Explainer-Does U.S. law allow Trump to send troops to quell protests?
By Dietrich Knauth
President Donald Trump has deployed National Guard troops to California after two days of protests by hundreds of demonstrators against immigration raids, saying that the protests interfered with federal law enforcement and framing them as a possible 'form of rebellion' against the authority of the U.S. government.
California Governor Gavin Newsom on Sunday said he had formally requested that the Trump Administration rescind "its unlawful deployment of troops in Los Angeles County" and return them to his command.
WHAT LAWS DID TRUMP CITE TO JUSTIFY THE MOVE?
Trump cited Title 10 of the U.S. Code, a federal law that outlines the role of the U.S. Armed Forces, in his June 7 order to call members of the California National Guard into federal service.
A provision of Title 10 - Section 12406 - allows the president to deploy National Guard units into federal service if the U.S. is invaded, there is a 'rebellion or danger of rebellion' or the president is 'unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.'
WHAT ARE NATIONAL GUARD TROOPS ALLOWED TO DO UNDER THE LAW CITED IN TRUMP'S ORDER?
An 1878 law, the Posse Comitatus Act, generally forbids the U.S. military, including the National Guard, from taking part in civilian law enforcement.
Section 12406 does not override that prohibition, but it allows the troops to protect federal agents who are carrying out law enforcement activity and to protect federal property.
For example, National Guard troops cannot arrest protesters, but they could protect U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement who are carrying out arrests.
WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH?
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to assembly, freedom of speech and the press.
Experts have said that Trump's decision to have U.S. troops respond to protests is an ominous sign for how far the president is willing to go to repress political speech and activity that he disagrees with or that criticizes his administration's policies.
IS TRUMP'S MOVE SUSCEPTIBLE TO LEGAL CHALLENGES?
Four legal experts from both left- and right-leaning advocacy organizations have cast doubt on Trump's use of Title 10 in response to immigration protests calling it inflammatory and reckless, especially without the support of California's Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom, who has said Trump's actions would only escalate tensions.
The protests in California do not rise to the level of 'rebellion' and do not prevent the federal government from executing the laws of the United States, experts said.
Title 10 also says "orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States," but legal experts said that language might not be an obstacle. Legislative history suggests that those words were likely meant to reflect the norms of how National Guard troops are typically deployed, rather than giving a governor the option to not comply with a president's decision to deploy troops.
COULD CALIFORNIA SUE TO CHALLENGE TRUMP'S MOVE?
California could file a lawsuit, arguing that deployment of National Guard troops was not justified by Title 10 because there was no 'rebellion' or threat to law enforcement. A lawsuit might take months to resolve, and the outcome would be uncertain. Because the protests may be over before a lawsuit is resolved, the decision to sue might be more of a political question than a legal one, experts said.
WHAT OTHER LAWS COULD TRUMP INVOKE TO DIRECT THE NATIONAL GUARD OR OTHER U.S MILITARY TROOPS?
Trump could take a more far-reaching step by invoking the Insurrection Act of 1792, which would allow troops to directly participate in civilian law enforcement, for which there is little recent precedent.
Casting protests as an 'insurrection' that requires the deployment of troops against U.S. citizens would be riskier legal territory, one legal expert said, in part because mostly peaceful protests and minor incidents aren't the sort of thing that the Insurrection Act were designed to address.
The Insurrection Act has been used by past presidents to deploy troops within the U.S. in response to crises like the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan in the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War. The law was last invoked by President George H.W. Bush in 1992, when the governor of California requested military aid to suppress unrest in Los Angeles following the Rodney King trial.
But, the last time a president deployed the National Guard in a state without a request from that state's governor was 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson sent troops to protect civil rights demonstrators in Montgomery, Alabama.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Upturn
3 minutes ago
- Business Upturn
Donald Trump confirms US-China deal done, says rare earth deal and 55% tariffs finalised
Donald Trump touts 55% tariffs and rare earth supply in pending China deal By News Desk Published on June 11, 2025, 17:56 IST Last updated June 11, 2025, 17:57 IST Former U.S. President Donald J. Trump on Tuesday announced via social media that a new deal with China has been reached, pending final approval from both himself and Chinese President Xi Jinping. According to Trump, the agreement includes upfront Chinese supply of 'full magnets' and 'any necessary rare earths' to the U.S. In return, the U.S. will uphold previously agreed terms, which Trump said include allowing Chinese students to continue studying at American colleges and universities — a relationship he described as 'always been good with me!' Trump emphasized that under the new deal, the U.S. will receive a combined total of 55% in tariffs, while China will get 10%. 'Relationship is excellent!' Trump declared in the post, adding thanks for attention to the matter. The post, shared on June 11, 2025, at 8:04 AM, comes amid ongoing geopolitical and trade tensions between the world's two largest economies. No official confirmation has yet been released by Chinese authorities or the U.S. State Department. News desk at
Forbes
10 minutes ago
- Forbes
Trump's Pardons Are Part Of Remaking DOJ
Donald Trump has not been shy about his approach to pardons. In some cases, it reflects his ... More makeover of the Department of Justice. In 2025, President Donald Trump issued a series of high-profile pardons and commutations, notably surpassing his previous clemency record (143 pardons and 85 commutations). A significant action was the mass pardon on January 20, 2025, for approximately 1,500 individuals convicted in connection with the January 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol attack. This included full pardons for leaders of extremist groups such as the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers. Other notable clemency recipients included Ross Ulbricht, founder of the Silk Road dark web marketplace, who received a full and unconditional pardon; 23 anti-abortion activists convicted under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act; former New York Congressman Michael Grimm and former Connecticut Governor John Rowland. Grimm and Rowland were pardoned in May. Critics have raised concerns that these actions may undermine the justice system and that these pardons are the result of Trump insiders simply paying those close to the president for access for a commutation or pardon. However, Trump's DOJ issued new guidance on enforcement, that was critical of past 'over broad and unchecked corporate and white-collar enforcement [that] Government prosecutors are not going to want to bring a case that Trump may toss with a commutation or pardon. While the big government shakeup being experienced in the U.S. continues, pardons and commutations seem to be an almost daily part of the Trump administration. Trump appointed Alice Johnson, herself the recipient of a Trump pardon in his first term, as Pardon Czar and her focus has been on those who received long sentences that now seem draconian. As was pointed out in a Washington Post piece about Johnson's work, she looks closer to what prison personnel have to say about someone seeking a pardon over the objections of US prosecutors. In some cases, Trump's pardons come without the need to talk to prison officials as pardons are being given to those who have not even seen the inside of a prison. There is an old adage that many prisoners will state that they were or are wrongly imprisoned. In fact, in my business, many tell me about over prosecutions that led them to prison. I have heard the line, 'You've probably heard this before, but I didn't do it.' Why would someone admit to a crime they did not commit? In our justice system it happens everyday because of something called the Trial Penalty. The federal trial penalty refers to the significantly harsher sentences defendants face if they reject a plea deal and choose to go to trial. This penalty stems from the belief that defendants who go to trial are seen as unapologetic about their behavior, leading to prosecutors to seek longer sentences. As a result, many defendants plead guilty to avoid the risk of a much more severe punishment. However, the primary way to properly preserve one's rights to an appeal is to go to trial. It is an old problem that many have just accepted as a way the system works. Kay Rogers currently has a pending pardon application. Rogers, a former Butler county Ohio Auditor (Republican), who went to prison for 24 months for a bank loan that the bank says she does not even owe, has been asking for someone to look at her case. Now, out of prison for many years and off of supervised release, Rogers sees Trump as a possible way to clear her name and save her home. 'I pled guilty,' Rogers said in an interview, 'but I was a single mother with 6 kids and going to trial just was something I could not afford.' Rogers wants the pardon because even though the bank says she had nothing to do with the fraud that sent her to prison, the US government still wants to collect restitution. 'They have a lien on my home,' Rogers told me in an interview, 'and I have no idea where this money they want from me would even go.' Other women who believe they were overcharged in their crimes have made repeated requests to have their cases reviewed for pardons. Aaron Zahn, former CEO of the Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA), was convicted in March 2024 of conspiracy to embezzle federal property and wire fraud for allegedly orchestrating a $40 million payout linked to JEA's privatization. Prosecutors claimed this scheme would have cost Jacksonville taxpayers hundreds of millions, but Zahn's defense argued no such scheme existed. Zahn is currently appealing his 4-year sentence, asserting he was wrongly prosecuted for defrauding a city of property that never existed. Zahn and JEA's CFO, Ryan Wannemacher, were tried together, with Wannemacher being found not guilty. Before Zahn became CEO, JEA faced major financial challenges, including declining sales and a poor power contract. Privatization was discussed, but political resistance hindered progress. Zahn, brought in to drive change, pushed for privatization and was involved in the creation of a strategic plan that included the possibility of selling JEA. Despite the suspension of the Performance Unit Plan (PUP), a leaked memo exaggerating its costs led to public outrage, Zahn's termination, and an investigation. Zahn's Garrity statement, pertaining to statements given under immunity during an internal investigation, was used in his prosecution. Such statements are typically protected from being used against an individual in criminal cases, raising concerns about legal precedent, something Zahn's is contesting in his appeal. Zahn is currently imprisoned at FCI Edgefield satellite camp. Some have criticized the Trump administration and the pardons given, but the pardon and commutation system has been inconsistent in doling out fairness in the past. Those with access have always been moved to the top for presidential consideration and Alice Johnson, who definitely deserved her pardon, would likely be still in prison had it not been for advocates, namely Kim Kardashian, who personally pled with Trump for her release. Biden, and even Trump in his first term, gave commutations sparingly throughout their terms until it came to the last days of the administration. Now, there is an ongoing process of review and action that is leading to action, and that is a refreshing change.
Politico
15 minutes ago
- Politico
Trump touts trade ‘deal' with China
President Donald Trump said Wednesday morning the U.S. is dropping plans to revoke Chinese student visas in exchange for China resuming the flow of rare earth minerals to the U.S. The details, which Trump shared in a Truth Social post, build on a Tuesday night announcement from U.S. and Chinese officials that they have agreed to a 'framework' to deescalate trade tensions between the two countries. That framework, however, does little more than promise to implement an agreement the U.S. and China reached in Geneva last month, which stalled amid ongoing tensions between the two countries. Still, Trump's tone on Wednesday was triumphal. He billed the 'deal' — agreed to in London after two days of talks between top Chinese officials and U.S. negotiators, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick — as 'done.' 'OUR DEAL WITH CHINA IS DONE, SUBJECT TO FINAL APPROVAL WITH PRESIDENT XI AND ME,' Trump said. 'RELATIONSHIP IS EXCELLENT! THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER!' In addition to the resumption of the flow of rare earths and magnets and the deescalation on Chinese student visas, Trump said a maximum of 55 percent tariffs on China will remain, made up of the 25 percent tariffs approved during his first term, 20 percent tariffs related to China's role supplying fentanyl precursors and the 10 percent baseline tariff the president placed on all U.S. trading partners. China, in exchange, will keep in place 10 percent tariffs on the U.S., Trump said. After the May agreement in Geneva, the Trump administration accused the Chinese government of slow-walking its restart of shipments of critical minerals and rare earth magnets. And the Chinese government was angered by U.S. moves to limit U.S. exports for key Chinese industries, like semiconductors and aircraft. Trump has been eager to signal progress on trade talks after slapping massive levies on U.S. trading partners in April.
