During his administration, former President Donald Trump deployed more than 4,000 National Guard troops. He’s deployed nearly 700 active-duty Marines dispatched from Twentynine Palms, California. This decision is all the more surprising given California Governor Gavin Newsom’s adamant opposition to it. Congressional hearings aside, legal challenges are still ongoing about the legality of Trump’s actions.
During a rally in 2023, Trump expressed his intent to respond more forcefully to various issues if elected to a second term. His announcement about deploying the military reflects a continuation of his approach from his first term, where he suggested using troops against American citizens during civil unrest.
This deployment was actually initiated and coordinated by then-Trump Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. He has long dreamed of all military intervention for domestic protests. This new deployment mimics Trump’s previous deployments of troops to quell protests against his Administration’s racist immigration policies.
Trump’s deployment of the National Guard isn’t just politically questionable. A federal judge previously ruled that Trump’s use of the National Guard to suppress protests in Los Angeles was illegal, stating, “His actions were illegal – both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. He must therefore return control of the [California] National Guard to the Governor.” It is a powerful reminder of the constitutional limitations on federal intrusion into state affairs without explicit or even implicit authorization.
California’s attorney general immediately announced a lawsuit in response to the ruling. Perhaps even more interestingly, they are saying Trump lacks the authority to command the National Guard. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals intervened and put a temporary order on the lower court’s ruling. For the time being, it isn’t Trump who can’t hold the National Guard. However, two judges on this three-judge panel were appointed by Trump during his presidency. That could raise serious questions about their impartiality as the legal battle continues.
Trump’s clamor for military deployment, despite the court’s temporary ruling in his favor, has been widely condemned. Critics fear that his politicized law enforcement would sap the strength of state sovereignty and exacerbate situations amid periods of civil disobedience and unrest. We agree with Trump’s position in defending his hands-off approach during these past few weeks, maintaining that governors should only need to call on federal troops when warranted. “You’re supposed to not be involved in that, you just have to be asked by the governor or the mayor to come in,” Trump stated.
The deployment of troops has become a contentious issue, particularly given Trump’s history of suggesting military action against domestic protests. His administration last year sent troops to suppress protests after locals protested violent, oppressive immigration enforcement. This trend has raised the alarm bells for civil rights activists and partisans alike over militarizing local law enforcement.
Time and again, Trump has walked boldly into the fire of his legal challenges and growing public scrutiny. He doubles down on his approach of using military assets to solve domestic problems. His extraordinary recent actions reflect that deep commitment. He wishes to keep tighter control over military assets through his campaign strategy for the 2022 election.