In 1957, nine African-American pupils attempted to register at Little Rock Central High School in Arkansas, a school that had previously been exclusively white. This action was a significant move towards compliance with the 1954 Supreme Court decision of Brown v Board of Education, which mandated the desegregation of schools across the United States.
Despite their courage in facing a mob of approximately 300 people who heckled and hissed, the students encountered further resistance. Members of the Arkansas National Guard, summoned by segregationist Governor Orval Faubus, barred their entry to the school.
In response to this crisis, President Dwight Eisenhower acted decisively. He federalized the entire Arkansas National Guard, taking it out of the governor’s control, and the very guardsmen who had initially been ordered to stop the African-American students eventually escorted them inside the school.
This historical event illustrates the crucial role that the National Guard has played within American society, a role that many Americans today do not fully appreciate.
The origins of the National Guard go back more than a century prior to the establishment of the United States. While its functions have evolved, its constitutional basis remains robust. Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the power ‘to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.’ Beyond this, the National Guard serves as a reserve force for the professional military and can be mobilized by the president for various purposes.
In the decades that followed the Little Rock incident, both state governors and the president regularly mobilized the National Guard in response to a range of crises, including civil unrest. For instance, in March 1970, President Richard Nixon ordered the deployment of nearly 29,000 soldiers during a postal workers’ strike, though this was not met with significant success and led to a negotiated resolution instead.
Tracing this selective history reveals various instances of the National Guard’s involvement during tumultuous times. On September 25, President Eisenhower directed the National Guard and Army to safeguard black schoolchildren attempting to attend a previously segregated school. Later, on June 11, President John F. Kennedy directed guardsmen to allow black students to attend the state university in Alabama after Governor George Wallace blocked their entry.
Moreover, significant events in the civil rights movement, such as the march from Selma to Montgomery, warranted the intervention of the National Guard as ordered by President Lyndon B. Johnson despite objections from George Wallace, the governor of Alabama.
The National Guard also played a crucial role during the civil rights riots of the 1960s. For instance, during the riots that erupted in Detroit, Governor George Romney deployed the National Guard to restore order while President Johnson sent in Army units to assist.
The assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968 led to widespread riots across the nation, prompting President Johnson to deploy 13,600 troops to Washington, D.C., while additional troops were sent to other cities affected by the unrest.
A particularly grim chapter in the use of the National Guard occurred in May 1970, amid anti-Vietnam War demonstrations. Following President Nixon’s announcement of an expansion of the war into Cambodia, large-scale protests erupted, specifically at Kent State University in Ohio. Here, the National Guard was summoned by Governor James Rhodes to disperse the crowds. However, the situation escalated, leading to the guardsmen opening fire and killing four students, an incident that sparked nationwide protests and public outcry.
This tragic event significantly shifted public perception and political response to the calling out of the National Guard. It would be two decades before the Guard would be mobilized again in a similar context, this time in April 1992 during the riots that followed the acquittal of four police officers involved in the beating of Rodney King in Los Angeles. Again, Governor Pete Wilson deployed the National Guard, which was subsequently reinforced by federal troops from President George H.W. Bush.
Fast forward to 2020, we witnessed a more modern appropriating of the Guard’s capabilities during the nationwide protests against the killing of George Floyd, a black man, by a police officer. In response to these protests, across the nation, governors sent in their National Guard units, underscoring the continuity of the Guard in maintaining order amidst civil unrest.
The recent feud between President Donald Trump and California’s Governor Gavin Newsom over the deployment of the National Guard has brought these issues into sharp focus once more. On June 7, President Trump federalized units of the California National Guard amidst property and civil disturbances caused by deportation raids in Los Angeles, prompting protests.
Under normal circumstances, state National Guards are under the control of their respective governors. Members of the National Guard typically maintain civilian jobs throughout the year and can be mobilized during emergencies like natural disasters or civil unrest. They serve as a modern counterpart to colonial state militias, their duties and structure enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.
Despite this established tradition, President Trump’s decision to federalize the California National Guard has faced legal challenges from Governor Newsom, who has argued that such actions were illegal. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 restricts military intervention in domestic law enforcement unless congressionally authorized, thus complicating the president’s authority.
While President Trump maintains that his assignment of the National Guard is to protect federal buildings and personnel – a limited mission – he stands on a legal principle upheld by the Department of Justice that asserts this protective power.
To assign these guardsmen roles related to law enforcement, President Trump would need to invoke an additional layer of authority like the Insurrection Act. This historic law, enacted in 1807, allows the president to deploy troops without state governors’ consent when ‘unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impractical to enforce the laws.’
In this fractious political climate, tensions have escalated. The potential for violence could serve as justification for mobilizing troops under the pretext of maintaining law and order, thus complicating judicial intervention.
Neither Governor Newsom nor President Trump appear willing to concede in their standoff. This contentious relationship benefits both parties politically: Newsom positions himself as a challenger to the current administration while Trump leverages appeals to law-and-order, sentiments he believes have public support.
The ongoing situation has prompted urgent conversations about presidential powers in times of unrest. While President Trump may be acting within legal bounds, this raises questions concerning the judicious exercise of such authority.
In this context, the ultimate challenge lies not in the legality of President Trump’s actions but in whether he can exercise the restraint required to act in the best interest of the country and beyond any political ambitions.
image source from：https://www.economist.com/interactive/united-states/2025/06/11/donald-trump-can-call-in-the-troops
