Explainer: Does U.S. law allow Trump to send troops to quell protests?
June 8 - 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, opens new tab' 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.
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, opens new tab - 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
The Guardian
39 minutes ago
- The Guardian
‘We're not afraid of you': LA protesters, enraged by Trump, flood the streets
Thousands of Angelenos enraged by Donald Trump's decision to commandeer their state national guard swamped the streets around city hall and the federal courthouse on Sunday, bringing a major freeway to a standstill on Sunday. The demonstrators were met by law enforcement. But the national guard, hemmed in by the protesters and by dozens of Los Angeles police cruisers, played almost no role in any of it. A vocal, boisterous but largely peaceful sea of protesters engulfed the north-eastern corner of downtown Los Angeles, hurling insults at Trump and at the immigration enforcement teams who had conducted mass arrests of undocumented migrants in the area on Friday. They converged on the Metropolitan detention center, the federal lockup where many protesters arrested over the previous 48 hours were being held, and an adjacent loading dock that about 50 national guardsmen, in battle gear with riot shields and semi-automatic weapons, were using as their staging ground. The protesters did not hesitate to walk right up to the heavily armed me. 'We're not afraid of you!' one organiser with a bullhorn, John Parker, yelled. One of the many banners on display read: 'National Guard LOL.' Every building and wall in the immediate vicinity was covered in profane graffiti, the most common being 'Fuck ICE', 'LAPD can suck it' and 'Kill all cops.' Shortly after noon, the guardsmen, flanked by armed officers with Department of Homeland Security insignia, fired teargas into the growing crowd so a caravan of DHS and Border Patrol vehicles could push its way through. People backed off briefly and donned masks, only to come back in larger numbers within a few minutes. That was the extent of the national guard's involvement. Within a couple of hours, the crowd had swollen to several thousand, as marchers from earlier protests – one in Boyle Heights, east of downtown, and the other at city hall – moved on the federal complex from different directions, spilling so broadly into the surrounding streets that it brought traffic to a standstill. Several drivers caught in the snarl-up honked enthusiastically to show their support. At first, the Los Angeles police department issued orders to disperse and threatened to arrest anyone who did not comply. Dozens of patrol cars tore through downtown, forming a barricade just north of the protest and slowly pushing the crowd in the opposite direction. LAPD riot officers sprinted down the sidewalks and fired several rounds of flash-bangs, which alarmed the crowd but did not appear to harm anyone. Soon, the LAPD patrol cars had – whether by design or by accident – hemmed the national guardsmen into their staging area, making it impossible for them to make their own attempt at crowd control even if they had wanted to. The crowd, meanwhile, had split into two, with one group clustered so thickly along Alameda and Temple Streets that the police soon gave up on attempting to move them further. The other group sprinted down freeway off-ramps leading to the 101 freeway, bringing traffic on the major artery to a standstill. Police fired round after round of flash-bangs in an attempt to push the protesters back up the off-ramps. Thick clusters of onlookers gathered on the bridges above the action, shouting 'shame, shame!' at the police as well as profanity-laced slogans – in English and Spanish – directed at Trump and his immigration enforcement efforts. Unlike the national guardsmen, the LAPD appeared reluctant to resort to teargas. Unlike the county sheriff's department, who shot a news photographer in the leg on Saturday with a so-called 'less lethal' round, the city police also shied away from more drastic crowd control measures. California leaders including the governor Gavin Newsom and the Los Angeles mayor Karen Bass have accused Trump of compounding the problems caused by his immigration raids by taking the unorthodox step of requisitioning the state national guard. By mid-afternoon Newsom was urging the president to rescind the order. 'We didn't have a problem until Trump got involved,' Newsom said. 'This is a serious breach of state sovereignty – inflaming tensions while pulling resources from where they're actually needed.' Some of those frustrations showed on the street, as LAPD officers – even as they appeared determined not to inflame the crowds further – had to endure loud insults and a flurry of empty plastic water bottles thrown whenever they made an attempt to take control of the crowd. In isolated incidents, LAPD riot officers manhandled or arrested protesters who threw fists at them or beat on police cars. At one point, a black police cruiser moved through the crowd at high speed and was reported to have injured a bicyclist knocked to the ground. There were isolated episodes of vandalism – graffiti sprayed on buildings and vehicles, a Waymo driverless car seen with a smashed windshield, one protester who damaged the side mirror of a parked car he passed. But the vast majority of protesters seemed determined to vent their anger through slogans and placards only. 'People experiencing oppression are expressing their first amendment rights,' said a protest organiser who wanted to be identified only as Angelica R for fear of government reprisals 'This is not the making of a dictatorship,' she said of Trump's immigration crackdowns. 'This is the description of a dictatorship.' It was not clear what plan, if any, the national guard had going into Sunday. Newsom said about 300 guardsmen had deployed to the LA area – far short of the 2,000 requisitioned by the president. As the day began, two dozen of them appeared to news crews outside the federal complex as though intent only on posing for photographs. They had the visors of their helmets up, and many wore shades, even though the day started out cloudy. Mayor Bass, speaking to the Los Angeles Times, accused them of 'posturing'. Maxine Waters, the veteran congresswoman from south LA, taunted them by asking: 'Who are you going to shoot?' It was only as the crowds grew thicker that they donned riot shields and turned to face the street, not the television cameras. The size of the protests appeared to take everyone by surprise. LAPD squad cars tore towards city hall at one point, only to spin in circles and head back to the federal complex moments later. One protest organiser outside the Metropolitan detention center yelled at one point: 'This is only a distraction! We need to go to city hall!' But as soon as people started heeding her call, they ran into a sea of several thousand protesters moving in the opposite direction.
The Guardian
44 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Los Angeles protesters demonstrate against Ice raids
US national guard troops and LA police clashed with demonstrators on Sunday, as teargas and pepper spray were used to disperse the crowds who had been protesting against the raids by immigration authorities which began Friday afternoon
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Trans military colonel issues defiant message after being booted from post as Trump ban takes effect
One of the military's highest ranking transgender officials is speaking out after being placed on administrative leave as part of the Trump administration's ban on trans troops. Colonel Bree Fram, who came out as transgender in 2016 when the initial ban on trans troops was lifted, was an astronautical engineer in the US Space Force and was the Pentagon 's division chief for requirements integration. She posted to Instagram Friday saying 'I have been officially placed on administrative leave, effective tomorrow, pending separation' after the Supreme Court ruled the ban could go ahead. Fram - whose profile picture on the social media app is an LGBT rainbow version of the Space Force logo - defiantly spoke of sobbing as she pinned medals on three of 'my folks' in her last official act in service. 'The last salute broke my heart in two and the tears flowed freely even as I have so much to be thankful for and so many amazing memories.' Fram detailed the day she came out in 2016, telling a story of how her teammates responded to the announcement by shaking her hand and, one by one, saying: 'It's an honor to serve with you.' She also spoke about a similar experience last week, when she announced at a joint staff meeting that she was leaving and that she no longer met 'the current standard for military excellence and readiness.' 'A room full of senior leaders, admirals and generals, walked over to me and the scene from 2016 repeated. They offered those same words, now tinged with the sadness of past tense: 'It's been an honor to serve with you',' she said. She added that she walked away with tears in her eyes because Fram felt that it had been her honor all along. 'It has been the honor of a lifetime to serve this nation and defend the freedoms and opportunities we have as Americans. My wildest dreams came true wearing this uniform.' In the past six months, Fram had been posting photos of her fellow transgender troops on Instagram listing their accomplishment with the tagline: 'Happens to Be Trans.' Fram told Stars and Stripes that, most recently, her work had been focused on 'defining the future capabilities that we're going to need to win wars far into the future.' She added that her Instagram post was an attempt to speak on behalf of her fellow transgender soldiers. 'It is almost a duty and an obligation to speak on their behalf because it is my privilege to do so and to hopefully represent transgender service members well that do not have the privilege that comes along with the rank and the experience that I do,' she said. 'If I don't speak for them and they are unable to speak for themselves, who will speak for them?' In early May, the Supreme Court ruled that Donald Trump 's ban on troops with gender dysphoria can stand. The Supreme Court's ruling lifts a lower court's decision to pause Trump's policy, which the administration called 'dramatic and facially unfair.' The order allows the Department of Defense to continue removing transgender service members from the military and denying enlistment while lawsuits continue in the lower courts.. On January 20, President Trump signed an executive order ordering Hegseth to enact a ban on 'individuals with gender dysphoria' serving in the U.S. military. District Judge Benjamin Settle in Washington state ruled that the ban violated the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection and barred the government from enforcing Trump's policy. The Trump administration appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit but it was rejected, prompting them to appeal to the Supreme Court. Trump's lawyers argued that the ruling was 'contrary to military readiness and the Nation's interests.' The liberal justices - Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson - would have decided against Trump, they indicated in the filing, but the Supreme Court ruling was not signed. The ruling was an emergency appeal prompting an unusually swift ruling from the Supreme Court justices, although they can rule on the merits of the case at a later date. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt celebrated the news in a statement. 'Another MASSIVE victory in the Supreme Court!' she wrote. 'President Trump and Secretary Pete Hegseth are restoring a military that is focused on readiness and lethality – not DEI or woke gender ideology.' The ban enacted by the Department of Defense on February 26 detailed that 'the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms with, gender dysphoria are incompatible with the high mental and physical standards necessary for military service.' The level challenge to the order was filed by Commander Emily Shilling, together with six other current transgender service members and one transgender person who wants to join the military. Schilling appeared at the LGBT Community Center dinner on April 10 to be honored for the legal fight against the president and his administration. 'I swore an oath to support and defend the onstitution,' Schilling said. 'That oath requires obedience to lawful orders. But when an order undermines the very principles I swore to uphold, I have the responsibility to challenge it.' Shortly after he was inaugurated in 2021, President Joe Biden signed an executive order overturning Trump's initial ban on service of transgender individuals in the military. After Trump was inaugurated he ordered the ban to be reinstated. Trump and Hegseth view the extra care required for transgender service members to be a distraction to military readiness. In February, Hegseth ordered a pause on gender-transitioning medical procedures for active duty service members. 'Effective immediately, all new accessions for individuals with a history of gender dysphoria are paused, and all unscheduled, scheduled, or planned medical procedures associated with affirming or facilitating a gender transition for Service members are paused,' his memo said.
