Does US law allow Trump to send troops to quell protests?
Members of the California National Guard stand guard, as a demonstration against federal immigration sweeps takes place in Los Angeles on June 8. PHOTO: REUTERS
Does US law allow Trump to send troops to quell protests?
US 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 US government.
California Governor Gavin Newsom on June 8 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 Mr Trump cite to justify the move?
Mr Trump cited Title 10 of the US Code, a federal law that outlines the role of the US 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 US 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 Mr Trump's order?
An 1878 law, the Posse Comitatus Act, generally forbids the US 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 US Immigration and Customs Enforcement who are carrying out arrests.
What are the implications for freedom of speech?
The First Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees the right to assembly, freedom of speech and the press.
Experts have said that Mr Trump's decision to have US 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 criticises his administration's policies.
Is Mr Trump's move susceptible to legal challenges?
Four legal experts from both left- and right-leaning advocacy organisations have cast doubt on Mr 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 Mr 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 US, 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 Mr 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 Mr Trump invoke to direct the National Guard or other US military troops?
Mr 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 US 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 US 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. REUTERS
Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
23 minutes ago
- Straits Times
Italy says it needs at least 10 years to raise defence spending
Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani attends a joint press conference, on the day of a meeting to discuss the latest developments in Ukraine and security in Europe, at Villa Madama in Rome, Italy, June 12, 2025. REUTERS/Guglielmo Mangiapane Italy says it needs at least 10 years to raise defence spending ROME - Italy's Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani on Thursday said his country needs at least 10 years to raise defence spending and comply with new targets due to be agreed by NATO, adding that a deal on them could soon be reached. Italy is one of the defence spending laggards within the Western military alliance, having spent just 1.49% of gross domestic product last year against a current target of 2%, according to NATO data. Rome has said it would respect the 2% target in 2025, but mainly through a series of accounting changes which add to defence budget calculations items that were previously not included. "I believe that we can do good work with NATO and arrive at The Hague summit with an agreement ready beforehand, so that NATO can demonstrate its unity," Tajani said speaking alongside NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte. The alliance leaders will meet in The Hague on June 24-25. Defence Minister Guido Crosetto, speaking in parliament, said it "is not possible" for Italy to meet U.S. requests for NATO allies to hike their defence budgets to 5% of GDP, and said an intermediate target of 3.5% "is not easy". Italy has limited room for spending, with its massive public debt projected to rise to almost 138% of GDP in 2026 before edging down the following year. "We are maintaining a conservative stance on the matter because we do not want other key investments, such as those on public health or social spending, to be affected", Crosetto said, adding that every government within NATO would need to discuss defence spending commitments with national parliaments. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Straits Times
25 minutes ago
- Straits Times
German defence minister: not considering sending Taurus missiles to Ukraine
German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius speaks to the media as he visits a makeshift memorial for fallen Ukrainian defenders, amid Russia's attack on Ukraine, at Independence Square in Kyiv, Ukraine June 12, 2025. REUTERS/Valentyn Ogirenko BERLIN - German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius said on Thursday that Germany is not considering delivering Taurus cruise missiles to Ukraine despite Kyiv's repeated requests. Although Germany is one of Ukraine's main military backers, Berlin has never supplied Taurus missiles, which have a range in excess of 300 miles (480 km). Answering a journalist's question during his fifth visit to Kyiv since the start of the war, Pistorius said, "Since you asked me whether we are considering this, my answer is no." In the same news conference, the minister said his country's military support for Ukraine had reached 7 billion euros ($8.12 billion) this year and a further 1.9 billion euros were pending parliamentary approval. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Straits Times
42 minutes ago
- Straits Times
Australia to boost aerial surveillance of Pacific for illegal fishing fleets
FILE PHOTO: An Australian flag is pictured at its embassy in Beijing, China January 24, 2019. REUTERS/Jason Lee/File photo SYDNEY - Australia plans to significantly boost surveillance of Pacific Islands territorial waters, spending A$477 million ($310.72 million) on aerial patrols for illegal fishing fleets, tender documents viewed by Reuters show, as China takes steps towards sending its coast guard to the region. Australia's Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will visit Fiji on Friday, the Fiji Times newspaper reported, after the government of Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka last week approved a maritime security agreement that will see Australia fund a patrol boat for Fiji. Australia will operate commercial aerial patrols to support Pacific Island countries monitoring exclusive economic zones which span millions of kilometres of ocean. Efforts to tackle illegal fishing also led to a new monitoring centre being opened in Fiji in April. Australia's defence department declined to comment on the aerial tender, and Pacific Minister Pat Conroy did not respond to a request for comment. Reuters reported last week that China's coast guard is taking further steps towards high seas boarding of fishing boats in the Pacific for the first time, risking tensions with Taiwanese fleets that also ply the region. The Chinese Coast Guard demonstrated the capabilities of one of its largest ships, used to enforce maritime law in the Taiwan Strait, to 10 Pacific Island ministers, including Fiji's, in China a fortnight ago. China has registered 26 coast guard vessels for Pacific Ocean patrols with the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, although it is yet to conduct an inspection, WCPFC officials said. China declined to comment. Australia has gifted two dozen patrol boats to Pacific Island nations, and operates navy and air force patrols for illegal fishing in the region several times a year. Sangaa Clark, chief executive of the Parties to the Nauru Agreement, representing nine Pacific Island countries controlling the world's largest tuna fishery, said the group has not invited China to conduct coast guard patrols, and instead relied on Australian-funded surveillance and patrols by Australia, New Zealand, France and the United States. Pacific security expert Peter Connolly, a fellow at the University of New South Wales, said Chinese Coast Guard patrols in the region would "introduce geostrategic tensions to the policing of the Pacific's fisheries". "This is particularly likely because the two most common nationalities of illegal fishermen in the Pacific have been from the PRC and from Taiwan," he said, referring to the People's Republic of China. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
