Trump deploying the National Guard is part of a bigger plan
is a correspondent at Vox, where he covers the impacts of social and economic policies. He is the author of 'Within Our Means,' a biweekly newsletter on ending poverty in America.
After protests erupted in response to federal agents raiding businesses around Los Angeles to arrest immigrants, President Donald Trump quickly decided to dump fuel on the fire: On Saturday night, the president declared that he would deploy 2,000 National Guard troops to the city.
Given that presidents usually only activate the National Guard upon a governor's request, it's an extraordinary step that bypasses California Gov. Gavin Newsom's authority, since Newsom made no such appeal.
This isn't the first time Trump has considered sending in the military to squash local protests. In 2020, when nationwide protests broke out after a police officer murdered George Floyd, Trump also wanted to display an overwhelming show of force to respond to the demonstrations — so much so that he even inquired about shooting protesters. But a standoff between Trump and the Pentagon eventually pushed the president to decide against deploying troops across the country.
This time, Trump has a more subservient Pentagon. On Saturday, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth wrote on X that 'if violence continues, active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton will also be mobilized,' adding that 'they are on high alert.'
The chaos unfolding in Los Angeles underscores that Americans are living under an administration that is far too eager to use the power of the state to suppress dissent and a president who is far too keen on siccing the military on American citizens. Trump's latest effort might make 2020 look like a trial run and shows just how unrestrained the president has become.
Can Trump deploy the National Guard without governors' consent?
It is generally illegal to use federal troops for law enforcement within the United States. But there are exceptions. The Insurrection Act — one of the president's emergency powers — allows the president to use the military against American citizens on domestic soil, including in nonconsenting states, to quell an armed rebellion or extreme civil unrest.
That's why President Lyndon B. Johnson was able to deploy the National Guard to Alabama without its governor's consent in 1965 — the last time a president activated a state's National Guard troops against that state's wishes, as Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, told the New York Times. The Insurrection Act itself was last invoked in 1992, when President George H. W. Bush used it to send troops to Los Angeles in response to the Rodney King riots. However, that action was taken upon then-Gov. Pete Wilson's request.
So far, Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act. Instead, he has cited Section 12406 of the US Code, which gives the president the authority to call members of the National Guard of any state into federal service when 'there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.' The president can use as many troops as he considers necessary to 'repel the invasion' or 'suppress the rebellion.'
That statute, however, is more limited than the Insurrection Act since it applies only to the National Guard and not the US Armed Forces more broadly. It also states that the order to call in National Guard troops should be issued by governors.
Since California did not issue that order, Newsom has said Trump's move to federalize California's National Guard is 'unlawful' and requested that the federal government rescind the deployment. Newsom indicated that his office intends to sue the Trump administration over this matter.
Trump is escalating his assault on Americans' fundamental rights — just like he said he would
Trump has long made clear his disdain for dissent and protests against him, and now he's taking it to the next level.
His move to deploy National Guard troops in California is already an escalation from how he responded to the George Floyd protests in 2020. At the time, Trump focused his efforts on Washington, DC, where — perhaps in a prelude to how he is handling the protests in Los Angeles today — he sent National Guard troops from 11 states into the nation's capital. DC's mayor objected to the deployment, but because DC is not a state, Trump had more leeway to exercise military muscle. He ultimately decided against deploying the military in other states.
Trump's reliance on federal officers to squash protests made DC a testing ground for a strategy he could eventually try elsewhere. What he's now doing in California is the natural next step.
Indeed, after Trump left the White House in 2021, he lamented over his administration's supposed restraint during the George Floyd protests and said that should he return to power, he wouldn't wait for governors to make requests for federal assistance. 'You're supposed to not be involved in that, you just have to be asked by the governor or the mayor to come in,' he said in a 2023 campaign rally. 'The next time, I'm not waiting.' During the campaign trail, he and his allies mapped out plans to invoke the Insurrection Act on his first day back in office to quell protests with military force.
That is precisely why so many feared a second Trump term. Where Trump may have shown more restraint in his first administration — because he feared political consequences or because some officials stood in the way — critics feared he would be more unleashed in his second, both because he has nothing to lose and because his Cabinet would be staffed with even more loyalists. And that seems to be what's happening now, with the Pentagon seeming just as eager as Trump to unleash the US military on US soil and against American citizens.
This is all part of Trump's broader assault on democracy — and his attack on the First Amendment in particular. Since coming back to the White House, Trump hasn't hesitated to punish people for exercising their right to free speech and their right to protest, going after students for participating in protests against Israel. His administration has detained and tried to deport protesters for merely expressing pro-Palestinian views, sending unidentified plainclothes immigration officers to abduct dissidents.
Trump is now trying to use the might of the US military to further suppress people's free speech rights, dramatically expanding his crackdown on people's rights. And while Trump cited 'violence and disorder' as the reason he deployed National Guard troops, local law enforcement had not indicated that they were in need of federal assistance to restore order.
What likely pushed Trump to deploy the National Guard (and get other members of the Armed Forces ready) is that he simply saw an opportunity to do so and he seized it. He is clearly more emboldened and even more averse to norms than ever before.
Since Trump got himself involved in the protests, tensions have only escalated. But if anything, that might be what Trump wants: a dramatic standoff between protesters and federal troops. Ultimately, this strategy is less about 'law and order' and more about sending a message to Americans across the country: speak out against Trump and there will be consequences.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
22 minutes ago
- Fox News
'You can't serve on Facebook': Military spouse calls Americans to act on Flag Day
All times eastern Special Report with Bret Baier FOX News Radio Live Channel Coverage WATCH LIVE: Trump attends 'Les Misérables' premiere at Kennedy Center
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘We've lost the culture war on climate'
President Donald Trump's latest climate rollback makes it all but official: The United States is giving up on trying to stop the planet's warming. In some ways, the effort has barely started. More than 15 years after federal regulators officially recognized that greenhouse gas pollution threatens 'current and future generations,' their most ambitious efforts to defuse that threat have been blocked in the courts and by Trump's rule-slicing buzzsaw. Wednesday's action by the Environmental Protection Agency would extend that streak by wiping out a Biden-era regulation on power plants — leaving the nation's second-largest source of climate pollution unshackled until at least the early 2030s. Rules aimed at lessening climate pollution from transportation, the nation's No. 1 source, are also on the Trump hit list. Meanwhile, the GOP megabill lumbering through the Senate would dismember former President Joe Biden's other huge climate initiative, the 2022 law that sought to use hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks and other incentives to encourage consumers and businesses to switch to carbon-free energy. At the same time, Trump's appointees have spent months shutting down climate programs, firing their workers and gutting research into the problem, while making it harder for states such as California to tackle the issue on their own. The years of whipsawing moves have left Washington with no consistent approach on how — or whether — to confront climate change, even as scientists warn that years are growing short to avoid catastrophic damage to human society. While the Trump-era GOP's hardening opposition to climate action has been a major reason for the lack of consensus, one former Democratic adviser said her own party needs to find a message that resonates with broad swaths of the electorate. 'There's no way around it: The left strategy on climate needs to be rethought,' said Jody Freeman, who served as counselor for energy and climate change in President Barack Obama's White House. 'We've lost the culture war on climate, and we have to figure out a way for it to not be a niche leftist movement." It's a strategy Freeman admitted she was 'struggling' to articulate, but one that included using natural gas as a 'bridge fuel' to more renewable power — an approach Democrats embraced during the Obama administration — finding 'a new approach' for easing permits for energy infrastructure and building broad-based political support. As the Democratic nominee in 2008, Obama expressed the hope that his campaign would be seen as 'the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.' But two years later, the Democrats' cap-and-trade climate bill failed to get through a Senate where they held a supermajority. Obama didn't return to the issue in earnest until his second term, taking actions including the enactment of a sweeping power plant rule that wasn't yet in effect when Trump rescinded it and the Supreme Court declared it dead. Republicans, meanwhile, have moved far from their seemingly moderating stance in 2008, when nominee John McCain offered his own climate proposals and even then-President George W. Bush announced a modest target for slowing carbon pollution by 2025. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin contended Wednesday that the Obama- and Biden-era rules were overbearing and too costly. 'The American public spoke loudly and clearly last November: They wanted to make sure that all agencies were cognizant of their economic concerns,' he said when announcing the rule rollback at agency headquarters. 'At the EPA under President Trump, we have chosen to both protect the environment and grow the economy.' Trump's new strategy of ditching greenhouse gas limits altogether is legally questionable, experts involved in crafting the Obama and Biden power plant rules told POLITICO. But they acknowledged that the Trump administration at the very least will significantly weaken rules on power plants' climate pollution, at a moment when the trends are going in the wrong direction. Gina McCarthy, who led EPA during the Obama administration, said in a statement that Zeldin's rationale is "absolutely illogical and indefensible. It's a purely political play that goes against decades of science and policy review." U.S. greenhouse gas emissions were virtually flat last year, falling just 0.2 percent, after declining 20 percent since 2005, according to the research firm Rhodium Group. That output would need to fall 7.6 percent annually through 2030 to meet the climate goals Biden floated, which were aimed at limiting the rise in global temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius since the start of the Industrial Revolution. That level is a critical threshold for avoiding the most severe impacts of climate change. Those targets now look out of reach. The World Meteorological Organization last month gave 70 percent odds that the five-year global temperature average through 2029 would register above 1.5 degrees. The Obama-era rule came out during a decade when governments around the world threw their weight behind blunting climate pollution through executive actions. Ricky Revesz, who was Biden's regulatory czar, recalled the 'great excitement' at the White House Blue Room reception just before Obama announced his power plant rule, known as the Clean Power Plan. It seemed a watershed moment. But it didn't last. 'I thought that it was going to be a more linear path forward,' he said. 'That linear path forward has not materialized. And that is disappointing.' Opponents who have long argued that such regulations would wreck the economy while doing little to curb global temperature increases have traveled the same road in reverse. Republican West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey said he felt dread when Obama announced the Clean Power Plan in 2015. Then the state's attorney general, he feared the rule's focus on curbing carbon dioxide from power plants would have a 'catastrophic' impact on West Virginia's coal-reliant economy. 'It was really an audacious and outrageous attempt to regulate the economy when they had no power to do so,' said Morrisey, who led a coalition of states that sued the EPA over Obama's proposal. 'You can't take the actions that they were trying to take without going to the legislature.' Meanwhile, Congress has become harsher terrain for climate action. In May, House Republicans voted to undo the incentives for electric cars and other clean energy technologies in Biden's Inflation Reduction Act, the nation's most significant effort to spur clean energy and curb climate change. That same week, 35 House Democrats and Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) crossed the aisle and voted to kill an EPA waiver that had allowed California to set more stringent tailpipe pollution standards for vehicles to deal with its historically smoggy skies. California was planning to use that waiver to end sales of internal combustion engine vehicles in 2035, a rule 10 other states and the District of Columbia had planned to follow. The Supreme Court has added to the obstacles for climate policy — introducing more existential challenges for efforts to use executive powers to corral greenhouse gas emissions. In its 2022 decision striking down the Obama administration's power plant rule, the court said agencies such as EPA need Congress' explicit approval before enacting regulations that would have a 'major' impact on the economy. (It didn't precisely define what counts as 'major.') In 2024, the court eviscerated a decades-old precedent known as the Chevron doctrine, which had afforded agencies broad leeway in how they interpret vague statutes. Many climate advocates and former Democratic officials contend that all those obstacles are bumps, not barriers, on the tortuous path to reducing greenhouse gases. They say that even the regulatory fits and starts have provided signals to markets and businesses about where federal policy is heading in the long term — prodding the private sector to make investments to green the nation's energy system. One symptom is a sharp decline in U.S. reliance on coal — by far the most climate-polluting power source, and the one that would face the stiffest restrictions in any successful federal regulation to lessen the electricity industry's emissions. Coal supplied 48.5 percent of the nation's power generation in 2007, but that fell to 15 percent in 2024. Last year, solar and wind power combined to overtake coal for the first time. 'Regulation has served the purpose of moving things along faster,' said Janet McCabe, who was deputy EPA administrator under Biden and ran EPA's Office of Air and Radiation during Obama's second term. 'The trajectory is always in the right direction.' Freeman, who is now at Harvard Law School, said federal regulations plus state laws requiring renewable power to comprise portions of the electricity mix helped justify utility investments in clean energy. That, in turn, accelerated price drops for wind and solar power, she said. Clean energy advocates point to those broader market shifts, calling a cleaner power grid inevitable. 'There are people in each of these industries who wouldn't have taken the climate problem seriously and cleaner technology seriously, and invested in it, if it weren't for the pressure of the Clean Air Act and the incentives that more recently had been built into the IRA,' said David Doniger, senior attorney and strategist at the Natural Resources Defense Council. 'So policy does matter, even when it's not in a straight line and the implementation is inadequate.' But even if those economic trends continue — an open question given the enormous new power demand from data centers — it will not bring the U.S. closer to cuts needed to keep the world from overheating, multiple climate studies have concluded. And the greatest chunk of the emissions decline since 2005 comes from shifting coal to natural gas, another fossil fuel, which fracking made cheap and abundant. Biden's power plant rule, now being shelved by Trump's EPA, would have imposed limits on both coal-burning power plants and future gas-fired ones, requiring them to either capture their greenhouse gases or shut down. Staving off regulations may well keep coal-fired power plants running longer than anticipated to meet forecast demand growth, belching more carbon dioxide into the air. The Trump administration has even sought to temporarily exempt power plants from air pollution rules altogether and is trying to use emergency powers to prevent coal generators from shuttering. Without federal rules that say otherwise, power providers would also be likely to add more natural gas generation to the grid. Failing to curb power plants' pollution, scientists say, means temperatures will continue to rise and bring more of the floods, heat waves, wildfires, supply chain disruptions, food shortages and other shocks that cost the U.S. hundreds of billions of dollars each year in property damage, illness, death and lost productivity. 'I don't think the economics are going to take care of it by any means,' said Joe Goffman, who led the Biden EPA air office. 'The effects of climate change are going to continue to be felt and they're going to continue to be costly in terms of dollars and cents and in terms of human experience.' Some state governors, such as Democrats Kathy Hochul of New York and Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, have vowed to go it alone on climate policy if need be. But analyses have shown state actions alone are unlikely to achieve the greenhouse gas reductions at the scale and speed needed to avoid baking in catastrophic effects from climate change. The Sierra Club, for example, has helped shutter nearly 400 coal-fired units across the U.S. since 2010 through its Beyond Coal campaign, which has argued the economic case against fossil fuel generation in front of state utility commissions. While Joanne Spalding, the group's legal director, said it can continue to strike blows against coal with that strategy, she acknowledged that 'gas is a huge problem' — and left no doubt that the Trump administration's moves would do damage. 'Given what the science says about the need to act urgently, this will be a lost four years in the United States,' she said.
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Gov. Abbott readying National Guard for protests, not the first time
AUSTIN (KXAN) – Gov. Greg Abbott has called up Texas National Guard members to at least two Texas cities, in response to immigration-related protests, officials from Austin and San Antonio have confirmed. It isn't the first time Abbott has brought in guardsmen in reaction to protesters. Mayor: TX National Guard on standby to assist DPS during protests in Austin The governor previously activated more than 3,800 Texas National Guard members, including Army National Guard soldiers, in 2020 amid the George Floyd protests and the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the Texas Military Department. The National Guard was not called in for the pro-Palestine student protests at the University of Texas at Austin last year, according to AP News, but more than 100 Department of Public Safety troopers were deployed, The Texas Tribune reported. Abbott said this current deployment of Texas National Guard is meant to 'ensure peace & order.' 'Peaceful protest is legal,' Abbott said in a social media post. 'Harming a person or property is illegal & will lead to arrst.' Bringing in the National Guard has drawn mixed reactions from local and state officials. KXAN's Kelly Wiley is reporting on the state's use of the National Guard, and we will be updating this report throughout the day. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
