President Donald Trump’s recent decision to deploy hundreds of National Guard troops to Washington, D.C., has sparked heightened concern among California officials, particularly with the looming 2028 Los Angeles Olympics.
With Trump suggesting that the National Guard’s involvement in urban crime fighting may extend to other cities, fears are growing that Bay Area and Southern California regions could be next.
Legal experts are expressing alarm over the idea of deploying National Guard forces without a significant crisis such as civil unrest or natural disasters, emphasizing that Trump’s approach appears to prioritize political gain over public safety.
The deployment in Washington, D.C., echoes a similar move by Trump in June when he sent the National Guard to Los Angeles amid protests focused on immigration issues. While Washington has seen crime reductions in recent years, the president’s narrative frames the deployment as a response to what he perceives as ongoing crime issues in urban areas.
In response to Trump’s comments, officials from Oakland and Los Angeles vehemently criticized his portrayal of crime in their cities. Oakland Mayor Barbara Lee characterized Trump’s statements as fear-mongering intended for political advantage, while Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass dismissed the remarks as a performative stunt.
Trump has expressed intentions to increase military presence during the 2028 Olympics, citing security concerns. Recently, he signed an executive order to lead a White House task force focused on the Games, although the specific security role he will play remains unclear.
Concerns regarding federal security involvement were echoed by Los Angeles City Councilmember Imelda Padilla, who acknowledged anxiety surrounding the federal government’s approach to event security. This follows a significant allocation of $1 billion by Congress for planning and securing the Olympic Games, although the Department of Homeland Security has provided scant details on how these funds will be utilized.
Padilla’s anxieties stem not only from the unpredictable nature of the Trump administration but also from past experiences, such as immigration raids that emphasized aggressive tactics by federal agents.
Bass appeared on CNN, asserting that while the involvement of the National Guard during the Olympics would be appropriate, Trump’s previous actions in deploying military forces amid civil unrest constituted a “political stunt.” The legality of Trump’s National Guard deployments during protests is still mired in ongoing legal challenges, further complicating the discourse around his actions.
The stakes are high when it comes to the potential deployment of military forces. With Trump arguing that urban decay in cities like Chicago and Los Angeles necessitates military intervention, he positions himself against what he perceives as a failure of local law enforcement.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt informed the press that the troops already deployed in Washington had made various arrests for serious offenses, including homicide and drug-related crimes, citing these incidents as justification for the National Guard’s presence.
However, experts assert that deploying National Guard troops based on crime statistics lacks precedent, raising serious legal and constitutional questions. Traditionally, the National Guard has been mobilized in circumstances like civil unrest or natural disasters—historical contexts markedly different from a general rise in crime.
William Banks, a law professor at Syracuse University, cautioned against the implications of using the National Guard as an instrument of political control, suggesting that such actions could lead to legal challenges from state governors and city mayors.
California law provides that state governors maintain authority over their National Guard, contrasting sharply with the situation in Washington, D.C., where the president can deploy troops with more latitude. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 further complicates matters, as it restricts federal military intervention in civilian law enforcement, reflecting longstanding American principles that prioritize civil liberties over military involvement.
Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley Law School, raised alarms regarding the implications of military deployments in domestic contexts, citing concerns of authoritarianism.
Amid these discussions, the potential for legal challenges looms large. As ongoing trials in courts tackle the legality of military interventions during past civil unrest, experts like Banks speculate that Trump would need to invoke extraordinary measures, such as asserting an insurrection, to justify any planned deployments.
Unlike in D.C., where federal control allows for more straightforward military involvement, there would be significant legal barriers to deploying troops in California or other states without clear justification. Prior incidents where federal agencies intervened involved documented civil rights violations, a far cry from the broad claims regarding crime levels.
Oakland Councilman Ken Houston, reflecting on the notion of needing federal assistance, stated that the city has made progress in addressing public safety issues. Reports from the city indicate a 29% decrease in violent crime this year, challenging Trump’s narrative.
In conclusion, the potential deployment of National Guard troops raises numerous legal, political, and ethical questions. The delicate balance between ensuring public safety and maintaining civil liberties is at stake as President Trump continues to navigate the complex relationship between federal power and local governance.
image source from：latimes
