In doing so, President Donald Trump has taken a highly controversial step. He will send National Guard troops to four U.S. cities, including Baltimore, Memphis, New Orleans and six California cities— Oakland, San Francisco and three others in Los Angeles County. Trump painted this move as a needed response to increased crime and disorder in these communities. It has ignited plenty of controversy from the beginning among local officials and legal scholars.
The recent deployment of troops to Portland, Oregon, has sparked even more outrage. In the past, Trump has declared Portland a “war zone.” He thinks real federal intervention is required to address the rising violence in the city, too. He went on to describe Chicago in much the same way, calling for an apocalyptic response to restore order in that city as well. This narrative aligns with Trump’s broader strategy of federal intervention in Democrat-led cities, a tactic he has employed throughout his presidency.
Legal Challenges to Federal Intervention
In court, Trump intended his plans to be implemented, that’s not how they’ve played out. A federal judge just put the kibosh on his plan to send California’s National Guard to Portland. U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, appointed by Trump himself, ruled that the relatively small protests occurring in Portland did not justify the use of federalized forces.
“This country has a longstanding and foundational tradition of resistance to government overreach, especially in the form of military intrusion into civil affairs,” – Immergut
Specifically, Immergut was concerned that the United States would rule under martial law. Beyond this legal interpretation lies a much deeper debate about the appropriateness of using National Guard troops to respond to unrest in our cities.
Local Officials Respond
California Governor Gavin Newsom has been the most outspoken on Trump’s deployment tactics. He described the President’s actions as “a breathtaking abuse of the law and power.” Newsom’s critique points to an increasing concern among state and local leaders. They fear that we will further militarize America’s cities in the name of suppressing protest and fighting crime.
The deployment has set off one of the most serious political firestorms seen in decades. Residents are rightly concerned about what military presence in their communities would mean. Humanitarian aid operators contend that these moves, instead of reducing tensions, would heighten them.
Broader Implications
Yet this federal intervention is emphasized further by the current deployment of 300 California National Guard members to Oregon. Trump is leading this charge. He’s recently had the Illinois National Guard deployed to Chicago. This move would complement the ongoing operations in Oregon, meant to safeguard federal officers and assets. These aggressive moves have drawn concern, and in some cases, lawsuits over their legality and effectiveness.
His narrative is that he federalized these troops and put them under his control several months ago. This step further darkens the already murky legal waters surrounding the National Guard’s use as a military force on American streets. Public opinion is shifting away from the collective blindness that allowed military arms to flood law enforcement. It remains to be seen how these deployments will affect the local community.
