On the evening of June 7, Donald Trump ordered the National Guard to Los Angeles. He referred to the need for federal intervention because of the current civil unrest. He referenced Title 10 of the U.S. Code. The law gives the president broad authority to deploy the National Guard in times of what he determines to be an active “rebellion or imminent danger of rebellion” against the federal government. This controversial decision has sparked legal actions and widespread debate regarding the authority of the federal government versus state rights.
California Governor Gavin Newsom came out swinging in response to many of Trump’s deep cuts. He filed a lawsuit to enjoin the deployment of military troops beyond federal sites. The stakes rose further when District Court Judge Charles Breyer of San Francisco ruled to uphold Newsom’s position. His findings would seem to indicate that what Trump did was in fact illegal and violated the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.
Legal Rulings and Appeals
In his ruling, Judge Breyer had very little sympathy for the Trump administration’s failure to prove an imminent threat of insurrectionism in Los Angeles. He stated, “While Defendants have pointed to several instances of violence, they have not identified a violent, armed, organized, open and avowed uprising against the government as a whole.” Relatedly, he continued, “The definition of rebellion is unmet. This raises serious questions about whether any credible threat existed to warrant the military’s deployment to states.
Judge Breyer’s decision enunciated one very important aspect of his judgment. He continued by stressing that under the First Amendment, people have basic rights to protest. He remarked, “Just because some stray bad actors go too far does not wipe out that right for everyone.” Breyer’s decision highlighted concerns that Trump’s actions could set a dangerous precedent for future domestic military operations, stating, “It deprives the state for two months of its own use of thousands of National Guard members.”
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals took a very encouraging step last week when it granted a stay of Judge Breyer’s injunction. This ruling allowed Trump to proceed with deployment of the National Guard. Following this announcement, almost 8,000 California National Guard members received clearance for deployment. They will be on their way to Los Angeles soon, at the direction of Donald Trump.
Military Presence in Southern California
Things got ugly. In response, Major General Scott Sherman, U.S. Army responded by assuring that 200 Marines— America’s military paratroopers— were being deployed to Southern California to protect a federal building. He was careful to underscore that these troops would not be acting as law enforcement. This ensures that a bright line is kept between military occupation and civilian law enforcement.
Trump expressed relief over the Appeals Court ruling, claiming, “The Appeals Court ruled last night that I can use the National Guard to keep our cities, in this case Los Angeles, safe.” He further stated, “If I didn’t send the Military into Los Angeles, that city would be burning to the ground right now. We saved L.A. Thank you for the Decision!!!”
The total number of Marines assigned to support continuing federal operations in the area has now been authorized to rise to 700. This is indicative of a heavy militarized response to civil unrest. It brings to the forefront a larger national debate about how the federal government should wield its authority and ensure accountability over local affairs.
Ongoing Tensions Between State and Federal Authorities
Gavin Newsom continues to confront Trump’s militarization of forces in California. He has called on Trump to relinquish control over the National Guard back to state authorities, tweeting, “@RealDonaldTrump, you must relinquish your authority of the National Guard back to me and back to California.” Newsom’s stance reflects a deepening concern regarding what he frames as an “unmistakable step toward authoritarianism.”
This time is different. For the first time in American history, a U.S. president has sent the National Guard into a state without the consent of its governor, marking an unprecedented change in the balance of power between Washington and the states. This conflict extends well beyond Los Angeles. It touches on fundamental questions of separation of powers and balance within our constitutional governance.
