Over the weekend, cities across southern California witnessed an outbreak of violence as protesters clashed with agents from the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The protests erupted in response to ICE detaining individuals they suspected were illegal immigrants, igniting tensions in a state known for its sanctuary policies.
In an unprecedented move on Saturday, President Donald Trump ordered the deployment of 2,000 troops from California’s National Guard, despite objections from the state’s governor, Gavin Newsom. Newsom has condemned Trump’s decision, labeling it “an illegal act, an immoral act, an unconstitutional act.” He has threatened to file a lawsuit against the president in response to the troop deployment.
Senator Adam Schiff also criticized the decision, calling it a dangerous precedent for the unilateral misuse of the National Guard across the country. Since mid-May, ICE raids have escalated significantly, spurred by Trump’s threatened repercussions against senior ICE officials for not meeting higher arrest quotas. The situation has further deteriorated due to high-profile cases of wrongful arrests involving US citizens, exacerbating protests and unrest.
California, a Democratic stronghold and self-identified “sanctuary state,” has become a focal point in the national debate over immigration enforcement. Local law enforcement agencies in California do not cooperate with ICE in detaining undocumented immigrants, adding to the strains with the federal government.
California’s National Guard, with approximately 24,000 personnel, is the largest in the United States. Individual states maintain their own National Guard units, which are typically under the governor’s control and are activated during crises such as natural disasters. For instance, in January, Newsom activated several thousand troops to assist with relief efforts amid devastating wildfires near Los Angeles.
In the past, federal deployment of the National Guard has occurred, notably in 1992 when then-President George H.W. Bush supported California Governor Pete Wilson’s call to deploy troops to quell the South Central LA riots. But the current situation marks a significant departure as Trump unilaterally takes control of the National Guard, positioning the federal government at odds with California, a state that has continuously resisted his immigration policies.
Governor Gavin Newsom is viewed as a potential contender for the Democratic Party’s nomination in the 2028 presidential election, which adds another layer of political complexity to the situation. The invocation of the Insurrection Act of 1807 enables a president to deploy the National Guard during times of crisis to supplement state and local forces. Despite being revised several times, legal experts express concerns over the Insurrection Act’s vague language and potential for misuse.
Historically, US presidents like Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson have utilized different sections of the Insurrection Act to protect civil rights. Though the act implies a need for cooperation between the president and the state governor, it does not strictly require it. Notable examples include Kennedy’s actions in June 1963, when he issued Executive Order 11111 to mobilize the National Guard to ensure the desegregation of the University of Alabama, against the wishes of Governor George Wallace.
In that case, Wallace physically blocked the entrance to the university to prevent the registration of two black students, Vivian Malone and James Hood, prompting Kennedy to act. Similarly, in March 1965, Johnson bypassed Wallace to deploy troops in response to violent incidents targeting voter rights activists, ensuring the right to protest peacefully.
However, the current California situation diverges sharply from these past actions, as there has been no request for federal intervention from Governor Newsom. Unlike past instances where the state leader sought federal assistance in crisis, Trump is using the National Guard to protect ICE agents amid civil unrest.
The LAPD, with nearly 9,000 sworn officers, is the third-largest police force in the US and is currently handling the situation on the ground. It is expected that Newsom would not hesitate to request the National Guard’s assistance if he deemed it necessary, reinforcing that the use of troops in this context lacks legitimacy.
President Trump’s decision may be interpreted as a continued effort to exert federal control over California. In January, he threatened to withhold federal aid for wildfire recovery, highlighting the administration’s contentious relationship with the state. Trump has previously threatened to cut federal funding entirely due to California’s policies regarding campus protests and the inclusion of transgender athletes in women’s sports.
This tension between the state and the federal government raises concerns about the implications for governance and civil rights in California and beyond. As the situation continues to unfold, the clash between state sovereignty and federal authority remains a critical issue in the ongoing national discourse about immigration and law enforcement.
image source from：https://theconversation.com/trumps-use-of-the-national-guard-against-la-protesters-defies-all-precedents-258486
