On June 6th, 2025, Los Angeles became the epicenter for one of the most aggressive immigration crackdowns in modern United States history. ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents descended upon Los Angeles and carried out raids that surged throughout the city. Unprecedentedly, over one hundred people were arrested in one of the most aggressive forms of immigration actions seen within modern United States history. This act, initiated and authorized by President Donald J. Trump, only a few months after he took office, was met with backlash and outrage. Shortly thereafter, protesters took to the streets and clashed with federal law enforcement agents. In the days that followed, President Trump deployed 2,000 National Guard troops and later an additional 700 Marines to Los Angeles without the consent of California Governor Gavin Newsom. In response, more protests broke out, and Los Angeles was transformed into a battlefield, with fires, looting, unrest, tear gas, and imposed citywide curfews. By the end of the month, more than 4,000 people were arrested, some of whom were legal green card holders or undocumented immigrants. Although the unrest in Los Angeles has subsided, it shines a light on the reality of what ignites a population of people to incite such an anarchic series of events.
Two renowned philosophers and thinkers — Marcus Aurelius, the Stoic Roman emperor, and Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis — provide strikingly different frameworks as to what leads people to action or inaction. Aurelius, the author of Meditations, in his text emphasizes discipline over one’s mind, acceptance of events beyond one’s control, and the pursuit of virtue regardless of circumstance. Freud, in Civilization and Its Discontents, warns that repression of instinct and aggression is the price of civilization — but that this repression inevitably produces unrest, guilt, and violence. By placing these two perspectives in conversation, we can better understand both the government’s actions and the people’s reactions in Los Angeles.
Stoicism, rooted in the teachings of Zeno of Citium and later developed by Roman thinkers like Marcus Aurelius, holds that external events are part of the natural order and beyond our control. What remains within our power is our perspective: how we choose to respond. Aurelius himself writes, “You have power over your mind, not outside events. Realize this, and you will find strength” (Aurelius 109). Through this lens, both the ICE raids and the civilian response in Los Angeles reveal a failure of Stoic discipline. President Trump’s actions in sending armed agents and troops into a city without consent reflect, as Aurelius might say, a betrayal of justice and reason. The protesters, too, though reacting to real injustice, fell into rage and destruction rather than channeling their anger toward disciplined, virtuous resistance. Yet there is clear tension here. For those directly affected — immigrants pulled from their homes, families torn apart — the Stoic ideal of calmly accepting “the natural order” seems almost unbearable. To tell a detained green-card holder to accept his fate without protest presents serious moral questions. The Stoic model provides dignity in suffering, but it may also encourage passivity in the face of systemic cruelty.
Marcus Aurelius in Meditations evaluates that the actions carried out by individuals can result in further compounded problems than any good. Marcus Aurelius hints at this, noting, “Never regard something as doing you good if it makes you betray a trust, or lose your sense of shame, or makes you show hatred, suspicion, ill will, or hypocrisy, or a desire for things best done behind closed doors” (Aurelius 31). President Trump’s actions in deploying troops to Los Angeles clashed with Aurelius’ ideals. Not only did he order the initial ICE raids, but he also deployed troops to LA to contain the situation. In this sense, Trump is clearly not a Stoic. Moreover, the actions of ICE agents conflicted with Stoicism as well. While making arrests, many agents wore masks, completing their tasks “behind closed doors.” There’s a good chance some of those agents were immigrants themselves, concealing their identities with shame.
Another Stoic principle that sheds light on the LA riots is Aurelius’ reflection on the interconnectedness of all people. “Meditate often on the interconnectedness and mutual interdependence of all things in the universe” (Aurelius 75). The United States has long been a melting pot of cultures. It is striking that a nation built by immigrants now oppresses immigrants. The LA Riots did not simply affect Los Angeles but resonated with immigrant families across the country. As a child of immigrants, it is understandable that the level of anxiety felt by the countless number of immigrants throughout the country, despite many having citizenship, and being far from LA. It may seem irrational, but stories of those affected hit deep. It is not far-fetched for many individuals to think that they, too, may be next and feel the effects of the actions conducted by the government. Citizens of the United States should never feel endangered by their own government. The government’s actions in LA, particularly the ICE raids, are in direct contradiction with Aurelius’ Stoic ideas.
Although insightful, Aurelius’ interpretation doesn’t tell the whole story. Unsurprisingly, the LA Riots have many more layers that cannot be uncovered with simply one philosophy. Examining this event through other philosophical perspectives reveals additional insights. When examining the LA Riots through the lens of Sigmund Freud, the renowned father of psychology, a completely new perspective on this event begins to emerge. Accompanied by Freudian psychology, we can see how the mixture of inevitable unrest, loss of happiness, and the constant conflict between human nature and society resulted in such a disaster.
Freud’s response to the events that unfolded in Los Angeles would not be received too well, but the philosopher would not be too surprised. His stance has a bleak outlook on human nature and the ability of humans to achieve perceived success. As he writes in Civilization and Its Discontents, “the price we pay for our advance in civilization is a loss of happiness” (Freud 134). His main point is that human nature, driven by pleasure and desires, is restrained by society, resulting in inevitable unrest. Freud argues that civilizations require the repression of instinct—especially aggression and sexual desire—in exchange for security. The repression, however, does not erase or eliminate the drive held by humans; it simply minimizes them where it compounds and accumulates over time, emerging as guilt, neurosis, and an unsettling feeling, or worse, violence. The Freudian epistemology and psychology say the mind is composed of three core components: the id, ego, and superego. The id, our primary driver, is the source of our primitive cravings. The ego contains our rational, logical thoughts and is responsible for mediating our pleasures with reality. Finally, the superego represents the morals and principles of our mind. As Freud notes, “the tension between the demands of instinct and the restrictions of civilization” (Freud 45) creates constant conflict. The clash between these three forces mirrors the clash between human nature and society.
Seen through the eyes of Freud, the ICE raids were not merely a matter of law enforcement; they were the superego of the state attempting to repress the “other”—the immigrant body that threatens the boundaries of the nation. An idea of a nation fueled by the conservative right of America and spearheaded by the current Commander-in-Chief. The backlash in Los Angeles, in turn, was predictable: the eruption of the repressed id, the explosion of fear, anger, and solidarity from communities on a united front that felt criminalized and degraded and were not going to allow what they perceived to be authoritarian actions to thrive without any opposition. Even citizens far from Los Angeles felt this seismic weight. The aforementioned anxiety felt by immigrants all over, despite their citizenship and in many cases distance from the riots, mirrors Freud’s claim that “civilization is built up upon a renunciation of instinct” (Freud 44), which breeds insecurity and guilt even among the law-abiding citizen.
Placed side by side, Marcus Aurelius and Sigmund Freud illuminate two radically different responses to the same crisis. Aurelius offers a take grounded in the idea of endurance, teaching individuals to control their own reactions even in the face of injustice. Freud, however, exposes the structural instability beneath such crises: repression will always breed eruption, and no amount of Stoic discipline and self-control can dissolve the deeper conflict between our instinct and civilization. In the modern context, this contrast matters for how society thinks about immigration and social unrest. Stoicism, as a way of life and an epistemological stance, provides a means for individuals to endure suffering with dignity, but risks legitimizing oppressive systems by framing them as a “natural order.” Freud, meanwhile, explains why these systems provoke chaos: repression can never fully succeed, and attempts to enforce order through raids, curfews, and troops will only sharpen unrest.
After analyzing both philosophies, we can see how these perspectives uncover a somber truth: the strength of individuals and the stability of civilizations both depend on how we confront suffering, aggression, and the systems we create to contain them. The LA Riots, when viewed through this philosophical lens, become more than a tragic episode in history: they reflect the ongoing struggle between inner mastery and social repression that defines human existence. Moving forward, we should spend time reflecting on this idea and others like it so that we can make better decisions in the future. Guided by the minds of the past, we can better understand the dilemmas of the present and begin to imagine new ways of responding to injustice, armed with wisdom and a deeper awareness of the human condition.
Ultimately, both philosophers highlight the fragility of social order, but from different angles: one calls for self-mastery, the other exposes the cost of repression. Understanding both allows us to see that true justice requires more than endurance or control — it demands a society willing to confront its own contradictions. The LA Riots remind us that philosophy is not abstract; it shapes how people live, resist, and hope for something better.
Works Cited
American Psychological Association. (n.d.). American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/ptsd-guideline/patients-and-families/cognitive-behavioral
Aurelius Antoninus, M. (2002). Meditations (G. Hays, Trans.). Modern Library. (Original work published ca. 180 CE)
Freud, S. (1961). Civilization and Its Discontents (J. Strachey, Trans.). W. W. Norton. (Original work published 1930)
Durand, M., Shogry, S., & Baltzly, D. (2023, January 20). Stoicism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/
Papy, J. (2019, March 1). Justus Lipsius. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justus-lipsius/#:~:text=His%20famous%20and%20widely%20read,new%20understanding%20of%20Stoic%20doctrines.
Robertson, D. J. (2020, May 11). Stoic philosophy as a cognitive-behavioral therapy. Medium. https://medium.com/stoicism-philosophy-as-a-way-of-life/stoic-philosophy-as-a-cognitive-behavioral-therapy-597fbeba786a