President Donald Trump has ordered the deployment of 2,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles, a move that is stirring significant controversy due to its unprecedented nature and potential legal implications. The deployment, aimed at quelling anti-immigration enforcement protests, was carried out without the consent of California Governor Gavin Newsom.
The unrest in Los Angeles escalated following operations by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that resulted in over 100 arrests. Demonstrators took to the streets to protest against these actions, leading to clashes with law enforcement. In response, police have employed nonlethal methods, such as rubber bullets and pepper spray, to control the crowd, raising concerns about the safety and rights of both protesters and journalists.
According to experts in national security and presidential powers, this is the first time since 1965 that a president has deployed National Guard troops to address civil unrest without a formal request from a state governor. Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program, describes the action as extraordinary and unprecedented.
Goitein emphasized that the conditions typically required to justify such a deployment are not present in this case. Trump’s memoranda supporting the National Guard’s deployment argue that the protests pose a threat to federal immigration detention facilities and constitute rebellion against federal authority.
Adding to the military presence in Los Angeles, a defense official confirmed that 700 Marines from Twentynine Palms, California, have also been mobilized to operate in a support role alongside the National Guard.
In a move to counteract Trump’s decision, Governor Newsom announced that California would be suing the Trump administration. The lawsuit names President Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and the Department of Defense, claiming that the National Guard order violates the U.S. Constitution and exceeds presidential authority.
The debate centers around the powers granted to the president for addressing civil unrest. Generally, the use of federal troops for law enforcement is restricted by the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. An exception to this rule is provided by the Insurrection Act, which allows for federal troop deployment in the case of civil disturbances.
Goitein pointed out that the Insurrection Act has only been invoked 30 times in U.S. history and has not been used since the 1992 Los Angeles riots following the Rodney King verdict. Notably, it has never been used without a request from the state.
President Trump has yet to invoke the Insurrection Act in Los Angeles but has alluded to the possibility while labeling the protesters as insurrectionists. Instead, Trump appears to be relying on a little-known provision of federal law — 10 U.S.C. 12406 — which allows for troop deployment in instances of “rebellion or danger of rebellion.”
Gov. Newsom’s office responded by asserting that Trump’s actions exceed the authority outlined in Title 10, citing that the situation in Los Angeles does not constitute a ‘rebellion’ and has been adequately managed by local authorities in the past. The administration argues that there was no imminent threat that would warrant such federal intervention.
The use of this particular provision has been rare. Goitein explained that it was historically applied alongside the Insurrection Act, raising questions regarding its standalone authority for current deployments. Legal scholars like Steve Vladeck have argued that invoking 10 U.S.C. 12406 does not empower National Guard troops to engage in law enforcement activities, such as conducting immigration raids or arrests.
The constitutional justification offered by Trump may also hinge on an implied authority derived from Article 2 of the Constitution, known as the protective power, which suggests that the president has inherent authority to deploy military forces to safeguard federal functions and properties.
Opinions vary on the appropriateness of this approach, with Goitein highlighting that the legal implications of using military forces in civilian contexts remain unresolved in courts.
Both Goitein and Mirasola are keeping a close watch on how this situation unfolds. They speculate that if the courts impose limitations on Trump’s use of these powers, a potential next step could involve invoking the Insurrection Act.
As of now, the National Guard’s role is explicitly limited to the protection of federal personnel and property. However, Mirasola expressed concern that the broad language in Trump’s memorandum may lead to an expansion of their mandate, potentially covering actions beyond the intended scope of protecting federal interests.
The memorandum lacks a clear reference to Los Angeles and grants substantial discretion to the Secretary of Defense in determining the extent of military protective actions. As protests persist, there may be increasing political pressure on the administration to widen the scope of the deployment.
In summary, this deployment of National Guard troops in Los Angeles is generating a significant legal and political discourse surrounding the boundaries of presidential power and federal authority in response to civil unrest. With potential ramifications reaching beyond Los Angeles, the situation remains fluid and could set a precedent for future uses of military force in similar protests across the country.
image source from：https://www.opb.org/article/2025/06/10/trump-and-la-what-laws-give-him-authority-to-send-federal-troops/
