In a controversial move, President Donald Trump has activated 2,000 California National Guard troops to be deployed to Los Angeles in response to ongoing immigration protests, despite opposition from California Governor Gavin Newsom.
This deployment marks a significant moment in the tension between federal and state authority over the National Guard, as State Governors typically maintain control over these troops.
In justification for his actions, President Trump cited the need to address ‘lawlessness’ in California, asserting that federal intervention was necessary to restore order.
Governor Newsom, however, described the decision as ‘purposely inflammatory,’ raising concerns that it could exacerbate tensions rather than alleviate them.
Historically, President Trump has turned to the National Guard to quell unrest.
In 2020, following the tragic death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police officers, he asked several state governors to send National Guard troops to Washington, D.C., where protests were occurring.
Most governors complied with Trump’s request, although some opted to keep their troops in their states.
This current deployment represents a shift in strategy as it occurs against the wishes of a state’s governor, raising questions about the president’s ability to unilaterally federalize National Guard troops without state consent.
While the National Guard operates as a hybrid entity serving both state and federal roles, under usual circumstances, it adheres to state command and control.
President Trump’s current proclamation is grounded in federal law that permits federalization of National Guard troops under specific conditions.
These provisions include circumstances of invasion, rebellion, or when a president is unable to execute federal laws effectively.
However, this law stipulates that orders for these actions should typically be issued through the state governors.
Legal experts are scrutinizing Trump’s approach, with notable figures like Steve Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown University Law Center, suggesting that his reliance on federal law, rather than the Insurrection Act, underscores legal and ethical dilemmas.
Vladeck pointed out that National Guard troops cannot legally be involved in direct law enforcement activities unless the president invokes the Insurrection Act.
As such, there is an inherent risk that the troops could use force in ways that could escalate tensions while serving their supporting role of protecting ICE officers.
Critics argue that the role outlined for the National Guard seems to duplicate the existing functions of ICE agents, which raises questions about the necessity of troop deployment in these circumstances.
The history of military intervention in domestic affairs includes instances from the Civil Rights era, where the Insurrection Act was invoked to protect civil rights activists during protests and the integration of schools.
For instance, President Dwight Eisenhower activated the 101st Airborne Division to protect Black students in Little Rock, Arkansas, who were facing opposition to desegregation.
It has also been used in the past by President George H.W. Bush to manage riots in Los Angeles following the verdict of the officers involved in the beating of Rodney King.
More commonly, National Guard troops have been utilized in responding to national emergencies, such as natural disasters and the COVID-19 pandemic, largely working collaboratively with state governors.
In the wake of the George Floyd protests, Trump hinted at invoking the Insurrection Act to respond to civil unrest, a move that has faced considerable scrutiny and has yet to be seen since his presidency.
As he campaigns for a potential second term, Trump has indicated he would consider deploying military forces more readily to address unrest in cities and states.
He mentioned in a 2023 speech that he felt restricted from using military resources during times of civil unrest during his first term.
Accompanying the announcement of deploying National Guard troops, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth indicated that further military measures might follow if unrest continues.
On the social media platform X, Hegseth noted that active-duty Marines at Camp Pendleton are also on high alert, suggesting a possibility of further mobilization to manage the situation.
This latest development reflects ongoing challenges around the interaction between state rights, federal authority, and the management of immigration issues in the United States.
As protests continue, the implications of President Trump’s actions may have lasting impacts on federal and state relationships and the civil rights landscape in America.
image source from：https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/trumps-deployment-national-guard-troops-la-protests-122622792
