Former President Donald Trump announced plans to deploy 2,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles to address ongoing immigration protests. His statement raises questions about the legal mechanisms available to a president for such actions, particularly the Insurrection Act, a law dating back to the 18th century. The Insurrection Act gives the federal government the authority to deploy state National Guard forces. This usually happens in the wake of unrest or rebellion.
Trump’s comments are the latest signs of an escalation in his administration’s militarization of immigration enforcement and related crackdowns on protestors nationwide. He made clear that, if re-elected, he would deploy military resources without question to quell unrest. This proposed deployment is another illustration of improving immigration enforcement while enact his commitment to controlling the narrative of civil unrest.
Understanding the Insurrection Act
The Insurrection Act is a president’s most significant legal tool. What it doesn’t do is give them expanded authority to deploy military or National Guard forces to combat civil disorder. It is invoked under specific circumstances: when the United States faces invasion or danger of invasion, when there is a rebellion against federal authority, or when the president cannot enforce federal laws using standard forces.
Historically, the Insurrection Act has been used during other notable times of extreme civil unrest. For example, it was deployed to protect civil rights activists and students while they desegregated schools. In 1957, President Dwight Eisenhower did just that. He sent the 101st Airborne Division to Little Rock, Arkansas, to protect Black students while they integrated Central High School over the protests of local state officials attempting to prevent their entry.
In 1992, President George H.W. Bush responded with a strong hand, sending in federal troops to secure order over Los Angeles. This reaction followed riots in Los Angeles after the police were acquitted on all counts in the beating of Black motorist Rodney King. Each example highlights the law’s importance in preserving public order during periods of national crisis.
Trump’s Stance on Military Deployment
During his recent speeches, Trump has emphasized his willingness to deploy the National Guard as part of his immigration enforcement strategy. The thing he complained about was his inability to use military force on protesters in cities across the country early in his first term. In a 2023 speech in Iowa, Trump doubled down, saying, “I’m not waiting.” This quote conveyed his intent to start taking more aggressive action in these types of situations in the future.
National security experts warn against the long-term consequences of using National Guard troops in this way. Mark Esper, former Secretary of Defense, noted that the Insurrection Act should be invoked “only in the most urgent and dire of situations.” This new perspective is particularly troubling given the ongoing expansion of military engagement in domestic law enforcement activities. Unfortunately, such actions would further raise tensions rather than de-escalating it.
As all legal scholars, including Steve Vladeck of Georgetown University Law Center, have been at pains to explain, that’s the wrong focus. Regular National Guard troops cannot be used for routine law enforcement unless the president explicitly activates the Insurrection Act. Vladeck unfortunately predicted that that’s exactly what this move would do. He warned that this could increase the likelihood of violence if troops are deployed to restore order without explicit legal authority.
Future Implications
In fact, since taking office, Trump has aggressively lobbied for the deployment of military resources to quell protests over immigration policy. Now is the time to look at the legality and at the historical practices of these actions. The Insurrection Act provides a framework for federal intervention but is designed for extreme circumstances where civil authority is compromised.
Political tensions are escalating over immigration enforcement and civil rights. In addition to the immediate implications for law enforcement, Trump’s proposed deployment would have come with profound long-term effects. The conversation over this issue is representative of a national trend reflective of the country’s state of race, justice, and governance in America.