Trump’s National Guard Deployment in LA: A Dangerous Precedent?
Another Article Discussing Different Angles of the LA Protests
Related Articles: Protests and Equal Justice, Crisis of Authority, and Trump and Harvard.
President Donald Trump’s decision to federalize the California National Guard and deploy troops to Los Angeles in response to recent protests has sparked intense debate. Over the past weekend, demonstrations in LA against immigration raids descended into unrest – including fires and clashes – following mass arrests by ICE agents. Trump reacted by invoking a rarely used law to take control of the state’s National Guard without California’s consent, terming the protests a “form of rebellion”. Is this a necessary move to restore order, or does it set a perilous precedent for American democracy? This op-ed examines why many view Trump’s action as a dangerous overreach – even as some supporters applaud his tough stance – and how it contrasts with past deployments of troops on U.S. soil.
Invoking a Law Meant for Rebellions and Invasions
To justify sending troops into Los Angeles, Trump relied on Title 10, Section 12406 of the U.S. Code. This provision allows the President to call up a state’s National Guard only in extreme circumstances – essentially when the United States is under invasion by a foreign power, when there is a rebellion against U.S. authority, or when local violence is so overwhelming that regular forces can’t enforce the law. In Trump’s telling, the anti-ICE protests qualified as a potential rebellion interfering with federal law enforcement. The White House cited “numerous incidents of violence and disorder” around immigration enforcement actions, claiming that attacks on federal officers or property “constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government”.
Critics argue this characterization is grossly exaggerated. The demonstrations were undoubtedly heated – even violent at times (one photo captured an officer dousing a fire set during the protest in Compton on June 7, 2025) – but they were protests aimed at federal immigration raids, not an organized insurrection to overthrow the government. California’s Governor Gavin Newsom flatly rejected the “rebellion” label, noting that local police were managing the situation. “We didn’t have a problem until Trump got involved. This is a serious breach of state sovereignty — inflaming tensions…” Newsom wrote, demanding Trump “rescind the order” and return control of the Guard to California. In Newsom’s view, the federal deployment was not only unnecessary but actively making things worse – a sentiment widely shared by state and local officials who felt Trump’s intervention was politically motivated muscle-flexing rather than a measured law-and-order response.
An Extraordinary Use of Federal Power
Trump’s order is remarkable in scope. It calls up at least 2,000 Guard members for a minimum of 60 days (or longer at the Defense Secretary’s discretion) and authorizes their deployment “at locations where protests against [ICE] functions are occurring or are likely to occur” nationwide. In addition, the memo shockingly delegates authority for the Defense Secretary to even deploy regular active-duty military forces “as necessary… in any number” to support the mission. In effect, the President opened the door to using “any personnel” in “any location” for any length of time to counter these domestic protests – an unprecedented step that goes beyond even a standard Insurrection Act invocation. “No president has ever federalized the National Guard for purposes of responding to potential future civil unrest anywhere in the country,” notes Liza Goitein, a national security expert at the Brennan Center. She calls Trump’s broad, preemptive authorization “literally the opposite of deployment as a last resort… a shocking abuse of power and the law”.
To appreciate how unusual this move is, consider that such federal deployments are exceedingly rare in modern U.S. history. “Presidents have deployed troops for quelling unrest or executing the law only 30 times in U.S. history,” Goitein points out. It hasn’t happened at all in over three decades. In fact, the last time federal troops were used to restore order was in 1992, when President George H.W. Bush invoked the Insurrection Act – at California’s request – to help end the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles. That episode, which saw LA engulfed in deadly rioting and arson, is arguably the kind of extreme emergency the law was meant for. By contrast, today’s Los Angeles unrest, while chaotic, is nowhere near the scale of the 1992 riots and the state did not ask for federal help. Trump’s decision to override California’s authority makes this the first uninvited presidential troop deployment to a state since 1965.
Past Presidents Used Troops to Protect Rights, Not Suppress Dissent
Fast forward to today: Trump is sending troops against demonstrators – many of whom are voicing dissent against government policies. The situation on the ground is of course different (the LA protests did involve some violence and property damage), but the optics of federal troops confronting Americans in the streets evokes an uneasy parallel to the very abuses Posse Comitatus was designed to prevent. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 generally forbids using the U.S. military as a domestic police force, precisely because an “army turned inward” can become a tool of oppression rather than security. To deploy troops on U.S. soil at all is supposed to be a last resort. “Domestic deployment should be an absolute last resort,” Goitein warns, “Soldiers aren’t trained to safely handle and deescalate civil unrest. An army turned inward can quickly become an instrument of tyranny”.
The Rodney King riots of 1992.
The 1992 Rodney King riots was the last instance of federal troops deployed under the Insurrection Act. That deployment came at California’s request to quell extreme violence and lawlessness – very different from today’s contested intervention, where the state’s leaders insist local authorities could handle the situation without military oversight.
Indeed, California officials maintain that civil unrest in a democracy should be handled by civilian authorities except in the most extreme breakdown of order. In Los Angeles, police in riot gear were on the scene responding to disturbances, and they did not ask for military help. By inserting federal troops over the governor’s objection, Trump undermined the normal cooperative framework of federalism. This raises the question: if a president can unilaterally send in the military anytime he deems a protest overly unruly – even when local government says it’s under control – what does that mean for the future? Such a precedent blurs the line between civilian law enforcement and military force, a line that in American tradition exists to safeguard liberty.
“Law and Order” or Overreach? The Debate
Trump and his allies argue that the situation in Los Angeles demanded a forceful response. From their perspective, California’s liberal leadership was failing to contain dangerous riots, and federal intervention was both lawful and appropriate. “The president did exactly what he needed to do. These are federal laws and we have to maintain the rule of law… Newsom has shown an unwillingness to do what is necessary there, so the president stepped in,” said House Speaker Mike Johnson, defending Trump’s actions as legitimate leadership. Johnson, and others on the right, contend that allowing violent protests to rage unchecked would be far worse. The mere threat that U.S. Marines might be sent in if violence continued “might have [a] deterring effect,” Johnson noted, implying that peace through strength works on domestic soil just as it does abroad. In this view, Trump’s willingness to “do what is necessary” is a show of resolve, not oppression. They point out that rioters were attacking property and law enforcement – behavior no government can tolerate. “Deranged = allowing your city to burn & law enforcement to be attacked,” Trump’s Secretary of Defense (retired Marine Pete Hegseth) retorted on X, after Governor Newsom called the notion of sending Marines against U.S. citizens “deranged behavior”. To Trump’s supporters, what’s truly dangerous is not the presence of troops, but the prospect of anarchy if officials shrink from using all available tools to stop violence and looting.
However, the counter-argument is that Trump’s move was a dramatic overreach that risks normalizing the use of military force against Americans. Yes, the government must maintain order, but declaring open-season on deploying troops in any city facing unrest is a slippery slope. In Los Angeles, the level of chaos simply did not warrant bringing in armed soldiers. By Newsom’s account, local authorities were handling the protests until the sudden federal escalation poured fuel on the fire. Even if one accepts there were violent elements among the protesters (setting a fire or throwing projectiles, for example), those situations can and have been addressed by police in countless cities without needing the 82nd Airborne on standby. Labeling disruptive protests as a “rebellion” sets a very dangerous precedent – it opens the door for a president to justify military intervention against future protests he doesn’t like, by stretching legal definitions. One can easily imagine a less scrupulous leader invoking “rebellion” to send troops against, say, mass protests over environmental policies or abortion laws. That may sound far-fetched, but so did the idea of troops occupying Los Angeles against the state’s will – until it happened.
Chilling Implications for Democracy
Perhaps most alarming are Trump’s own words in recent days, which give insight into how he views this power. Confronted on whether he might send active-duty Marines into the streets, Trump was defiant: “Well, we’re going to have troops everywhere,” he told a reporter. Asked what standard would trigger such deployment, he bluntly stated, “The bar is what I think it is.” These quotes (aired during a televised exchange) are staggering in their implications. The President essentially declared that his personal judgment alone will determine when and where to use military force on domestic soil – untethered from any objective criteria. In Trump’s view, if he thinks troops should be sent, that is justification enough. He even went on to describe how soldiers would respond to protesters “spitting” at officials: “They spit, we hit… if that happens, they get hit very hard,” Trump said matter-of-factly. Such rhetoric suggests a willingness to use potentially lethal force for even minor acts of defiance. It is a far cry from the measured, reluctant tone one would expect when contemplating deployment of armed forces against fellow Americans.
Taken together, these actions and statements paint a picture of a president aggressively pushing the boundaries of his authority in a way that could erode core democratic norms. The line between military and civilian policing exists for good reasons – history is replete with examples of regimes that slid into authoritarianism by using troops to crush domestic opposition. The United States has long avoided that fate by upholding traditions of posse comitatus, federalism, and respect for peaceful dissent. Trump’s Los Angeles intervention arguably chips away at each of those safeguards: it flouts a state’s autonomy in managing its own affairs, edges the military into a domestic policing role, and treats protesters as enemy combatants. “What matters is that Trump is federalizing the Guard for the purpose of policing Americans’ protest activity. That’s dangerous for both public safety and democracy,” Goitein argues. Even if Trump’s defenders insist this is a one-time emergency measure, the precedent has now been set. Future presidents (of any party) might cite Trump’s actions as a green light to deploy troops during protests or civil disturbances, rather than exhausting civilian options first. That possibility ought to give all Americans pause, regardless of their politics.
In conclusion, President Trump’s decision to send the National Guard into Los Angeles – over the objections of California’s elected leadership – is indeed a dangerous precedent. It stretches a law intended for true national emergencies to instead clamp down on localized unrest. It abandons the long-held principle that the military is not a domestic police force. And it signals that a president can single-handedly decide when and where to unleash armed troops on U.S. city streets, without clear standards or consensus. Yes, public safety is paramount, and violent agitators must be held accountable. But America must not become a place where every contentious protest is met with bayonets and Humvees. That path leads away from democracy and toward something far darker. The last time a president nationalized the Guard against the wishes of the governor was 60 years ago – and it was to protect citizens exercising their rights, not to intimidate or silence them. It falls to Congress, the courts, and the public to scrutinize this action and ensure that “sending in the troops” does not become a new normal in American governance. The stakes for our constitutional order could not be higher.
Notes: This is my own opinion and not the opinion of my employer, State Street, or any other organization. This is not a solicitation to buy or sell any stock. My team and I use a Large Language Model (LLM) aided workflow. This allows us to test 5-10 ideas and curate the best 2-4 a week for you to read. Rest easy that we fact check, edit, and reorganize the writing so that the output is more engaging, more reliable, and more informative than vanilla LLM output. We are always looking for feedback to improve this process.
Additionally, if you would like updates more frequently, follow us on x: https://x.com/cameronfen1. In addition, feel free to send me corrections, new ideas for articles, or anything else you think I would like: cameronfen at gmail dot com.