President Donald Trump’s decision to deploy 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles marks one of the most significant exercises of presidential authority over domestic military forces in decades. This action relies on rarely used federal laws that allow the president to assume control of state troops without a governor’s consent.
The legal basis for Trump’s action stems from Title 10, Section 12406 of the U.S. Code, which permits the president to federalize state National Guard units under three specific conditions: during an invasion, a rebellion against federal authority, or when regular forces cannot enforce federal laws. Trump contended that violent protests in Southern California, following immigration enforcement operations, constituted a “rebellion” that interfered with federal law enforcement efforts.
This authority differs from the Insurrection Act of 1807, typically invoked during severe unrest when state authorities cannot maintain order. The last significant use of the Insurrection Act occurred during the 1992 Los Angeles riots, when California’s governor requested federal assistance, unlike the current scenario, where Governor Gavin Newsom opposes the deployment.
Traditionally, the National Guard operates under the command of state governors for disaster response and emergencies. Federalization places Guard units under presidential control and is intended as a measure of last resort. Even when federalized, National Guard troops face strict limitations imposed by the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which generally prohibits federal military forces from engaging in civilian law enforcement. In Los Angeles, Guard members are restricted from arresting protesters and are limited to protecting federal agents and property.
Legal experts have raised concerns regarding this unprecedented action. Dr. Elizabeth Goitein from the Brennan Center for Justice stated, “Few circumstances implicate the concerns at the heart of the Posse Comitatus Act more than the president’s use of the military to police protest activity.” Steve Vladeck from Georgetown University added, “Without the invocation of the Insurrection Act, National Guard members are not authorized to conduct regular law enforcement operations.”
Governor Newsom condemned the deployment as “deliberately inflammatory,” asserting that local authorities effectively managed the situation. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass remarked, “Everyone has the right to protest peacefully, but let me be clear: violence and destruction are unacceptable.” Civil liberties advocates have expressed concern about the precedent this action sets. Hina Shamsi from the ACLU warned, “President Trump’s deployment of federalized National Guard troops in response to protests is unnecessary, inflammatory, and an abuse of power.”
This deployment marks the first time since 1965 that the National Guard has been federalized and deployed without a governor’s request. It has resulted in a constitutional confrontation between federal and state authority with significant implications for American federalism and civil liberties.
Reporting by The Congress Post’s Washington Bureau, with contributions from Ethan Caldwell (White House operations), Clara Whitmore (congressional procedure), and Maxwell Trent (federal budget).