What does the law say about Trump sending troops to LA and ICE protests?
Donald Trump has deployed National Guard troops to California following two days of protests against immigration raids. The demonstrations, involving hundreds of people, were described by Trump as interference with federal law enforcement, even suggesting they could be a "form of rebellion" against the US government.
California Governor Gavin Newsom has pushed back against the move. On Sunday, Newsom 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?
Donald Trump invoked Title 10 of the US Code, a federal law defining the role of the US Armed Forces, in his June 7 order to federalise members of the California National Guard.
Section 12406 of Title 10 permits the president to deploy National Guard units into federal service in specific circumstances, including invasion, rebellion, or if the president deems regular forces insufficient to enforce US laws.
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 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 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 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 US 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 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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
19 minutes ago
- The Independent
ICE slammed for overspending amid ‘egregious' funding mismanagement in House report
A 168-page House report has slammed the Department of Homeland Security for 'egregious' funding mismanagement. The House Appropriations Committee released its report on Wednesday for the Homeland Security funding bill, conveying complaints regarding departmental policies. The report also included guidance on how it would like the funding for the 2026 fiscal year to be spent. One of the concerns included Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) spending more money than it had received. Lawmakers from both the Democrats and the Republicans have made such complaints amid the Trump administration's ratcheting up of deportations. This comes as the White House waits for Congress to pass a spending package, which may include billions of dollars in funding for immigration enforcement. 'Actions already taken in fiscal year 2025 are especially egregious —ICE began spending more than its appropriated level shortly after the fiscal year commenced and operations now far exceed available resources,' the report states. Fiscal year 2025 began in October. 'While the Committee recognizes the dynamic environment in which ICE must function, neither ICE nor the Department should rely on other components to fund the deficits that ICE itself often creates,' it adds. 'Not only does that presuppose that other missions within DHS are less important, but it also sets the precedent that the Department can shift funding away from congressional priorities within other components to compensate for ICE's budgetary mismanagement.' The report states that such mismanagement is 'unacceptable' and calls on ICE to update the committee on a monthly basis, 'to ensure appropriate congressional oversight.' The Homeland Security appropriations subcommittee chair, Republican Rep. Mark Amodei of Nevada, told ICE Director Todd Lyon during a recent hearing that the agency was at risk of violating the Antideficiency Act, which prohibits federal agencies from incurring expenses before Congress has approved the spending. 'I would appreciate it if you, for your part, would let folks know up your chain of command that this information, if it's not coming in real time, is not useful,' Amodei told Lyons, according to Politico. He added that they 'have to keep in mind things like the Antideficiency Act … and I'll just be honest with you, speaking for me, I don't know that I have the information that I need to make sure that we're doing our job in the context of that.' The report also states that there are concerns about the TSA, FEMA policy, cybersecurity, as well as the Coast Guard, in addition to the other agencies operated by DHS. The full committee will mark up the bill on Thursday; however, Republican leadership in the House hasn't announced any floor action as of yet on any of the bills handling fiscal year 2026. Bipartisan funding negotiations haven't started with less than four months until the start of the next fiscal year. Additionally, the White House has yet to send a full budget request. Two-thirds of federal law enforcement spending is taken up by immigration and border issues for the 2025 fiscal year, the Cato Institute noted. That includes roughly $19 billion for CBP, $10 billion for ICE, $3.2 billion for DHS general offices, and $281 million for USCIS. ICE spending has increased significantly since its creation in 2003. Recently, its budget has gone from $8.4 billion in 2023 to $9.6 billion in 2024, according to the Senate Appropriations Committee. The Homeland Security Appropriations Bill for 2026 currently includes proposed funding for ICE of $11 billion, about $960 million more than this year. While congressional Republicans have shared concerns about the Trump administration spending too much on deportations, the White House is so far pushing ahead anyway, according to Politico. The administration is pushing legislators to pass the 'big, beautiful bill,' which would add billions of dollars for border security. The Big Beautiful Bill Act would direct $168 billion to immigration and border security, according to the Congressional Budget Office, compared to $34 billion in fiscal year 2025. This comes as Trump aide Stephen Miller is pushing for at least 3,000 arrests of illegal immigrants a day. Lyons noted earlier this month that ICE is currently averaging about 1,600. An administration official told Politico earlier this month: 'It's not just the Democrats saying they'll throw a wrench in this. It's the Republicans, too, questioning why we're spending beyond our means.'
The Independent
20 minutes ago
- The Independent
Gavin Newsom lashes out at Trump ally Ric Grenell over claims Governor's wife was shopping during LA protests
California Governor Gavin Newsom has lashed out at President Donald Trump's special envoy Richard Grenell for pushing claims that his wife was out shopping during the protests in Los Angeles. Grenell, a White House special envoy for special missions, claimed that the governor and Jennifer Siebel Newsom ' don't care about the chaos' after a report claimed the first lady of California was shopping in Beverly Hills Monday. 'She came to Los Angeles to shop using her $4k purse,' Grenell posted on X early Wednesday. ' @GavinNewsom and his wife don't care about the chaos.' Newsom's representatives furiously denied the claims. 'This story is an outright lie and needs to be retracted entirely,' the Governor's press office responded on X Wednesday, quoting Grenell's post. 'The photo is from months ago — when the first partner was picking up skin care products. She is recovering from a past skin cancer diagnosis, you SICK people.' But Grenell, a regular critic of Newsom, doubled down on his claims and accused the couple of 'pathetic spin.' In 2023, Jennifer Newsom revealed she had undergone surgery for the second time to treat a type of skin cancer. 'This is pathetic spin from @GavinNewsom 's wife,' Grenell said in a follow up post. 'Using a previous skin cancer diagnosis to explain why you are tone deaf to the LA riots is shameful.' 'I had 5 rounds of R-CHOP chemotherapy for 18 weeks,' Grenell added. 'It's offensive for the First Partner of California (this is the title she demands we use) to use cancer as a reason you need to be in Beverly Hills picking up skincare products while the riots are unfolding around you.' The Independent has contacted the State Department for comment. Representatives for the governor could not be immediately reached. It follows the governor's televised address Tuesday where he lambasted Trump's 'brazen abuse of power.' Newsom said the presence of troops was exacerbating tensions and asked for an emergency injunction to halt the deployment, arguing it is 'unlawful' and 'unnecessary.' A hearing is set Thursday. In the latest developments in the city, the downtown curfew enacted by Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass in response to the president's escalation of the response to immigration protests has been lifted. Meanwhile, approximately 700 Marines mobilized by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth will arrive in the city 'soon' after training in Seal Beach, 30 miles south.
NBC News
25 minutes ago
- NBC News
Some Los Angeles officials fear Marines' 'rules of force'
WASHINGTON — President Trump's deployment of thousands of troops to Los Angeles to quell protests, including 700 active-duty Marines, is fueling concern that the Marines have not been properly trained for interacting with civilians, including children, during potentially tense law enforcement operations. One of the duties of the Marines and National Guard troops will be to provide security for ICE personnel as they conduct immigration raids in the Los Angeles area, according to officials with knowledge of the operation and court filings. National Guard troops and Marines will transport ICE agents to and from raids and secure neighborhood perimeters while ICE agents conduct operations. California Democrats argue that this violates the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 law that bars federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement efforts. California Attorney General Rob Bonta argued in a court motion on Tuesday that the Trump administration's deployment violates that law. 'The federalized National Guard and active-duty Marines deployed in Los Angeles will engage in quintessential law enforcement activity in violation of the PCA,' the motion said, referring to the Posse Comitatus Act. 'Defendants will create a substantial likelihood that the military will physically confront, detain, or search civilians whom they perceive are posing a security threat, thereby actively executing civil laws.' A military official with knowledge of the operation told NBC News that the Marines would not conduct arrests and would only transport and guard ICE agents. They said that these activities would not violate the Posse Comitatus Act. As with many other political battles since Trump took office, the issue will be decided in court. On Thursday afternoon, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer will hold a hearing in San Francisco to hear arguments from both sides regarding Trump's use of the National Guard and Marines in L.A. Breyer could accept or reject Bonta's request that he issue a court order blocking the Trump Administration from using National Guard troops and Marines during ICE operations. Some local law enforcement officials and state Democrats say that Trump is stoking tensions rather than calming them. The National Guard is often used to respond to riots or violence on American streets. And active-duty Marines are not typically trained for domestic law enforcement and lack the tools or the training to respond to civil disturbances. Mike Hillman, a law enforcement consultant, military veteran and former Los Angeles Police Department Deputy Chief who served more than 40 years in the department, said there is a big difference between what law enforcement does and what Marines do. 'The Marines are warfighters and they come with rules of engagement and tools and equipment that they would normally use under those circumstances,' Hillman told NBC News. 'This situation has serious consequences. It puts the United States Marine Corps and the warfighters in the position where they are having to deal with domestic incidents on domestic soil.' Concerns about Marine 'rules of force' Some of the Marines deployed to Los Angeles will provide security and transportation for ICE personnel as they conduct operations. This includes driving ICE agents in military vehicles to arrest locations, according to two sources familiar with the plans. The Marines have been issued small cards that list 'rules of force' — terminology used for domestic military operations, the two sources said. The cards describe what Marines are allowed to do during a deployment. Two sources familiar with the planning say that ICE agents, as well as local officials in Los Angeles, have expressed concern about those rules of engagement. The sources said ICE agents worry that the Marines have not been properly trained and could be pulled into law enforcement operations for which local police or the National Guard is better suited. Jim McDonnell, the Los Angeles police chief, said in a statement on Monday that he was not notified of the Marine deployment and urged federal officials to maintain continuous communications with local law enforcement officials. 'The arrival of federal military forces in Los Angeles — absent clear coordination — presents a significant logistical and operational challenge for those of us charged with safeguarding this city,' he said. 'We are urging open and continuous lines of communication between all agencies to prevent confusion, avoid escalation, and ensure a coordinated, lawful, and orderly response during this critical time.' Warning from Rodney King riots An incident in Los Angeles during the 1992 riots following the police beating of Rodney King serves as a cautionary tale. According to the book, 'Fires and Furies,' by Maj. Gen. James Delk, who oversaw National Guard operations in California at the time, Marines caused an incident when they accompanied police officers to a domestic disturbance in the wake of the riots. A police officer asked the Marines to 'cover me' as he tried to enter the residence, according to the book. Instead of simply pointing their weapons at it to deter the people inside, the Marines opened fire on the house. 'The officer had not meant shoot when he yelled 'cover me' to the Marines,' Delk wrote. The officer meant, 'point your weapon and be prepared to respond if necessary. However, the Marines responded instantly in the way they had been trained, where 'cover me' means 'provide me with cover using firepower.'' California legal battle California Attorney General Bonta's motion asked Judge Breyer, the federal judge in San Francisco, to issue a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump Administration from using National Guard troops or Marines during ICE operations. 'Defendants, including President Trump and Secretary of Defense Hegseth have sought to bring military personnel and a 'warrior culture' to the streets of cities and towns where Americans work, go to school and raise their families,' Bonta wrote. On Tuesday, Department of Justice lawyers rebuffed Bonta's motion. 'Plaintiffs' motion is legally meritless,' they wrote in a filing. 'It seeks an extraordinary, unprecedented and dangerous court order.' Bonta's motion argued that the administration's actions, in fact, were dangerous. 'There is no invasion or rebellion in Los Angeles," it said, "only the kind of civil unrest that occurs from time to time that is typically the purview of local law enforcement.'
