How legal is Donald Trump's move to deploy California's National Guard in Los Angeles? Explained
To quell the ongoing protests in California's Los Angeles, the United States' second biggest city, President Donald Trump deployed National Guard troops to the state over the weekend. Following this, the protests only intensified as demonstrators put cars on fire and even scuffled with security forces in Los Angeles.
The governor of California, Gavin Newsom, has opposed the deployment of the National Guard troops and has asked Trump to take it back.
California's National Guard is a standby military usually controlled by the state's governor, reported AFP.
'I have formally requested the Trump Administration rescind their unlawful deployment of troops in Los Angeles County and return them to my command,' Newsom said in a post on X.
Track live updates of LA protests here.
'We didn't have a problem until Trump got involved. This is a serious breach of state sovereignty — inflaming tensions while pulling resources from where they're actually needed. Rescind the order. Return control to California,' he added.
People in LA are protesting against the raids by immigration officials that have led to the arrests of dozens of people. These people, according to the authorities, are illegal migrants and gang members, reported AFP.
Also read: Tear gas, rubber bullets fired as protests flare up in Los Angeles after Trump's National Guard deployment | 10 points
However, the question that looms large is whether Trump's move to deploy National Guard troops is legal or not.
To deploy at least 2,000 National Guards troops in California under federal service, Trump used the Title 10 of the U.S. Code.
Terming the protests in LA as a possible 'form of rebellion', Trump used the provision of Title 10 - Section 12406 which allows any state's National Guard in federal service whenever-
(1) the United States, or any of the Commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation;
(2) there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or
(3) the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States;
'the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws,' says the provision.
According to the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which is at the center of the ongoing dispute over the deployment, the US military, including the National Guard, is forbidden from participating in regular civil law enforcement.
It was enacted in response to the abuses resulting from the extensive use of the army in civil law enforcement during the Civil War and the Reconstruction, according to the US Department of Justice. However, the Act allows legislated exceptions.
While Section 12406 used by Trump does not override this prohibition, it allows the troops to 'protect' ICE and other United States Government personnel.
This means that the National Guard troops cannot arrest protesters in LA, according to a Reuters report.
While the state of California could sue Trump over the deployment, citing that the protests did not rise to the level of a 'rebellion'. However, that would be a lengthy process and the protests might be over before the lawsuit's conclusion, Reuters reported citing experts.
Also, according to 10 U.S.C. 12406, orders for the deployment of National Guard under the said three circumstances 'shall be issued through the governors of the States', which is yet another point that could be challenged. However, according to legal experts, this argument might not hold much value. That is because the language likely reflects the way the troops are generally deployed but doesn't really provide the state governor an option to not comply with the President's order, the Reuters report added.
With inputs from AFP, Reuters.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
30 minutes ago
- NDTV
What Happened In 1965 When US President Deployed National Guard
US President Donald Trump has deployed 2,000 National Guard troops to quell immigration protests in Los Angeles, a rare move described as a "serious breach of state sovereignty" by the California Governor. Gavin Newsom has demanded it to be reversed immediately. This came after Los Angeles witnessed protests during the weekend over the federal immigration raids that led to the arrest of dozens of people. With protesters blocking freeways and setting self-driving cars ablaze, police used tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse the crowd. The protests later spread across the city and even reached the towns of Paramount and Compton. The invocation of presidential powers, which remained dormant for the past several decades, marks an escalation challenging both the state authority as well as the long-established standards. What makes the current situation grim is that the deployment of the National Guard came without any request from the governor of the state. The last time something like this happened was more than six decades ago. When A US President Bypassed Governor To Deploy National Guard In March 1965, then US President Lyndon B Johnson deployed the National Guard on the eve of the civil rights march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama. The Selma to Montgomery marches were organised to protest the systemic denial of voting rights to Black Americans in Alabama. Despite making up more than half of Selma's population, only a small fraction of Black residents (2 per cent) were registered to vote. This was due to discriminatory laws, literacy tests, and intimidation by local authorities. The immediate spark for the protest was the killing of Jimmie Lee Jackson, a young Black man shot by a state trooper during a peaceful demonstration. Civil rights activists, including Martin Luther King Jr, aimed to march from Selma to the state capital, Montgomery, to demand federal protection of voting rights and to draw national attention to the violent suppression of Black voters. The deployment was done to control the rising tensions between protestors and law enforcement officials. Interestingly, Johnson decided to protect demonstrators against violence, without any cooperation from the then state governor George Wallace, one of the US' prominent segregationists whom the president considered his political adversary. The 1965 was the last time any US President used his limited executive authority to deploy the National Guard, bypassing the state governor. In the majority of cases when the National Guard is activated, it comes only after the request of the state governor, since he commands the troops. On his Truth Social platform, Trump said the California Governor and the city Mayor should apologise to the Los Angeles residents for the "absolutely horrible job that they have done, and this now includes the ongoing LA riots." "These are not protesters, they are troublemakers and insurrectionists. Remember, NO MASKS!" he added. As Newsom called the president's move an unnecessary provocation, White House spokeswoman, Karoline Leavitt, said California officials "completely abdicated their responsibility" to protect the residents. In an online fact sheet that summarises the history of the National Guard, the Council on Foreign Relations said that US Presidents "rarely federalise a state or territory's guard without the consent of the governor". Explaining his 1965 decision, Johnson said at the time that it was to ensure the rights of American citizens "to walk peaceably and safely without injury or loss of life from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama," as per The New York Times report. His decision came after Mr Wallace refused to issue the orders in this regard.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
39 minutes ago
- First Post
Why is Iran cracking down on dog-walking in public spaces?
Iran has expanded its ban on public dog-walking to over 25 cities, citing health, safety and morality concerns. With no national law outlawing pet ownership, local prosecutors are enforcing restrictions using penal codes. Critics argue the crackdown reflects deeper efforts to suppress personal freedoms and cultural shifts seen as un-Islamic by the regime read more An Iranian child looks at the dog as he walks, in Tehran, Iran, March 30, 2021. File Image/WANA via Reuters Iranian authorities have drastically widened restrictions on dog ownership and public pet activity by banning dog-walking in at least 25 cities across the country. While there is no nationwide legislation banning dog ownership outright, these local-level prohibitions are being enforced using Iran's penal provisions and religious-cultural rationale. The measures, first implemented in Tehran in 2019, have now become a countrywide trend. Judicial officials in numerous provinces have justified the crackdown by citing concerns over hygiene, safety, morality and social order. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The renewed focus on dog bans puts a spotight the Iranian state's enduring discomfort with what it considers Western cultural infiltration, and is a continuation of the post-1979 Islamic regime's efforts to suppress behaviours seen as un-Islamic or foreign in origin, reported AFP. How Iran is enforcing a ban on dog walking Over the past week, prosecutors and judicial officials in cities across Iran have imposed fresh restrictions against dog walking, including in Ilam, Kermanshah, Hamadan, Kerman, Boroujerd, Robat Karim, Lavasanat, Golestan, Kashmar and Khalkhal, among others. The restrictions follow a precedent set by Tehran in 2019, where police first issued a directive against walking dogs in public places. According to domestic news outlets, cities like Isfahan and Kerman recently joined the expanding list. In Isfahan, public prosecutor Mohammad Mousavian announced that the act of walking a dog is considered a violation of 'public rights' and that it jeopardises the 'health, comfort, and peace of citizens.' As per Mousavian's directive, all forms of dog walking — whether in public areas, parks or inside private vehicles — are now banned. 'Any form of dog walking in the city — whether in parks, public spaces, or vehicles — is prohibited and will be dealt with seriously,' he said. Law enforcement has been directed to confiscate vehicles transporting dogs and to shut down pet shops and unlicensed veterinary clinics. Authorities in Ilam echoed a similar position. According to local media, a city official said, 'Legal action will be taken against violators,' though further details were not provided. In Khalkhal, a city in Ardabil province, prosecutor Mozaffar Rezaei confirmed the prohibition, stating, 'Offenders will face consequences if they are seen walking dogs in parks, public spaces, or carrying them on their vehicles.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Rezaei also stated that 'in addition to the financial and physical damages, religious rulings and cultural considerations must be taken into account, as this practice reflects the promotion of a Western lifestyle.' In Kashmar, a city in northeastern Iran, the public prosecutor declared that the purpose of the ban was to protect 'public hygiene and the physical and psychological safety of the public.' The reformist-leaning Faraz News reported that more than 20 cities had announced new restrictions over a single weekend. Despite the lack of a uniform national policy, local authorities have relied on articles from Iran's Penal Code and Constitution to impose these restrictions, notably Article 638 concerning public morality, Article 688 on threats to public health, and Article 40 which prohibits actions that cause harm to others. Why Iran is banning dogs in public spaces Iran's theocratic establishment has long opposed dog ownership, perceiving it as a sign of Westernisation and cultural deviation. Religious interpretations that classify dogs as najis, or ritually impure, underpin much of this opposition. Contact with dogs, especially their saliva, is viewed by many scholars as religiously unacceptable. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In 2017, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei weighed in on the issue, stating: 'Keeping dogs for reasons other than herding, hunting and guard dogs is considered reprehensible.' He added via Tasnim News Agency, 'If this practice resembles that of non-Muslims, promotes their culture or causes harm and disturbance to neighbours, it is deemed forbidden.' The religious establishment's influence on public lawmaking was also visible in 2021 when 75 lawmakers signed a letter denouncing dog ownership as a 'destructive social problem' that could 'gradually change the Iranian and Islamic way of life.' This echoed earlier efforts in 2010 when Iran's Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance barred advertisements for pets or related products. In 2014, lawmakers introduced legislation that proposed fines or even corporal punishment for dog-walkers, though the bill failed to pass. The controversial 'Protection of the Public's Rights Against Animals' bill, first floated over a decade ago, also attempted to curb pet ownership. Dr. Payam Mohebi, president of the Iran Veterinary Association and a vocal critic of the draft law, noted, 'Over the years, they have changed this a couple of times and even discussed corporal punishment for dog owners. But their plan didn't get anywhere.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD He also recalled earlier legislative proposals that sought to confiscate dogs and abandon them in deserts or hand them over to zoos. What that means for dog owners in Iran With the latest directives, police have been authorised to take more aggressive measures. Authorities have been instructed not only to confiscate dogs and impound vehicles but also to track and prosecute social media accounts promoting pet ownership or selling animals. Mousavian called on Iran's cybercrime units to dismantle such accounts and launch legal proceedings against those behind them. The justification given was that the bans were 'in response to serious public demands.' These developments come amid increasing reports of dog owners being fined, harassed or facing threats of eviction. In some cases, dogs have been confiscated or owners arrested for walking their pets in public. This video that I've received today made me angry. A young man being beaten up savagely by the police in Iran just because he resisted to give his dog away. His mother is trying to help him but see what happens. According to the laws in Iran, walking a dog in public is a crime. — Masih Alinejad 🏳️ (@AlinejadMasih) July 13, 2021 Given the heightened scrutiny, many citizens have started walking their dogs late at night or driving them around to avoid police detection. Despite these efforts, enforcement has remained inconsistent. In cities like Tehran, many residents continue to walk their pets in less visible locations, revealing the difficulty of fully enforcing the ban in urban environments where pet ownership has steadily grown. How pet ownership is evolving into a form of resistance in Iran Owning a pet — especially a dog — has, over time, evolved into a subtle form of resistance in Iran. For younger generations in particular, having a dog is a lifestyle choice that also expresses personal identity and rejection of rigid state norms. The act of walking a dog in public is increasingly being interpreted as a symbolic challenge to the state's attempts to control everyday life. This dynamic is comparable to other forms of passive resistance in Iran — such as violating the compulsory hijab, participating in underground gatherings, or consuming banned substances. All are behaviours that exist in legal grey areas and continue despite government disapproval. Public frustration is growing over what some perceive as misplaced priorities. Critics argue that with rising concerns over violent crime and economic instability, law enforcement should focus on genuine threats to public safety rather than cracking down on pet owners. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In Isfahan, a group of animal rights activists gathered outside the governor's office to protest what they alleged was municipal culling of stray dogs and called for a reversal of recent bans, reported Iran International. It remains uncertain how effective the government will be in curbing a social trend that continues to gain popularity, despite — or perhaps because of — official disapproval. Also Watch: With inputs from agencies
The Hindu
43 minutes ago
- The Hindu
U.S. deports 37 illegal Nepali nationals
The U.S. government has deported 37 Nepali nationals who were illegally staying in America, an official said on Monday (June 9, 2025). A chartered flight carrying the illegal Nepali nationals arrived from the U.S. in Kathmandu on Sunday (June 8) evening, an Immigration Department official said. This is the largest number of Nepalis deported by the U.S. in a single day, the official said. They were found to have violated the U.S. immigration laws, the official said. Anjan Neupane, spokesperson for the Immigration Office at Tribhuvan International Airport, said that with Sunday's deportation, 177 Nepali nationals illegally staying in the U.S. had been sent back since President Donald Trump assumed office in January. Hundreds of Nepalese have gone to the U.S. in the past through illegal channels by paying millions of rupees to brokers and risking their lives. The Trump administration is also planning to deport thousands of Nepalis staying in the U.S. under Temporary Protection Status.
