In a dramatic response to street protests in Los Angeles against federal immigration enforcement, President Donald Trump ordered the deployment of 2,000 soldiers from the California National Guard on June 7, 2025. This move was intended to protect federal agents carrying out immigration raids amid escalating tensions nationwide.
California Governor Gavin Newsom, who did not request the National Guard, criticized President Trump’s decision as ‘inflammatory,’ warning that it would only exacerbate existing tensions in the city. The orders issued by the president did not detail the rules of engagement for the members of the National Guard, raising concerns about potential confrontations with demonstrators.
As a historian who has extensively studied the Vietnam War, I see striking parallels between the current deployment of National Guard troops and the events leading up to the tragic Kent State shooting in 1970. My most recent work, ‘Kent State: An American Tragedy,’ highlights the deadly clash between anti-war protesters and National Guard troops that resulted in the deaths of four students on May 4, 1970, and numerous injuries to others.
The deployment of the California National Guard echoes decisions made during the 1970 Kent State events, where the presence of armed troops contributed to a breakdown of order and ultimately led to violence. While today’s National Guard and active-duty units may have better training for managing civil unrest, their foundational military training emphasizes combat readiness, not crowd control.
Historically, the National Guard operates as a state militia under the command of state governors. Federal involvement is traditionally rare and often requires the request or consent of state officials. In modern times, the National Guard has been used to assist in natural disasters and urban unrest, but President Trump’s order was notably different because it sidelined the California governor’s authority.
Presidents have deployed National Guard troops during civil unrest under specific circumstances, often tied to the Civil Rights Movement when federal forces were necessary to uphold desegregation mandates in the southern states. The current situation differs in that President Trump did not invoke the Insurrection Act but relied on a narrower federal statute allowing for the mobilization of the National Guard during times of rebellion or unrest.
Crucially, President Trump’s order extended beyond Los Angeles, allowing armed forces to protect immigration enforcement operations at various locations experiencing or likely to experience protests. This broad authorization raises questions about the proportionality and appropriateness of military force in civilian settings.
At Kent State, similar conditions led to tragedy. As the Vietnam War became increasingly unpopular, protests focused on President Nixon’s decision to extend the conflict into Cambodia. The situation escalated when anti-war protesters clashed with National Guard troops who had been deployed by Ohio Governor Jim Rhodes without sufficient justification or consideration of the potential fallout.
Governor Rhodes’s decision to send National Guard troops was influenced by his political ambitions and desire to present a tough image in the face of protests, despite warnings from local officials. A significant misjudgment led to one of the most tragic events in American history.
On May 4, 1970, the arrival of armed National Guardsmen on campus intensified student anger and resentment. The Guardsmen were not adapted to civil engagement but ordered to disperse demonstrators, leading to dire consequences. As tensions escalated, guardsmen fired upon protesters, resulting in the deaths and injuries of unarmed students, an event that would leave a lasting scar in American memory memorialized in protests and chants of ‘four dead in Ohio.’
The events on that day were marked by confusion and a lack of communication regarding the use of firearms, with Guardsmen ordered to the scene without a clear plan to manage the crowds. This absence of clear rules of engagement ultimately resulted in chaos—raising questions about the appropriateness of deploying military troops to quell domestic unrest.
In examining the fallout from the Kent State shooting, it is clear that the deployment of military forces in civilian scenarios requires careful consideration. The pervasive presence of armed troops does not promote peace and can escalate tensions, as evidenced by research which indicates that nonviolent protests are more likely when authorities exhibit restraint and treat demonstrators with respect.
As we reflect on the deployment of California National Guard troops in Los Angeles in the current context, the lessons learned from Kent State remind us of the dangers posed by aggressive military responses to civil unrest. Whereas the military is trained to engage in armed conflict, the tools for managing protests require a different approach entirely.
The Kent State tragedy stands as a somber reminder of the complex nature of civil unrest and the profound implications of using military forces against citizens exercising their right to protest. In light of these historical parallels, it is crucial for government authorities to prioritize diplomacy and de-escalation over military intervention when addressing dissent and civil actions.
The deployment of troops in situations like those seen in Los Angeles has inherent risks and unpredictability, necessitating a response rooted in careful strategizing and consideration of the consequences. As we bear witness to these developments, we must honor the lessons of history and strive to protect the fundamental principles of democratic expression and civil rights.
image source from：https://theconversation.com/from-kent-state-to-los-angeles-using-armed-forces-to-police-civilians-is-a-high-risk-strategy-258468
