overriding objections from California officials — has reopened scrutiny into a longstanding pattern of policy flip-flops, especially when resistance grows or market impacts deepen.
This pattern, so familiar that it has come to be known by the acronym TACO — Trump Always Chickens Out — is now being put to the test once again.
 "Homes torched, stones pelted: How anti-immigrant violence has gripped North Ireland town")
 "Labubu sells for $150,000 in Beijing: How China's craze for the doll grows")
How Trump got the Taco tag
The term “TACO” surged into public discussion in May 2025 after journalist Robert Armstrong used it in a Financial Times opinion column analysing Trump’s trade strategies.
It gained immediate traction for encapsulating a familiar political behaviour: the President often makes aggressive pronouncements or policy moves, only to withdraw them later under pressure.
Armstrong wrote that the market was realising that “the US administration does not have a very high tolerance for market and economic pressure, and will be quick to back off when tariffs cause pain.”
He dubbed this the “Taco theory.”
Since then, commentators and financial analysts have pointed to multiple episodes that fit this mold.
Among the most cited were the rapid pause in “Liberation Day” tariffs just a week after their announcement, Trump’s public call to dismiss Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell followed by his retreat from that stance, and an agreement to scale back China-related tariffs after initial escalation.
Financial Times’ Katie Martin cited three such turnarounds that had tangible impacts on market performance.
Other reports, like Shannon Pettypiece’s for NBC News, documented as many as ten specific trade reversals: from duties on European wine and Canadian goods to proposed levies on iPhones and children’s toys.
As protests and unrest continue across California and spread to other cities like Dallas, Austin, Chicago, and New York, the question resurfaces: will Trump remain committed to this path, or will the “Taco theory” play out once more?
Why Trump’s federal deployment in questionable
The Trump administration has defended its decision to deploy a significant military presence to Los Angeles, but the move has drawn sharp criticism for both its legal footing and fiscal cost.
According to a Pentagon estimate presented to Congress, the deployment is expected to cost approximately $134 million over a 60-day period. This figure includes expenses related to housing, transportation, and food for the personnel involved.
Bryn Woollacott MacDonnell, a Pentagon official serving as a special assistant to the secretary of defense, shared the cost breakdown during testimony before a House subcommittee.
The funding for this operation is being drawn from the Department of Defense’s Operations & Maintenance budget.
A total of 4,700 personnel have been activated as part of this mobilisation: 4,000 members of the California National Guard and 700 Marines.
Though Marines have yet to be seen actively engaged on the streets, the presence of National Guard troops — especially near federal buildings and ICE operations — has been confirmed.
US Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth appeared before lawmakers to defend the decision, asserting that “every American citizen deserves to live in a community that’s safe, and ICE agents need to be able to do their job.”
Hegseth argued that the 60-day deployment timeline was intentional: “We stated very publicly that it’s 60 days because we want to ensure that those rioters, looters and thugs on the other side assaulting our police officers know that we’re not going anywhere.”
Hegseth also accused demonstrators of being in the country illegally and claimed the deployment was meant to protect law enforcement personnel who were being attacked.
Why Trump’s decision is being brought to court
The troop deployment has exposed a significant clash between the federal executive branch and California’s Democratic leadership. California Governor Gavin Newsom, a prominent critic of the Trump administration, has openly opposed the military presence in his state.
Speaking in a nationally televised address, Newsom described the moment as a “war” being waged not just against protesters, but against the foundational principles of American democracy.
“California may be first, but it clearly will not end here. Other states are next. Democracy is next. Democracy is under assault before our eyes. This moment we have feared has arrived,” Newsom declared, warning that Trump’s tactics reflect a larger attempt to centralise power in the White House and bypass the established norms of federalism.
Newsom further added, “He’s declared a war. A war on culture, on history, on science, on knowledge itself. He’s delegitimising news organisations, and he’s assaulting the First Amendment.”
Asserting that “it’s time for all of us to stand up,” Newsom urged peaceful resistance while criticizing Trump’s actions as fundamentally anti-democratic.
Simultaneously, California filed a legal challenge to the troop deployment, arguing that federal intervention in state matters without consent violates the principles of state sovereignty.
In response, a judge opted not to issue an immediate ruling, instead granting several days for the administration to continue its actions ahead of a scheduled hearing.
Adding to the friction, Trump claimed he had spoken to Newsom about the protests. The Governor disputed this directly on social media, writing: “There was no call. Not even a voicemail.”
He added, “Americans should be alarmed that a President deploying Marines onto our streets doesn’t even know who he’s talking to.”
Members of Congress, particularly Democrats, pressed the administration over the legal grounds for military deployment.
Representative Pete Aguilar cited federal law that allows presidential use of troops only under limited conditions such as foreign invasion, rebellion, or inability to enforce federal law using regular means. “Which authority is triggered here to justify the use?” he asked.
Hegseth responded vaguely: “I don’t know. You just read it yourself so people can listen themselves, but it sounds like all three to me.” He reiterated claims that demonstrators were undocumented and violent, though evidence of this was not independently confirmed during the hearing.
Representative Betty McCollum challenged why Marines were being sent to LA now when a similar response was not undertaken during the 2020 unrest in Minneapolis.
Hegseth defended the decision, referencing leadership requests: “The police chief said she was overwhelmed, so we helped.” However, it remains unclear which official Hegseth was referring to.
LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell had earlier issued a statement expressing concern over the deployment, saying it complicated efforts to de-escalate tension and posed logistical challenges due to lack of coordination.
Will Taco Trump repeat himself?
Trump has not ruled out invoking the Insurrection Act, one of the most severe emergency powers available to a U.S. president. From the Oval Office, he said: “If there’s an insurrection, I would certainly invoke it. We’ll see.”
Trump also stoked further controversy by appearing to support the idea of Newsom’s arrest if he were to obstruct federal immigration enforcement. “I think it’s great. Gavin likes the publicity, but I think it would be a great thing,” the president told reporters.
The broader context includes years of tension between Trump and California leadership, particularly Newsom. Trump has previously threatened to withhold wildfire aid, intervened in homelessness policy debates, and warned California residents that “your children are in danger” due to illegal immigration.
His rhetoric often includes insults — calling the governor “New-scum” — and incendiary policy declarations.
The recent protests, which began in response to ICE raids, have remained concentrated in downtown Los Angeles but are now being echoed in major cities across the US.
Reports of teargas and violent clashes, including the torching of vehicles and highway blockades, have only heightened national interest.
While Trump has so far stood firm on the military deployment, historical precedent suggests the possibility of a reversal.
The president’s record — be it trade threats, economic tariffs, or even high-profile dismissals — shows a consistent pattern of retreat when faced with sustained opposition or political cost.
With inputs from agencies