President Donald Trump’s recent executive order to deploy 2,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles is being described as unprecedented by legal experts. This decision hinges on an unconventional interpretation of a law designed to address serious domestic unrest or foreign attacks, marking a significant departure from standard protocol. It is the first instance in nearly six decades where a U.S. president has taken such a step without consent from the respective state governor.
By authorizing the Pentagon to send military personnel to assist with federal functions and safeguard government property, Trump’s directive raises alarms about the potential for military intervention in other cities amidst ongoing protests. Elizabeth Goitein, a senior director at the Brennan Center for Justice, stated, “The use of the military to quell civil unrest is supposed to be an absolute last resort,” emphasizing the legal ramifications of such actions.
Trump invoked a specific section of U.S. code that permits the president to call National Guard troops into federal service without a governor's endorsement when there is a perceived need to combat an invasion or suppress rebellion. California's Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, has vocally opposed this move, arguing that local authorities have effectively managed the situations that prompted the unrest and accusing Trump of attempting to create a “spectacle.”
The White House announcement, which came late Saturday, followed demonstrations against immigration raids that escalated into violence, with protesters engaging in acts such as setting a car ablaze and launching fireworks. In response, law enforcement deployed tactical units equipped with tear gas and stun grenades. Trump claimed that the unrest in Southern California hindered immigration enforcement, thereby justifying his characterization of the situation as a rebellion.
Legal experts anticipate that Trump’s executive order will face significant legal challenges. On Sunday, Governor Newsom requested that the Trump administration rescind the order, asserting that proper legal procedures had not been followed. Trump indicated that the National Guard troops would be used temporarily to protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers and other federal personnel engaged in law enforcement duties, as well as to safeguard federal property in areas where protests were either occurring or expected based on threat assessments.
Goitein referred to the current situation as an “untested” maneuver, noting that previous presidents have typically invoked this section of federal law alongside the Insurrection Act, which Trump did not do in this instance. The Insurrection Act allows for the deployment of armed forces or the National Guard domestically to address armed rebellion, riots, or extreme situations, permitting military personnel to engage in law enforcement activities typically restricted by the Posse Comitatus Act.
The last time a president utilized this section of the U.S. code in conjunction with the Insurrection Act was in 1992 during the Los Angeles riots following the acquittal of police officers involved in the beating of Rodney King. Historically, the Insurrection Act has been invoked to manage riots, labor disputes, and to protect marginalized communities from groups such as the Ku Klux Klan.
During his campaign for the 2024 election, Trump and his aides discussed the possibility of invoking the Insurrection Act on his first day in office to manage anticipated protests. He has expressed a willingness to unilaterally deploy troops to Democratic-run cities to enforce order, claiming, “You look at any Democrat-run state, and it’s just not the same — it doesn’t work.” This statement reflects his belief that cities like New York and Los Angeles are grappling with severe crime issues.
The decision to deploy federalized National Guard troops in response to protests has sparked outrage among civil liberties organizations and Democratic leaders. Hina Shamsi, director of the National Security Project at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), labeled the action as unnecessary and an abuse of power, warning that it jeopardizes the safety of Angelenos and undermines the democratic principle that military forces should not police civilians.
Experts like Goitein caution that Trump’s choice to invoke only the federal service law, instead of the Insurrection Act, suggests a strategic move to mitigate potential political backlash. However, it raises questions about whether he intends to employ Insurrection Act powers without formally invoking it. This unprecedented approach could set a worrying precedent for future interactions between military authority and civil unrest.
This unprecedented deployment of National Guard troops without the request of local authorities marks a significant chapter in U.S. history. As the legal and ethical implications unfold, the potential for escalation remains a pressing concern for both civil liberties advocates and the general public.
