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
Newsweek
5 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Senator Calls LA Unrest 'Anarchy and Chaos' As Trump Deploys Guard: Live Updates
Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., has sharply condemned the escalating unrest in Los Angeles, warning that Democrats risk losing the moral high ground if they fail to denounce the violence. His remarks, posted on X, have drawn reactions across the political spectrum, including responses from Elon Musk and other officials. What to Know: Fetterman called the Los Angeles protests "anarchy and true chaos" and urged his party to speak out. "I unapologetically stand for free speech, peaceful demonstrations, and immigration—but this is not that," he wrote. Elon Musk responded to Fetterman's remarks with an American flag emoji. Ohio gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy praised Fetterman, saying it takes courage to speak hard truths. Deputy White House chief of staff Taylor Budowich claimed Fetterman's stance stresses divisions within the Democratic Party. Sen. Bernie Sanders also spoke against violent protests, calling for disciplined, nonviolent resistance. The unrest has led to the deployment of National Guard troops, with President Trump defending the decision. Stay with Newsweek for the latest.
San Francisco Chronicle
6 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Letters: Trump's deployment of National Guard to L.A. protests shouldn't be a surprise
Donald Trump's playbook seems entirely predictable. If you want to turn a democracy into a military dictatorship, you only need two steps. First, you take actions that will guarantee a large public outcry and protests, and then bring in the military to restore order. Just like Trump did this weekend in deploying the National Guard to Los Angeles after the protests in response to immigration raids. Conversion completed. And if these protests aren't sufficient to declare martial law, no doubt future actions against immigrants will generate the necessary strife. President Trump will not stop until he has destroyed American democracy, and the world can only watch. Steen Petersen, Nanaimo, British Columbia Alarming arrest threat So, President Donald Trump thinks Gov. Gavin Newsom should be arrested. Exactly what laws did the governor break? I'm old enough to remember Alabama Gov. George Wallace standing in the doorway trying to prevent two Black students from enrolling at the University of Alabama in 1963. As much as President John F. Kennedy probably wanted to have Wallace handcuffed and jailed, he didn't. Trump's comments now suggest he is both judge and jury. This is a slap in the face of the greatest of all democratic principles: The rule of law. Denny Freidenrich, Laguna Beach, Orange County Insufficient CCSF response Regarding ''I do not feel safe': City College of S.F. instructor shaken by union leader's verbal attack' (San Francisco, June 5): I'm shocked about what I believe is an antisemitic attack by union leader Maria Salazar-Colon at a public meeting and upset after reading the City College Board of Trustees' statement in response. The statement shows that the board and the college administration don't take antisemitism as seriously as other forms of hate speech. I would ask readers to consider whether they feel that this response would be acceptable if the speaker had used such hateful language toward other racial or ethnic groups. The board's statement is insultingly vague and short on specific condemnation of antisemitism. This is an 'all lives matter' response to a specific attack on Jewish Americans. I would like the board to issue a new statement that specifically references that a speaker made antisemitic comments, and that it condemns them. When there was anti-Asian hate, we condemned it as anti-Asian, not generalized disrespect or lack of decorum. The board should also commit the institution to include addressing antisemitism as part of any training around equity and diversity. Doug Shoemaker, San Francisco Not Lowell caliber Regarding 'These graduating Lowell students were called 'lottery kids.' The stigma never went away' (San Francisco, June 6): The story says that data shows relatively small academic disparities between students enrolled at Lowell High School by lottery and merit-based admittees. However, every piece of data in the story says the lottery students did worse on average than those who attended based on merit — hardly proof that the lottery kids belonged. Michael Singer, Santa Rosa Stop S.F. warehouse project Regarding 'S.F.'s largest industrial project could get a green light after years of delay' (Real Estate, June 3): The article does not tell the whole story about this planned 2-million-square-foot warehouse and distribution center in the Bayview, a neighborhood that is highly impacted by poor air quality and high levels of cancer, asthma and other lung diseases. Residents are concerned about what will likely be a huge Amazon warehouse (nonunion) and the increase in diesel trucks that worsen the levels of particulate matter, ozone and nitrous oxide, which are already high in the area, increasing the risk for asthma, bronchitis, lung irritations and cancers. The effects are cumulative. The pollution from this project will impact the air quality in nearby neighborhoods and beyond. This is a San Francisco issue, not just a Bayview issue, and it is an environmental justice issue.
Miami Herald
10 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
The White House wants 90 trade deals in 90 days. So far, it may have 1.
President Donald Trump has announced wave after wave of tariffs since taking office in January, part of a sweeping effort that he has argued would secure better trade terms with other countries. 'It's called negotiation,' he recently said. In April, administration officials vowed to sign trade deals with as many as 90 countries in 90 days. The ambitious target came after Trump announced, and then rolled back a portion of, steep tariffs that in some cases meant import taxes cost more than the wholesale price of a good itself. The 90-day goal, however, is one-tenth of the time it usually takes to reach a trade deal, according to a New York Times analysis of major agreements with the United States currently in effect, raising questions about how realistic the administration's target may be. It typically takes 917 days, or roughly 2 1/2 years, for a trade deal to go from initial talks to the president's desk for signature, the analysis shows. Roughly 60 days into the current process, Trump has so far announced only one deal: a pact with Britain, which is not one of America's biggest trading partners. He has also suggested that negotiations with China have been rocky. 'I like President XI of China, always have, and always will, but he is VERY TOUGH, AND EXTREMELY HARD TO MAKE A DEAL WITH!!!' Trump wrote on Truth Social on June 4. China and the United States agreed last month to temporarily slash tariffs on each other's imports in a gesture of goodwill to continue talks. Part of what the president can accomplish boils down to what you can call a deal. The pact with Britain is less of a deal than it is a framework for talking about a deal, said Wendy Cutler, the vice president of the Asia Society Policy Institute and a former U.S. trade negotiator. What was officially released by the two nations more closely resembled talking points for 'what you were going to negotiate versus the actual commitment,' she said. During his first term, Trump secured two major trade agreements, both signed in January 2020. One was the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, which was a reworking of the North American free trade treaty from the 1990s that had helped transform the economies of the three nations. USMCA is an all-encompassing, legally binding agreement that resulted from a lengthy and formal process, according to trade analysts. Such deals are supposed to cover all aspects of trade between the respective nations and are negotiated under specific guidelines for congressional consultation. Closing the deal involves both negotiation and ratification -- modifying or making laws in each partner country. The deals are signed by trade negotiators before the president signs the legislation that puts the deals into effect for the United States. Trump's other major agreement in his first term was with China, in an echo of the current trade war. The pact, unlike previous deals, came about after Trump threatened tariffs on certain Chinese imports. This 'tariff first, talk later' approach, said Inu Manak, a trade policy fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, is part of the same playbook the administration is currently using. The result was a nonbinding agreement between the two countries, known as 'Phase One,' that did not require approval from Congress and that could be ended by either party at any time. Still, it took almost one year and nine months to complete. China ultimately fell far short of the commitments it made to purchase American goods under the agreement. A comparison of the two first-term Trump deals shows the drawn-out and sometimes winding path each took to completion. Fragile truces (including ones made for 90 days) were formed, only for talks to break down later, all while rounds of tariffs injected uncertainty into the diplomatic relations between countries. The Times analysis used the date from the start of negotiations to the date when the president signed to determine the length of deal-making for each major agreement dating back to 1985 that's currently in effect. The median time it took to get to the president's signature was just over 900 days. (A separate analysis published in 2016 by the Peterson Institute for International Economics used the date of signature by country representatives as the completion moment and found that the median deal took more than 570 days.) With roughly one month before the administration's self-imposed deadline, Trump's ability to forge deals has been thrust into sudden doubt. Last week, a U.S. trade court ruled he had overstepped his authority in imposing the April tariffs. For now, the tariffs remain in place, following a temporary stay from a federal appeals court. But in arguing its case, the federal government initially said that the ruling could upset negotiations with other nations and undercut the president's leverage. In a statement on June 4, Kush Desai, a White House spokesperson, said that trade negotiators were working to secure 'custom-made trade deals at lightning speed that level the playing field for American industries and workers.' But in other recent public statements, White House officials have significantly pared back their ambitions for the deals. In April, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent hedged the number of agreements they might reach, suggesting that the United States would talk to somewhere between 50 and 70 countries. Last month, he said the United States was negotiating with 17 'very important trading relationships,' not including China. 'I think when the administration first started, they thought they could actually do these binding and enforceable deals within 90 days and then quickly realized that they bit off more than they could chew,' Cutler said. The administration told its negotiating partners to submit offers of trade concessions they were willing to make by June 4, in an effort to strike trade deals in the coming weeks. The deadline was earlier reported by Reuters. The current approach to deal making may be strategic, Manak said. One of the benefits of not doing a comprehensive deal like USMCA is that the administration can declare small 'victories' on a much faster timeline, she said. 'It means that trade agreements simply are just not what they used to be,' she added. 'And you can't really guarantee that whatever the U.S. promises is actually going to be upheld in the long run.' This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Copyright 2025
