In a controversial move, President Donald Trump has taken command of the California National Guard. He is doing this in the face of determined opposition by California Governor Gavin Newsom. That’s a dramatic expansion of the federal role into deeply state matters, triggered by this decision. He has committed to keeping troops in the region for at least 60 days to restore public safety amid the ongoing civil unrest.
The President’s actions come at a moment of unprecedented tension in Los Angeles. As we all have seen in these recent protests against police brutality and social injustice, protests are fierce and ongoing. Though it’s worth noting that Trump never actually invoked the Insurrection Act. Instead of taking their advice, he’s increased the military presence in the city, needs security, potentially escalating tensions between local and national political leaders.
History
Past presidents have invoked the Insurrection Act to quell civil disorder. This unprecedented act, intended to address extraordinary emergencies, was last invoked in the 1992 LA riots. Insurrection Act [], 10 U.S.C. § 251-255 The Insurrection Act permits the federal government to use military forces to put down insurrections and maintain domestic order. Yet, perhaps astonishingly, Trump decided not to. Rather, his complete dependence on the National Guard to quell Maryland’s civil unrest illustrates this complicated, multifaceted approach.
Trump’s “border czar,” Tom Homan, ratcheted up the pressure, going so far as to threaten legal action against the officials of California. Homan was very clear in his warning. Specifically, he threatened to arrest California Governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass if either obstructed federal immigration enforcement operations. This latest threat highlights the administration’s militaristic stance toward state and local officials who defy the anti-immigrant federal government.
The situation escalated in Los Angeles as demonstrators confronted a wall of Marines. The standoff turned tense and at moments chaotic outside the city’s downtown federal building. Other demonstrators were fervently against the U.S. military presence. At the same time, many lamented that the same social conditions that incited the protests have persisted.
At the same time, other states have embraced a non-traditional role for their National Guard units. New Mexico recently enlisted its National Guard to serve as substitute teachers amid the staffing shortfall. On the flip side, Florida has sent its deployed guardsmen to act as prison guards, and New York has deployed its National Guard to assist with subway policing. These new announcements are another step in a concerning trend of relying on National Guard forces to backfill more and more civil functions.
In fact, just before the presidential election, Trump raised the possibility of deploying such military forces within the U.S. He signaled his willingness to deploy federal troops to “reestablish order” in domestic scenarios. For instance, Lyndon Johnson brought the Insurrection Act into play in 1965 to protect civil rights demonstrators. In stark contrast, Richard Nixon made his first unsuccessful attempt to deploy the National Guard during the postal strike of 1970.
The initial deployment of troops in Los Angeles has shocked the state’s elected leadership, as well as more establishment and leadership-oriented figures within the Democratic Party. A bipartisan coalition of retired four-star generals, admirals, and former Pentagon officials are raising alarms over what Trump is doing. They argue that he has violated clear parameters and precedent for military involvement in civil society.
“The US military exists to defend the nation from foreign threats, not to police American streets or intervene in political disputes at home,” – a group of retired four-star generals and admirals and high-profile former Pentagon officials.
This position is indicative of a growing national concern over militarization in U.S. cities. Retired military leaders cautioned that these policies would endanger both service members and civilians. They argue these actions trample on very old constitutional boundaries on federal government overreach.
“Puts both service members and civilians at risk of harm and violates longstanding constitutional limits on government power,” – a group of retired four-star generals and admirals and high-profile former Pentagon officials.
As critics of Trump’s approach have pointed out, authoritarian moves are never contained to the national borders. Julia Ioffe of the Atlantic recently underscored this danger, warning that such clumsy muscle-flexing can have far-reaching consequences for our democracy.
Proponents of Trump’s escalating response would say that dramatic measures are required to restore law and order. South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem framed it as a need to “liberate the city from the socialists and the burdensome leadership that this governor and that this mayor have placed on this country.”
In an interview, Trump underscored his perspective on the unrest, stating, “We have some very bad people. We have some sick people. Radical left lunatics.” He doubled down on a message that law enforcement must crack down hard on the anarchists creating havoc.
“I think it should be very easily handled by … national guard, or if really necessary, by the military, because they can’t let that happen,” – Donald Trump.
As all of these developments are happening in Los Angeles, the story is still in flux. The militarization of domestic law enforcement raises critical questions about civil liberties, state authority, and the role of federal powers in addressing local unrest.