In a significant move amid rising tensions over immigration enforcement, President Donald Trump announced the deployment of U.S. Marines alongside National Guard troops to Los Angeles. This action, taken on June 8, sparked a heated debate about the legality of using military forces for domestic law enforcement purposes.
During a press conference, Trump declared, “Well, we’re gonna have troops everywhere,” highlighting his administration’s commitment to maintaining law and order in response to unrest in the area.
When asked about the justification for such a deployment, Trump stated, “The bar is what I think it is. I mean, if we see danger to our country and to our citizens, uh, we’ll be very, very strong in terms of law and order.” However, experts quickly pointed out that the deployment of active-duty military forces, especially for domestic law enforcement functions, is bound by strict legal criteria.
The protests in downtown Los Angeles, which began on June 6, were largely in response to the actions of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in the area. This was not the first time Trump faced scrutiny for his administration’s response to protests and unrest.
Legal experts emphasized that there are limited circumstances under which the president can deploy military forces to a state without its consent. In this instance, the law Trump referred to does allow for the protection of federal personnel and property, but it does not extend to general law enforcement activities.
On June 9, U.S. Northern Command reported that approximately 700 Marines were being deployed to “integrate” with other forces in the Los Angeles area, with a mission focused on safeguarding federal personnel and properties. Initially, the Trump administration had mobilized around 2,000 National Guard troops, later adding another 2,000 to the mission.
Notably, California Governor Gavin Newsom responded to Trump’s actions by filing a lawsuit challenging the federal government’s deployment of the National Guard. Experts noted that Trump’s deployment of military personnel in this fashion could be seen as stretching the limits of legal authority.
Scott R. Anderson, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, articulated that the president is constitutionally permitted to deploy National Guard forces only under specific conditions—such as a rebellion or an invasion—none of which were evidently present in California at the time of the proclamation.
Critical questions arise about the interpretation of “rebellion” and the extent to which courts will defer to the president’s judgment in such circumstances. Trump did not invoke the 1807 Insurrection Act, which would allow him to deploy military resources more freely for domestic law enforcement without state approval.
Instead, the president leaned on a narrower legal theory known as the protective power, which experts warn does not include the right to conduct law enforcement activities such as arrests. This limitation raises serious concerns about the appropriateness of the Marines’ involvement in a domestic context.
The Los Angeles Police Department had previously arrested numerous protesters over the weekend, categorizing the demonstrations—which included acts of vandalism and violence—as an “unlawful assembly” on June 6. The police utilized tear gas and rubber bullets to manage the crowds, leading to further complicating the situation.
The legal framework that Trump cited to justify the National Guard’s federalization was based on section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code. This regulation permits the deployment of National Guard members to “temporarily protect” federal employees and property, yet it also raises eyebrows regarding its broad interpretation.
Laura A. Dickinson, a law professor at George Washington University, pointed out the alarming breadth of Trump’s memo, suggesting that if taken literally, it may provide the authority for the president to deploy military personnel anywhere across American soil.
Analysts highlighted that the specific federal law mentioned allows for the president to call up National Guard units in situations of rebellion or imminent danger to the United States. Still, Chris Mirasola, a law professor at the University of Houston, noted that he was unaware of this law being utilized without a concurrent invocation of the Insurrection Act in the past.
Joseph Nunn, a legal expert at the Brennan Center for Liberty and National Security at NYU, mentioned the limitations that current authorities impose on military personnel’s ability to engage in law enforcement roles. He explained that without the Insurrection Act being invoked, Marines cannot participate in arresting civilians or conducting search and seizure operations.
However, they can serve logistical functions, such as providing transportation and support. The potential for Marines to find themselves in a legally precarious position underscores the complexities involved when military forces are employed in civilian contexts.
The issue escalates due to the inherent differences in training between military personnel and law enforcement officers, with the former being prepared for combat and the latter trained in the nuances of civil rights and legal enforcement.
The Pentagon is reportedly drafting guidelines to clarify the permissible actions of deployed Marines to protect federal personnel, amid growing concerns regarding their engagement in domestic situations.
Trump’s memo specified that the duration of the National Guard deployment would be limited to 60 days unless the Secretary of Defense opted for an extension. The financial implications of this operation are considerable, with a defense official estimating the deployment’s cost at around $134 million, which encompasses expenses for housing, food, and other logistics.
Historically, federal military personnel have been deployed to Los Angeles during times of civil unrest, with the last notable occurrence in 1992 during the riots that followed the acquittal of police involved in the beating of Rodney King. In that case, President George H.W. Bush invoked the Insurrection Act to address the severe unrest, which resulted in significant loss of life and widespread damage.
In contrast, the recent protests, while significant, have not reached the same level of violence or destruction as those in 1992. In that year, more than 60 individuals lost their lives, and thousands were arrested, with damages tallying around $1 billion.
The limited circumstances under which a president can mandate federal troop deployments without the consent of state authorities stem from constitutional provisions designed to protect civil liberties. Historical precedents include President Lyndon B. Johnson and others invoking the Insurrection Act to enforce civil rights laws in southern states.
President Trump’s recent actions highlight his administration’s ongoing approach to handling civil unrest, with echoes of similar strategies employed during protests following the May 2020 death of George Floyd. At that time, Trump called on governors to dispatch the National Guard amidst unrest, threatening to invoke the Insurrection Act if necessary.
In summary, the deployment of Marines and National Guard troops to Los Angeles by the Trump administration brings forth critical discussions about the intersection of law, military authority, and civil rights. The legal and operational complexities involved in such deployments necessitate careful consideration by both government officials and military leaders. As circumstances continue to evolve, the implications of these actions will likely resonate well beyond the immediate protests.
image source from：https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-u-s-law-says-about-trumps-deployment-of-active-duty-troops-to-los-angeles
