In June 2020, tensions escalated between President Donald Trump and California Governor Gavin Newsom over the federal government's decision to deploy National Guard troops to Los Angeles. Amidst growing unrest related to protests sparked by reports of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids, President Trump confirmed on June 8 that U.S. Marines would also be sent to the area. “Well, we’re gonna have troops everywhere,” he stated during a press conference.
When questioned about the criteria for deploying active-duty military forces, which is a rare occurrence, Trump replied, “The bar is what I think it is. If we see danger to our country and to our citizens, we’ll be very, very strong in terms of law and order.” However, the deployment of military personnel is bound by legal limitations. The law that Trump referenced permits the use of National Guard troops for the protection of federal personnel and property but does not authorize their use for broad law enforcement purposes.
On June 9, U.S. Northern Command announced the deployment of approximately 700 Marines to “integrate” with other forces already present to protect federal personnel and property in the greater Los Angeles area. This deployment aligns with the mission of the National Guard troops already under federal command.
In response to Trump's memorandum calling the California National Guard into federal service, Governor Newsom filed a lawsuit. Legal experts have pointed out that Trump's actions may stretch the boundaries of the law governing federal military involvement in domestic situations. According to Scott R. Anderson, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, “Typically, a president is supposed to only deploy the state National Guard in situations involving rebellion or an inability to enforce laws.” He noted that none of these conditions were clearly met in California at the time of the president's directive.
Notably, Trump did not invoke the 1807 Insurrection Act, which would allow for the deployment of military personnel on U.S. soil without state consent, opting instead for a more limited legal framework. Chris Mirasola, a law professor at the University of Houston, explained that Trump's reliance on the so-called “protective power” does not extend to law enforcement functions such as making arrests.
The protests in Los Angeles were marked by significant unrest, leading the Los Angeles Police Department to declare them an “unlawful assembly” on June 6. The police utilized tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse crowds, resulting in numerous arrests. These actions raised questions about the legality of military involvement in civilian law enforcement.
Trump's June 7 memorandum invoked section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code, calling for the federalization of at least 2,000 National Guard personnel to “temporarily protect” federal employees and property. This federalization means that the National Guard operates under federal command, effectively sidelining state officials. The memorandum also allows the Secretary of Defense to deploy additional armed forces, creating a potentially expansive authority for military action.
Legal experts expressed concern over the broad nature of Trump’s memorandum, suggesting it gives the president authority to deploy military forces anywhere on American soil. The federal law cited allows for the National Guard's activation when there is a rebellion or risk of rebellion, as well as in cases of foreign invasion. However, many experts, including Joseph Nunn from the Brennan Center for Justice, emphasized that Marines cannot engage in law enforcement under the current legal framework without invoking the Insurrection Act.
While Marines can provide logistical support, they are not trained for law enforcement activities such as crowd control or civilian detainment. The Pentagon is reportedly drafting guidelines to delineate the actions that Marines can take to protect federal personnel, but even the requirement for such guidelines puts them in a challenging and legally precarious position.
The Insurrection Act, when invoked, allows federal troops to operate in civilian law enforcement roles, but it has traditionally been seen as a last resort. Historical precedents exist where presidents invoked this act during significant civil unrest, including during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. However, the current situation in Los Angeles does not mirror the scale of violence and destruction witnessed during those riots.
As the deployment of National Guard and Marines unfolds in Los Angeles, it raises significant legal and ethical questions about the military's role in domestic law enforcement. With a history of past military interventions, the current administration's actions may reshape the future landscape of military involvement in civil unrest, warranting careful examination and dialogue.
