
How unusual is it for the National Guard to come to LA? Here's what to know about the city's history
President Donald Trump's deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles in response to immigration protests is the latest in a long history of U.S. elected officials sending troops in hopes of thwarting unrest connected to civil rights protests.
National Guard troops are typically deployed for a variety of emergencies and natural disasters with the permission of governors in responding states, but Trump, a Republican, sent about 1,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles despite the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, both Democrats.
Confrontations began Friday when dozens of protesters gathered outside a federal detention center demanding the release of more than 40 people arrested by federal immigration authorities across Los Angeles, as part of Trump's mass deportation campaign.
Trump said that federalizing the troops on Saturday was necessary to 'address the lawlessness' in California. Newsom said Trump's recent decision was 'purposely inflammatory and will only escalate tensions.'
Some of the previous National Guard deployments have preserved peace amid violent crackdowns from local law enforcement or threats from vigilantes, but sometimes they have intensified tensions among people who were protesting for civil rights or racial equality.
On rare occasion, presidents have invoked an 18th-century wartime law called the Insurrection Act, which is the main legal mechanism that a president can use to activate the military or National Guard during times of rebellion or unrest. Other times they relied on a similar federal law that allows the president to federalize National Guard troops under certain circumstances, which is what Trump did on Saturday.
Here is a look at some of the most notable deployments:
George Floyd protests in Los Angeles in 2020
Almost five years ago, Newsom deployed approximately 8,000 National Guard troops to quell protests over racial injustice inspired by the death of George Floyd in Minnesota. Well over half of the troops deployed in California were sent to Los Angeles County, where police arrested more than 3,000 people. City officials at the time, including then-Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, supported Newsom's decision.
Rodney King protests in 1992
Some have compared Trump's decision on Saturday to George H.W. Bush's use of the Insurrection Act to respond to riots in Los Angeles in 1992, after the acquittal of white police officers who were videotaped beating Black motorist Rodney King. In just six days the protests became one of the deadliest race riots in American history, with 63 people dying, nine of whom were killed by police.
Syreeta Danley, a teacher from South Central Los Angeles, said she vividly remembers as a teen seeing black smoke from her porch during the 1992 uprisings.
Danley said that at the time it seemed like law enforcement cared more about property damage affecting wealthier neighborhoods than the misconduct that precipitated the unrest.
She said some people in her neighborhood were still more afraid of the police than the National Guard because once the troops left, local police 'had the green light to continue brutalizing people.'
The National Guard can enforce curfews like they did in 1992, but that won't stop people from showing up to protest, Danley said.
'I have lived long enough to know that people will push back, and I'm here for it,' Danley said.
Watts protests in 1965
There were deadly protests in the Watts neighborhood of Los Angeles in 1965 in response to pent-up anger over an abusive police force and lack of resources for the community. Over 30 people were killed — two-thirds of whom were shot by police or National Guard troops. Many say the neighborhood has never fully recovered from fires that leveled hundreds of buildings.
Integration protests in the 1950-1960s
In 1956, the governor of Tennessee called the state's troops to help enforce integration in Clinton, Tennessee, after white supremacists violently resisted federal orders to desegregate.
President Dwight Eisenhower called the Arkansas National Guard and the 101st Airborne Division of the U.S. Army in 1957 to escort nine Black students as they integrated a previously white-only school.
A few years later, the Maryland National Guard remained in the small town of Cambridge for two years after Maryland's Democratic Gov. J Millard Tawes in 1963 called in troops to mediate violent clashes between white mobs and Black protesters demanding desegregation.
Selma, Alabama, voting rights protest in 1965
National Guard troops played a pivotal role in the march often credited with pressuring the passage of Voting Rights Act of 1965, when nonviolent protesters — including the late congressman John Lewis — calling for the right to vote were brutally assaulted by Alabama State Troopers in Selma, Alabama, in 1965.
Two weeks later, then-President Lyndon B. Johnson sent National Guard troops to escort thousands of protesters along the 50-mile (81-kilometer) march to the state Capitol. Johnson's decision was at odds with then-Gov. George Wallace who staunchly supported segregation.
___ Riddle is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Winnipeg Free Press
40 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Trump administration hit with second lawsuit over restrictions on asylum access
McALLEN, Texas (AP) — Immigration advocates filed a class action lawsuit Wednesday over the Trump administration's use of a proclamation that effectively put an end to being able to seek asylum at ports of entry to the United States. The civil lawsuit was filed in a Southern California federal court by the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, the American Immigration Council, Democracy Forward, and the Center for Constitutional Rights. The lawsuit is asking the court to find the proclamation unlawful, set aside the policy ending asylum at ports of entry and restore access to the asylum process at ports of entry, including for those who had appointments that were canceled when President Donald Trump took office. Unlike a similar lawsuit filed in February in a Washington, D.C., federal court representing people who had already reached U.S. soil and sought asylum after crossing between ports of entry, Wednesday's lawsuit focuses on people who are not on U.S. soil and are seeking asylum at ports of entry. No response was immediately issued by the Department of Homeland Security or Customs and Border Protection, which were both among the defendants listed. Trump's sweeping proclamation issued on his first day in office changed asylum policies, effectively ending asylum at the border. The proclamation said the screening process created by Congress under the Immigration and Nationality Act 'can be wholly ineffective in the border environment' and was 'leading to the unauthorized entry of innumerable illegal aliens into the United States.' Immigrant advocates said that under the proclamation noncitizens seeking asylum at a port of entry are asked to present medical and criminal histories, a requirement for the visa process but not for migrants who are often fleeing from immediate danger. 'Nothing in the INA or any other source of law permits Defendants' actions,' the immigrant advocates wrote in their complaint. Thousands of people who sought asylum through the CBP One app, a system developed under President Joe Biden, had their appointments at ports of entry canceled on Trump's first day in office as part of the proclamation that declared an invasion at the border. 'The Trump administration has taken drastic steps to block access to the asylum process, in flagrant violation of U.S. law,' the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies stated in a news release Wednesday.


Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
David Hogg won't try to keep his DNC role amid dispute over Democratic primaries
David Hogg said Wednesday he will not fight to hold onto his leadership role in the Democratic National Committee after igniting a firestorm over his push to target long-serving Democrats in safe congressional seats. Hogg announced his retreat hours after the DNC removed him and another officer, Pennsylvania state lawmaker Malcolm Kenyatta, from their vice chair roles, saying the February elections they won did not follow the party's rules. Hogg said he will not run in the redo elections to be held over the weekend. With dejected Democrats looking for a path back to relevance after a disastrous 2024 election, Hogg said earlier this year that he plans to raise millions of dollars through a political action committee unaffiliated with the DNC called Leaders We Deserve to support young progressives against party stalwarts. He says the party needs a shake-up to bring in leaders who will more aggressively confront Trump and connect with younger voters and offer an inspiring new vision for a party voters are rejecting. The push rankled many Democrats, who said DNC officers should be focused on defeating Republicans, not sowing division among Democrats. Hogg on Wednesday decried 'a serious lack of vision from Democratic leaders, too many of them asleep at the wheel,' noting three Democratic House members have died this year after being reelected in November, leaving the party shorthanded in Washington. The culture on Capitol Hill rewards seniority and protects complacency, he said in a statement announcing his decision to walk away from his DNC role. 'If there is anything activism or history teaches us it's that comfortable people, especially comfortable people with power, do not change,' Hogg said. 'In this moment of crisis, comfort is not an option.' In April, DNC Chair Ken Martin proposed bylaw changes to require party officers to remain neutral in all Democratic primaries. Party neutrality is crucial to maintaining the confidence of voters, he argued, pointing to the bitter feud that emerged after supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders' 2016 campaign believed he was stymied by party insiders putting their thumb on the scale in favor of Hillary Rodham Clinton, who won the nomination but went on to lose the general election to Donald Trump. Hogg rose to prominence as a gun-control advocate after surviving the 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida. ___


Toronto Star
an hour ago
- Toronto Star
David Hogg won't try to keep his DNC role amid dispute over Democratic primaries
David Hogg said Wednesday he will not fight to hold onto his leadership role in the Democratic National Committee after igniting a firestorm over his push to target long-serving Democrats in safe congressional seats. Hogg announced his retreat hours after the DNC removed him and another officer, Pennsylvania state lawmaker Malcolm Kenyatta, from their vice chair roles, saying the February elections they won did not follow the party's rules. Hogg said he will not run in the redo elections to be held over the weekend.