President Donald Trump has announced the deployment of 2,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles, amid rising tensions related to immigration protests, despite opposition from California Governor Gavin Newsom.
This move marks yet another occasion in which Trump has activated the National Guard in response to civil unrest. In 2020, he called upon governors from various states to dispatch troops to Washington, D.C. to manage protests that erupted following the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police. While many governors complied with this request, those who opted not to were permitted to retain their troops for local duties.
This current deployment presents a unique challenge since Trump is proceeding without the endorsement of Governor Newsom, who would typically maintain command over California’s National Guard. While Trump justifies the federalization of the troops as necessary for addressing what he refers to as “lawlessness” in California, Newsom has condemned the action as “purposely inflammatory” and likely to escalate existing tensions.
The legal framework surrounding the deployment of military forces on U.S. soil is complex and somewhat ambiguous. Generally, federal military personnel are restricted from engaging in civilian law enforcement activities against U.S. citizens except in situations deemed emergencies.
Historically, the Insurrection Act has served as the principal legal avenue for a president to invoke military assistance during times of insurrection or civil unrest. However, Trump did not invoke this act for the latest deployment.
Instead, he relied on a different federal law that permits the president to federalize National Guard troops under specific circumstances. The National Guard functions as a hybrid entity that serves both state and federal purposes. Typically, it operates under state control, funded by state resources. Occasionally, National Guard troops may be assigned federal missions but remain under state command, receiving federal financial support.
According to the law cited in Trump’s proclamation, National Guard troops can be placed under federal command under three key scenarios: in response to invasion or perceived threats of invasion; during rebellion or threats of rebellion against U.S. authority; or when the president is incapable of enforcing U.S. laws using regular forces.
However, the statute also clarifies that orders regarding these matters must generally be issued through state governors. This raises questions about whether Trump can legally activate National Guard troops without explicit permission from the state governor.
In a noteworthy aspect of this deployment, Trump’s proclamation specifies that the National Guard troops will take on a supporting role by providing protection to ICE officers enforcing immigration laws, rather than conducting law enforcement operations themselves.
Steve Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown University with expertise in military justice and national security law, has expressed concerns about this arrangement. He indicated that National Guard members cannot legally engage in routine law enforcement unless the Insurrection Act is invoked, which has not been the case here.
Vladeck pointed out that this decision heightens the risk of potential force being used by the troops while fulfilling their protective role. Moreover, he noted that this move could set the stage for more aggressive military deployments in the future, suggesting a worrying precedent.
Historically, the Insurrection Act and related laws have been utilized during critical times, including the Civil Rights Movement, to safeguard activists and ensure the desegregation of schools. An example of this was during the integration of Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas, when President Dwight Eisenhower dispatched the 101st Airborne to protect Black students from opposition.
Similarly, President George H.W. Bush invoked the Insurrection Act in 1992 to counter riots in Los Angeles triggered by the acquittal of white police officers involved in the beating of Black motorist Rodney King, highlighting past applications of military force in domestic unrest.
The National Guard has also been mobilized for various emergencies, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and natural disasters like hurricanes. However, these deployments typically occur with the agreement of the states involved, maintaining a collaborative approach between state and federal authorities.
Trump’s willingness to use military forces on American soil raises significant implications for the relationship between federal and state governments. In 2020, during widespread protests following George Floyd’s death, Trump called on governors to deploy their National Guard troops to assist in managing the unrest in D.C. Overwhelmingly, many governors complied.
At that time, Trump threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act but ultimately did not follow through. Then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper cautioned that such a measure should only be considered in the most urgent and dire situations, maintaining a level of restraint that Trump ultimately chose not to exercise.
However, during his 2024 campaign, Trump indicated a willingness to change his approach, stating he would not hesitate to use military action to address violence in cities and states if similar circumstances arose again in his next term.
He promised increased National Guard deployment to enforce immigration policies. Senior advisor Stephen Miller highlighted that troops from states governed by Republicans could help enforce immigration measures in neighboring states that resist federal directives.
Following Trump’s announcement of the National Guard deployment, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth mentioned that active-duty Marines at Camp Pendleton are on high alert and could be mobilized if violence remains a concern in the area.
image source from：https://www.ocregister.com/2025/06/07/immigration-raids-los-angeles-things-to-know/
