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
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Amid LA deployment, Hegseth falsely attacks Tim Walz over 2020 George Floyd riots
WASHINGTON – Amid an increasingly militarized response to immigration enforcement protests in Los Angeles, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth attacked Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz for his handling of the riots prompted by George Floyd's killing in 2020. Hegseth implied that federal intervention in Los Angeles is vital to preventing scenes, such as those seen in 2020 in Minneapolis. In June 2020, President Donald Trump praised Walz for his state-controlled use of the National Guard, telling a conference call of governors, "What they did in Minneapolis was incredible. They went in and dominated, and it happened immediately." More: Marines in LA, response to Ukraine: details from Hegseth hearings Hegseth's comments came in response to a Minnesota lawmaker at a June 10 hearing before the House Armed Services Committee. He argued the former Democratic vice presidential candidate "abandoned a police precinct and allowed it to be burned to the ground' during the Black Lives Matter protests in Minneapolis. Hegseth falsely claimed that Walz waited until after the burning of Minneapolis' third police precinct building to call up the Minnesota National Guard. Walz, in fact, ordered a mass mobilization of his Guardsmen on the afternoon of May 28, 2020, several hours before the police building burned. The defense secretary, defending his decision to deploy 700 Marines and around 4,000 federalized National Guard troops to Los Angeles without the consent of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, tried to compare Walz and Newsom's respective handling of the protests. "President Trump recognizes a situation like that, improperly handled by a governor, like it was by Governor Waltz... If it gets out of control, it's a bad situation for the citizens of any location,' said Hegseth. National Guard units, most of whose troops serve part-time and maintain civilian careers, can take days to fully mobilize and deploy. Newsom has strongly condemned President Donald Trump and his administration's actions in response to the ongoing protests, and the California attorney general filed a lawsuit against the administration over the National Guard federalization on June 9. Trump has openly mused about having the governor arrested for impeding immigration enforcement. "[Marines] shouldn't be deployed on American soil facing their own countrymen to fulfill the deranged fantasy of a dictatorial President," Newsom said. More: Marine infantry unit deploying to Los Angeles amid immigration enforcement unrest The anti-ICE protests are poised to roll into their fifth day on June 10. Los Angeles officials blamed fringe groups for the violence and said more than 100 people were arrested Monday evening. Several driverless Waymo cars were set ablaze over the weekend, leading the company to suspend its autonomous taxi service in the city. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Amid Marine LA deployment, Hegseth falsely attacks Tim Walz
WIRED
22 minutes ago
- WIRED
The ‘Long-Term Danger' of Trump Sending Troops to the LA Protests
Jun 10, 2025 12:24 PM President Trump's deployment of more than 700 Marines to Los Angeles—following ICE raids and mass protests—has ignited a fierce national debate over state sovereignty and civil-military boundaries. LAPD officers and National Guard soldiers stand on patrol as demonstrators protest outside a jail in downtown Los Angeles following two days of clashes with police during a series of immigration raids on June 8, 2025. Photograph:As hundreds of United States Marines deploy in Los Angeles under presidential orders to protect federal property amid growing protests over immigration enforcement, constitutional scholars and civil rights attorneys warn of long-term implications for American democracy and civil-military relations. President Donald Trump revealed Monday that he had ordered the deployment of more than 700 activity-duty Marines out of Camp Pendleton—an extraordinary use of military force in response to civil unrest. The move, widely condemned by his critics, follows Trump's federalization of the National Guard. Some 3,800 guardsmen have since been deployed in California against the objections of its government, spurring debate among legal observers over the limits of the president's power to send troops into American streets. Trump ordered the deployments in response to thousands of Angelenos who took to the streets on Friday in protests. LA residents responded after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents carried out sweeping raids of local businesses, arresting, among others, dozens of day laborers who were vying for work outside a local Home Depot. Larger demonstrations soon formed and remained largely peaceful until residents were engaged by police with riot shields and crowd control weapons. Over the weekend, the clashes between police and protesters escalated across many neighborhoods with large immigrant populations. Numerous buildings were vandalized with anti-ICE messages, and several Waymo autonomous vehicles were set ablaze. Videos captured by protest attendees show police firing upon demonstrators with rubber bullets and other crowd control agents, including waves of asphyxiating CS gas. Members of the press shared images online showing injuries they incurred from the police assault. In widely shared footage, a Los Angeles police officer appears to intentionally target an Australian reporter, Lauren Tomasi, shooting her from feet away with a rubber bullet as she delivers a monologue into a camera. On Monday, CNN correspondent Jason Carroll was arrested live on air. California governor Gavin Newsom condemned Trump's troop deployment in posts on social media, calling the president's actions an 'unmistakable step toward authoritarianism.' His attorney general, Rob Bonata, has filed a lawsuit in federal court claiming the order violated the state's sovereignty, infringing on Newsom's authority as the California National Guard's commander in chief. In response to a request for comment, the Department of Defense referred WIRED to a US Northern Command press release detailing the deployment of Marines and National Guardsmen. Federal troops in the United States are ordinarily barred from participating in civilian law enforcement activities. This rule, known as 'posse comitatus,' may be suspended, however, by a sitting president in cases of civil unrest or outright rebellion. This exception—permitted under the Insurrection Act—allows the president to deploy troops when circumstances make it 'impracticable' for state authorities to enforce federal law by 'ordinary' means. While these powers are most often invoked at the request of a state government, the president may also invoke the act when a state chooses to ignore the constitutional rights of its inhabitants—as happened multiple times in the mid-20th century, when southern states refused to desegregate schools after the Supreme Court's landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision. President Trump, however, has so far not invoked the Insurrection Act, relying instead on a theory of 'inherent authority' advanced by the US Justice Department in 1971 during the height of the anti–Vietnam War protests. This interpretation of presidential power finds that troops may be deployed in an effort to 'protect federal property and functions.' Notably—unlike the Insurrection Act—this does not permit troops to engage in activities that are generally the purview of civilian law enforcement agencies. Trump also invoked statutory power granted to him by Congress under Title 10 of the US Code, which enabled him to federalize elements of California's National Guard. These activations typically occur when guardsmen are needed to support overseas military operations, as happened routinely this century during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Domestically, however, guardsmen are not usually federalized without the agreement of a state's governor—unless the Insurrection Act has been invoked. Legal experts interviewed by WIRED offered a range of opinions on the president's authority to deploy active-duty military troops or federalize the National Guard. While most believe it is likely within Trump's power to ignore Newsom's express objections, doing so without an invocation of the Insurrection Act, they say, is a decision fraught with legal complexities that carries serious implications, from altering—perhaps permanently—the fundamental relationship between Americans, states, and the federal government, to disturbing the delicate balance between civilian governance and military power. Liza Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program, underscores the 'unprecedented' nature of Trump's approach. 'He's trying to basically exercise the powers of the Insurrection Act without invoking it,' she says. A key issue for Goitein is that the memorandum signed by Trump last week federalizing the National Guard makes no mention of Los Angeles or California. Rather, it states that the guardsmen are being mobilized to address protests that are both 'occurring' and 'likely to occur.' In essence, the memo 'authorizes the deployment of federal troops anywhere in the country,' Goitein says, 'including places where there are no protests yet. We're talking about preemptive deployment.' Goitein argues that the administration's justifications could undermine both judicial accountability and civil‑military boundaries. Under the Insurrection Act, federal troops can take on the responsibilities of local and state police. But without it, their authority should be quite limited. Neither the guardsmen nor the Marines, for instance, should engage with protesters acting peacefully, according to Goitein. 'He says they're there to protect federal property,' she says. 'But it looks a lot like quelling civil unrest.' Anthony Kuhn, a 28-year US Army veteran and managing partner at Tully Rinckey, believes, meanwhile, that there is really 'no question' that Trump would be justified in declaring a 'violent rebellion' underway in California, empowering him to ignore Newsom's objections. The images and video of protesters hurling rocks and other items at police and lighting cars on fire all serve as evidence toward that conclusion. 'I know people in California, the governor, the mayor, are trying to frame it as a protest. But at this point,' says Kuhn, 'it's a violent rebellion. You can draw your own conclusions from the pictures and videos floating around.' Kuhn argues that the intentions of the protesters, the politics fueling the demonstrations, don't matter. 'They're attacking federal facilities. They're destroying federal property. So in an attempt to restore the peace, the president has the authority under Title 10 to deploy troops. It's pretty straightforward.' In contrast, Rutgers University professor Bruce Afran says deploying military forces against Americans is 'completely unconstitutional' in the absence of a true state of domestic insurrection. 'There was an attack on ICE's offices, the doorways, there was some graffiti, there were images of protesters breaking into a guardhouse, which was empty,' he says. 'But even if it went to the point of setting a car on fire, that's not a domestic insurrection. That's a protest that is engaged in some illegality. And we have civil means to punish it without the armed forces.' Afran argues that meddling with the expectations of civilians, who naturally anticipate interacting with police but not armed soldiers, can fundamentally alter the relationship between citizens and their government, even blurring the line between democracy and authoritarianism. 'The long-term danger is that we come to accept the role of the army in regulating civilian protest instead of allowing local law enforcement to do the job,' he says. 'And once we accept that new paradigm—to use a kind of BS word—the relationship between the citizen and the government is altered forever.' 'Violent rioters in Los Angeles, enabled by Democrat governor Gavin Newsom, have attacked American law enforcement, set cars on fire, and fueled lawless chaos," Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, tells WIRED. "President Trump rightfully stepped in to protect federal law enforcement officers. When Democrat leaders refuse to protect American citizens, President Trump will always step in.' As the orders to mobilize federal troops have come down, some users on social media have urged service members to consider the orders unlawful and refuse to obey—a move that legal experts say would be very difficult to pull off. David Coombs, a lecturer in criminal procedure and military law at the University of Buffalo and a veteran of the US Army's Judge Advocate General's Corps, says it's hypothetically possible that troops could question whether Trump has the authority to mobilize state guardsmen over the objection of a state governor. 'I think ultimately the answer to that will be yes,' he says. 'But it is a gray area. When you look at the chain of command, it envisions the governor controlling all of these individuals.' Separately, says Coombs, when troops are ordered to mobilize, they could—again, hypothetically—refuse to engage in activities that are beyond the scope of the president's orders, such as carrying out immigration raids or making arrests. 'All they can do in this case, under Title 10 status, is protect the safety of federal personnel and property. If you go beyond that, then it violates the Posse Comitatus Act.' Federal troops, for instance, would need civilian police to step in. At the point, authorities want peaceful protesters to disperse. The San Francisco Chronicle reports that, in a letter on Sunday, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem requested that military troops be directed to detain alleged 'lawbreakers' during protests 'or arrest them,' which legal experts almost universally agree would be illegal under ordinary circumstances. The letter was addressed to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and accused the anti-ICE protesters of being 'violent, insurrectionist mobs' aiming to 'protect invaders and military aged males belonging to identified foreign terrorist organizations.' Khun, who warns there's a big difference between philosophizing over what constitutes an unlawful order and disobeying commands, dismisses the idea that troops, in the heat of the moment, will have an option. 'It's not going to be litigated in the middle of an actual deployment,' he says. 'There's no immediate relief, no immediate way to prove that an order is unlawful.' Khun says that were he deployed into a similar situation, 'me and my junior soldiers would not respond to a nonviolent or peaceful protest.' Asked what protesters should expect, should they engage with federal troops trained for combat overseas, Kuhn says the Marines will hold their ground more firmly than police, who are often forced to retreat as mobs approach. In addition to being armed with the same crowd control weapons, Marines are extensively trained in close-quarters combat. 'I would expect a defensive response,' he says, 'but not lethal force.' Additional reporting by Alexa O'Brien.
The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
Speaker Johnson: Newsom ‘ought to be tarred and feathered'
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said that California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) should be 'tarred and feathered' for how he has responded to the violent protests in Los Angeles, while declining to say whether he agreed that the governor should face legal consequences. His comment came in response to a question at a press conference about President Trump endorsing the idea of his border czar Tom Homan coming to arrest Newsom. 'I'm not going to give you legal analysis on whether Gavin Newsom should be arrested, but he ought to be tarred and feathered, I'll say that,' Johnson responded. He went on to criticize Newsom's objection to Trump deploying the National Guard to quell the anti-immigration enforcement protests. Newsom said he is suing the Trump administration, arguing he illegally federalized the National Guard to respond to the protesters. 'He's standing in the way of the administration and the carrying out of federal law. He is applauding the bad guys and standing in the way of the good guys,' Johnson said of Newsom. 'He's a participant, an accomplice, in our federal law enforcement agents being not just disrespected, but assaulted. This is a serious problem.' Johnson said of the lawsuit: 'What a joke. Do your job, man, that's what I tell Gavin Newsom. Do your job. Stop working on your rebranding, and be a governor.' Trump had endorsed the idea of Homan arresting the sitting governor on Monday. 'Gavin Newsom is daring Tom Homan to come and arrest him,' Fox News reporter Peter Doocy asked Trump. 'Should he do it?' Trump responded: 'I would do it if I were Tom.' Newsroom called the comment an 'unmistakable step toward authoritarianism' in response to Trump in a post on X. In Washington, though, Republicans are largely rallying around the administration's actions and confrontation with local Democratic leaders over protest response. Johnson played video of the violence and destruction in pockets of Los Angeles in a closed-door meeting with House Republicans on Tuesday morning, according to a source. White House Press Secretary Karolina Leavitt was a guest speaker at that morning meeting and also pushed the administration's posture on the protest response.
