logo
Military deployment in L.A. puts Trump's authority to use troops at home in the spotlight

Military deployment in L.A. puts Trump's authority to use troops at home in the spotlight

NBC News2 days ago

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump's move to send National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles amid unrest over his immigration policies has given new weight to a lingering question: How far can a president go in using the military to quell domestic disturbances?
For now, the military has a limited role in Los Angeles, focused on protecting federal buildings and activities, but that hasn't stopped California's Democratic leaders, including Gov. Gavin Newsom, from vehemently objecting to Trump's actions.
Trump has not taken the more drastic step of invoking the Insurrection Act, the name given to a series of legal provisions that allows the president, in certain circumstances, to enlist the military to conduct civilian law enforcement activities.
But Elizabeth Goiten, an expert on national security at the Brennan Center for Justice, noted that the June 7 memorandum that Trump issued authorizing military involvement in support of immigration enforcement makes no reference to Los Angeles, meaning it applies nationwide.
"That's just a red alert," she said. "If we have the military being pre-emptively deployed throughout the country to effectively police protests, that is the hallmark of authoritarian rule."
Although the military's role may initially be limited to a protective function, Goiten said that could easily be expanded in certain situations to include use of force and detention of protesters even without invoking the Insurrection Act. She pointed to the response of federal agencies under Trump during protests in Portland and Washington, D.C., in 2020.
Ilan Wurman, a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, said that to this point, Trump has acted within existing precedents that allow the president to use the military to assist with the enforcement of federal law.
'Federalizing the National Guard, using regular forces to restore order, is in my view well within the range of prior precedents,' he said.
But, Wurman added, any attempt to invoke the Insurrection Act 'would be more problematic.'
When is it legal for the president to use the military to support law enforcement?
Generally, using the military to conduct broad law enforcement activities is forbidden under another law, the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act. But that statute contains many loopholes, of which the Insurrection Act is one.
The Posse Comitatus Act was enacted at the tail end of the post-Civil War Reconstruction period, erecting a new barrier against military intervention in the South as it moved toward the Jim Crow era.
The last time the Insurrection Act was invoked was during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. President George H.W. Bush acted at the request of Tom Bradley, the Democratic mayor of Los Angeles, and Pete Wilson, the state's Republican governor. Previously, the act was used to desegregate schools in the 1950s and '60s amid opposition from state and local leaders in the South.
In calling in the National Guard, Trump invoked a different law that allows the president to do so when there is an invasion or danger of invasion, a rebellion or danger of rebellion, or when "the president is unable to with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States."
The law states that orders 'shall be issued through the governors of the states,' which has not happened in this case, as Newsom is adamantly opposed to Trump's move. California has filed a lawsuit that cites the skirting of Newsom's role under that provision as well as broader claims that Trump is infringing on California's sovereignty, among other things.
"There is no invasion. There is no rebellion," California Attorney General Rob Bonta said Monday.
Attorney General Pam Bondi has said she fully backed Trump's actions.
'We are going to enforce the law regardless of what they do,' she said, referring to Newsom in a Fox News interview on Monday. 'Look at it out there. It looks like a third-world country.'
Chris Mirasola, a professor at the University of Houston Law Center, said the impact of Trump's current plan could be limited by practical considerations, including the number of military personnel available and the cost of paying National Guard troops on active duty.
"This ends up becoming extremely expensive very quickly," he added. The cost of the Los Angeles deployment alone is about $134 million, a defense department official said Tuesday.
Military personnel are also likely to have little training on how to approach a domestic protest.
"This is not in their normal mission set. There's always risk of escalation," which would only be more pronounced if the Insurrection Act was used, Mirasola added.
How is the Insurrection Act different?
If the president invokes the Insurrection Act, troops would not be limited to protecting federal property and personnel. Instead, they could have a much more active role on the streets, with a greater possibility of encountering civilians.
While troops may not be able to carry out all the functions of federal law enforcement officers, such as conducting immigration raids, they could potentially assist, Mirasola said.
There are also questions about whether the judiciary would intervene if Trump sought to use the Insurrection Act — or even who would have legal standing to sue to stop Trump.
Litigation in that scenario could mirror a legal fight that has already played out over the Trump administration's efforts to use a wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act, to swiftly deport certain immigrants without affording them due process.
The Supreme Court said due process is required, that detainees be given a proper chance to raise legal objections before a federal judge. But the court also said such lawsuits must be brought via habeas corpus claims from the individuals affected, not under a federal law called the Administrative Procedure Act.
Although Trump and his allies have referred to protesters in Los Angeles as "insurrectionists" there is no plan at the moment to invoke the Insurrection Act, a White House official told NBC News.
Speaking on Sunday about whether he would seek to use the law, Trump said there was not currently a reason to but did not rule it out in future.
'Depends on whether or not there's an insurrection," he said.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

US withdraws embassy staff as Israel ‘prepares strikes on Iran'
US withdraws embassy staff as Israel ‘prepares strikes on Iran'

Times

timean hour ago

  • Times

US withdraws embassy staff as Israel ‘prepares strikes on Iran'

The United States is scaling down embassy staff in the Middle East amid reports that Israel is preparing an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. The partial withdrawal was announced by President Trump, who said he was less confident now that negotiations with Iran would succeed. Non-essential staff at the American embassy in Iraq, which has come under attack by pro-Iranian militia in the past, have been ordered home, and military dependents in several neighbouring countries will be allowed to leave. 'They are being moved out because it could be a dangerous place, and we'll see what happens,' Trump told reporters. 'We've given notice to move out.' Pro-Iran militia in Iraq attacked the American embassy in Baghdad after a US drone strike killed the leading Iranian military commander, Qasem Soleimani, alongside an Iraqi militia leader as they left the Baghdad airport in January 2020.

Could Donald Trump scrap Aukus?
Could Donald Trump scrap Aukus?

Spectator

timean hour ago

  • Spectator

Could Donald Trump scrap Aukus?

America's policy undersecretary of defence, Elbridge Colby, is one of the brightest brains in Donald Trump's administration. Having served in the first Trump presidency, Colby has an outstanding reputation as a defence and strategic thinker. He is also, however, very much aligned with Trump's America First thinking in respect of foreign policy, and the United States' relationship with her allies. That would be a strategic disaster for Australia and Britain In tasking Colby on Wednesday with reviewing the Aukus nuclear submarine-centred strategic partnership between the US, the UK and Australia, the president sends a clear message to Britain and Australia: Aukus is part of his inheritance from Joe Biden, and its future therefore is far from assured. In a media statement, the Pentagon said: 'The department is reviewing Aukus as part of ensuring that this initiative of the previous administration is aligned with the president's America First agenda. As (Defense) Secretary (Pete) Hegseth has made clear, this means ensuring the highest readiness of our service members, that allies step up fully to do their part for collective defence, and that the defence industrial base is meeting our needs. This review will ensure the initiative meets these common sense, America First criteria.' Colby himself has been ambivalent about Aukus ever since it was established by Biden, and then Australian and British prime ministers, Scott Morrison and Rishi Sunak, in 2021. Addressing a Policy Exchange forum last year, Colby said he was 'quite sceptical' about the Aukus pact, and questioned its viability and ultimate benefits. In a more recent interview with the Australian newspaper, Colby said Aukus's Pillar 1 – the nuclear submarine programme under which Australia would purchase several Virginia-class boats, pending the acquisition of new generation UK-Australian Acute-class submarines – is 'very problematic'. He did say, however, that Pillar 2 – the sharing of military intelligence and technical know-how between the partners – 'is great, no problem'. Colby's long-standing concern is the US's ability to take on China if it ever comes to conflict in the Asia-Pacific, especially over Taiwan. 'How are we supposed to give away nuclear attack submarines in the years of the window of potential conflict with China?' he told the Australian. 'A nuclear attack submarine is the most important asset for a western Pacific fight, for Taiwan, conventionally. But we don't have enough, and we're not going to have enough.' If this is the starting position for Colby's review, its scepticism contradicts the steadfast commitment to Aukus from the current Australian and British Labour governments. Indeed, Britain's latest Strategic Defence Review places high priority on the Aukus partnership as an integral element of British strategic and force planning. Given Colby's previous form on Aukus, the review may well recommend scaling back or discontinuing the nuclear submarine Aukus pillar. But that would be a strategic disaster for Australia and Britain, let alone for Colby's own strategic vision, outlined in his 2021 book, of an 'anti-hegemonic coalition to contain the military ambitions of China', in which he specifically envisioned Australia. Arguably, it doesn't matter which country mans the attack nuclear submarines assigned to the Asia-Pacific theatre, as long as the boats are there. But will Colby see it that way? In Australia, however, the administration's announcement immediately set a cat amongst the pigeons. Currently, Australia spends just over two per cent of GDP on defence, and the Trump administration, including Colby, is pressuring on Australia to do far more. This month, Hegseth, told his Australian counterpart that Australia should be committing at least 3.5 per cent of GDP to ensure not just Aukus, but that her fighting personnel and ageing military hardware are fit for purpose and contributing commensurately to the Western alliance. After his face-to-face meeting with Hegseth, Australian defence minister Richard Marles seemed open to the suggestion. His prime minister, Anthony Albanese, is not. In his first major media appearance since his thumping election win a month ago, Albanese was asked whether the US could renege on supplying nuclear submarines to Australia if spending is deemed inadequate. 'Well, I think Australia should decide on what we spend on Australia's defence. Simple as that', Albanese replied. It hasn't escaped notice here that the Pentagon announced its Aukus review less than 48 hours after Albanese made his declaration, and just days before the Australian prime minister is expected to have his first personal meeting with Trump at the G7 Leaders' Summit in Canada. That meeting, carrying the risk of a public Trump rebuke, surely will be dreaded by Albanese. Dealing with the Americans' insistence on a near-doubling of Australia's defence investment is politically diabolical for Albanese. He has just won re-election on a manifesto promising huge additional social investments, especially in Australia's version of the NHS and a fiscally ravenous National Disability Insurance Scheme. Albanese must keep his left-wing support base onside by expanding already huge public investments and subsidies in pursuing his government's ideological Net Zero and 100 per cent renewable energy goals. All that on top of a burgeoning national debt. To achieve Nato's GDP defence spending target of 3 per cent, let alone Hegseth's 3.5, something has to give. Albanese cannot deliver both massive social spending and vast defence outlays: to keep the Americans happy, and justify the continuation of both Aukus pillars, he will need to either prove himself a Bismarck-calibre statesman, or risk electoral wrath if he retreats on his domestic spending promises, and cuts existing programmes across his government, to afford adequate defence spending headroom. Australia needs America to be a strong ally in our troubled region, but the United States needs steadfast allies like Australia and Britain. Now the administration's scepticism about Aukus's value to the US is officially on the table, with a review entrusted to its biggest Aukus sceptic in Elbridge Colby, Australia and Britain must justify why all aspects of the partnership are a worthwhile investment with them, as America's partners, committed to playing their part in full. How well they do it will be a measure of their political and diplomatic competence.

Do I need tickets for Trump's military parade? What to know
Do I need tickets for Trump's military parade? What to know

The Herald Scotland

timean hour ago

  • The Herald Scotland

Do I need tickets for Trump's military parade? What to know

The "Grand Military Parade and Celebration," which will feature Army equipment, flyovers and thousands of soldiers in uniforms from the past and the present, caps off a week of programming designed to celebrate the military's enduring legacy. Trump has promised the event will be "unforgettable," and one "like you've never seen before." "It's gonna be something very, very special," Trump said in a June 6 video posted to Truth Social. "I don't think we've ever done one quite like this. We're gonna be celebrating the Army and our military." Here's how to get tickets. More: Trump warns would-be protesters on Army's 250th birthday celebration of 'heavy force' When, where will Trump's military parade take place? The "Grand Military Parade" is scheduled to take place on Saturday, June 14, in the heart of Washington, D.C. The procession route will span six blocks, bisecting the National Mall. The three-hour event will take place on Constitution Avenue NW between15th Street and 23rd Street. Here is a graphic of the parade route. The parade and celebration will commence at 6:30 p.m. ET, but guests will be allowed in as early as 2 p.m. ET on the day of the parade, according to the U.S. Army. The procession will cross in front of Trump's viewing stand on Constitution Avenue, just south of the White House, around sundown. A parachute demonstration by the Golden Knights and a fireworks display will conclude the evening's festivities. The president is also expected to attend an enlistment and re-enlistment ceremony after the parade. Do I need tickets for Trump's military parade? Not necessarily. However, those who register for tickets on the U.S. Army's event website will likely get the best view of the procession. According to the U.S. Army, guests are invited to convene along the parade route or view from the Washington Monument Grounds. How to get tickets for Trump's military parade Tickets for the parade are limited, but those interested in attending the parade on June 14 can RSVP here. Prospective attendees will be asked to provide their full name, phone number, email, state and zip code. How to watch Trump's military parade The U.S. Army will livestream all of the events for the 250th anniversary, including the parade, on all social media platforms for those who are unable to attend the celebration in person. Contributing: Kathryn Palmer, USA TODAY

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store