On Sunday, a wave of National Guard personnel moved into Los Angeles following a directive signed by President Donald Trump. This memorandum was issued from the Oval Office as a means of taking definitive action against ‘a state of lawless disorder’, as stated in an official communique from the White House. Thus, an infrequent federal authority was wielded by the president to dispatch troops in response to dissent sparked by his administration’s immigration crackdown in the city. The move was performed without the concurrence of California’s Governor Gavin Newsom, a figure highly critical of this strategy.
The governor, a Democrat, branded the act as ‘deliberately provocative’. Proceeding to speak on X, Newsom explained that Trump’s deployment of the National Guard was not grounded in a lack of law enforcement capacity. Rather, he conjectured, they were seeking a dramatic display. As reported by House Representative Nanette Barragán (D-Calif.), whose jurisdiction encompasses some of the areas where demonstrations have occurred, state authorities have been informed by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to ‘anticipate a month-long period of enforcement’.
Dealing with the aftermath of this decision, Mayor Karen Bass of Los Angeles publically communicated her “profound dissatisfaction” with President Trump’s actions, during an interview with local KTLA news network. Bass, advocating for her city, argued that situations in Los Angeles had not escalated to a point of uncontrollable chaos. As she stated, the impending military intervention was ‘purely political’. The city had been facing ongoing dissent, marked by two successive days of public protests.
Los Angeles had been embroiled in protest following contentious actions taken by the law enforcement agencies. Officers equipped in riot gear had set about a controversial operation targeting day laborers congregating at a local building materials store. However, despite the heightened tensions, the Los Angeles Police Department reported that Saturday’s protest activity had remained largely peaceful, ending without notable incidents.
However, as the evening progressed, the situation became volatile in Compton and Paramount, two cities positioned south of Los Angeles. Fierce confrontations emerged between the protesting populace and the police, which saw law enforcement resorting to tear gas and flash-bangs in attempts to control and disperse the crowds. Traditionally, it’s the prerogative of state governors to manage the deployment of National Guard units within their states. However, this standard protocol was circumvented by Trump, by leveraging a particular clause within Title 10 of the US Code on Armed Services.
Trump’s underpinning authority to initiate this deployment comes from a unique clause within Title 10 of the US Code on Armed Services. The clause enables a president to mobilize National Guard units under the circumstances of a revolt against the US government authority. The directive also granted Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth a wide-ranging power to requisition any regular army members as needed, to supplement and sustain the protective measures over Federal functionaries and property as he deems suitable.
An interesting fact is that during his inaugural term in 2020, Trump had flirted with the idea of employing the US military to contain nationwide protests. These protests erupted following the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis by police officer Derek Chauvin. However, the structural plan was shelved, and no concrete action was ever taken.
For the first time in around six decades, a U.S. president has called upon a state’s National Guard without the specific request of the state’s governor. The last leader to take such an exceptional measure was President Lyndon B. Johnson. He undertook this in Alabama back in 1965 to ensure the safety of civil rights demonstrators during a tumultuous period in American history.
Interestingly, the last occasion in which the National Guard was federalized also concerned Los Angeles. The year was 1992, with then-president George H.W. Bush issuing the call. This action was taken as a response to violent unrest and protests following the acquittal of police officers charged with the infamous beating of Rodney King.
At an 2023 Iowa rally, then-presidential candidate Trump expressed his intentions to dispatch troops into Democrat-governed cities without waiting for approval. The cities highlighted included New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, which he labeled as havens of crime. Trump indicated a shift in his intervention stance, away from the traditional request-based approach, showing a more unilateral and direct approach to dealing with perceived internal chaos.
Trump’s resolution to deploy troops unilaterally drew significant criticism from law experts. Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the law school at the University of California, Berkeley, labeled the incidence as ‘alarming’. He expressed his fear over the decision of the federal government to assume control of the California National Guard without an official request from the governor, aiming to suppress protests.
Chemerinsky further clarified his stance during his conversation with the Times. To him, employing military in domestic affairs for the purpose of quelling dissent presented a chilling reflection of the country’s state of affairs. He emphasized his concern about the potential for a trend of military suppression of civil discontent, should this precedent take hold.