logo
What to know about Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to LA protests

What to know about Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to LA protests

President Donald Trump says he's deploying 2,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles to respond to immigration protests, over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom.
It's not the first time Trump has activated the National Guard to quell protests. In 2020, he asked governors of several states to send troops to Washington, D.C. to respond to demonstrations that arose after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officers. Many of the governors he asked agreed, sending troops to the federal district. The governors that refused the request were allowed to do so, keeping their troops on home soil.
This time, however, Trump is acting in opposition to Newsom, who under normal circumstances would retain control and command of California's National Guard. While Trump said that federalizing the troops was necessary to 'address the lawlessness' in California, the Democratic governor said the move was 'purposely inflammatory and will only escalate tensions.'
Here are some things to know about when and how the president can deploy troops on U.S. soil.
The laws are a bit vague
Generally, federal military forces are not allowed to carry out civilian law enforcement duties against U.S. citizens except in times of emergency.
An 18th-century wartime law called the Insurrection Act is the main legal mechanism that a president can use to activate the military or National Guard during times of rebellion or unrest. But Trump didn't invoke the Insurrection Act on Saturday.
The National Guard is a hybrid entity that serves both state and federal interests. Often it operates under state command and control, using state funding. Sometimes National Guard troops will be assigned by their state to serve federal missions, remaining under state command but using federal funding.
The law cited by Trump's proclamation places National Guard troops under federal command. The law says that can be done under three circumstances: When the U.S. is invaded or in danger of invasion; when there is a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority of the U.S. government, or when the President is unable to 'execute the laws of the United States,' with regular forces.
But the law also says that orders for those purposes 'shall be issued through the governors of the States.' It's not immediately clear if the president can activate National Guard troops without the order of that state's governor.
The role of the National Guard troops will be limited
Steve Vladeck, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in military justice and national security law, says that's because the National Guard troops can't legally engage in ordinary law enforcement activities unless Trump first invokes the Insurrection Act.
Vladeck said the move raises the risk that the troops could end up using force while filling that 'protection' role. The move could also be a precursor to other, more aggressive troop deployments down the road, he wrote on his website.
'There's nothing these troops will be allowed to do that, for example, the ICE officers against whom these protests have been directed could not do themselves,' Vladeck wrote.
Troops have been mobilized before
The Insurrection Act and related laws were used during the Civil Rights era to protect activists and students desegregating schools. President Dwight Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock, Arkansas, to protect Black students integrating Central High School after that state's governor activated the National Guard to keep the students out.
George H.W. Bush used 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.
National Guard troops have been deployed for a variety of emergencies, including the COVID pandemic, hurricanes and other natural disasters. But generally, those deployments are carried out with the agreements of the governors of the responding states.
Trump is willing to use the military on home soil
In 2020, Trump asked governors of several states to deploy their National Guard troops to Washington, D.C. to quell protests that arose after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officers. Many of the governors agreed, sending troops to the federal district.
At the time, Trump also threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act for protests following Floyd's death in Minneapolis – an intervention rarely seen in modern American history. But then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper pushed back, saying the law should be invoked 'only in the most urgent and dire of situations.'
Trump never did invoke the Insurrection Act during his first term.
But while campaigning for his second term, he suggested that would change. Trump told an audience in Iowa in 2023 that he was prevented from using the military to suppress violence in cities and states during his first term, and said if the issue came up again in his next term, 'I'm not waiting.'
Trump also promised to deploy the National Guard to help carry out his immigration enforcement goals, and his top adviser Stephen Miller explained how that would be carried out: Troops under sympathetic Republican governors would send troops to nearby states that refuse to participate, Miller said on 'The Charlie Kirk Show,' in 2023.
After Trump announced he was federalizing the National Guard troops on Saturday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said other measures could follow.
Hegseth wrote on the social media platform X that active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton were on high alert and would also be mobilized 'if violence continues.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Worried about a stock market crash? The Big Short's Michael Burry was…
Worried about a stock market crash? The Big Short's Michael Burry was…

Yahoo

time31 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Worried about a stock market crash? The Big Short's Michael Burry was…

The UK and US stock markets are once again approaching all-time highs. Markets have truly rebounded since Trump shocked the world with his trade policy. However, this rebound concerns me. These stock markets are trading near all-time highs despite a huge increase in the average effective US tariff, despite worsening geopolitical tensions, and despite sovereign debt concerns. Personally, I'm not sure investors have truly factored in the full impact of recent tariff increases on corporate earnings. Over the past year, average effective tariff rates have risen significantly, reaching levels not seen since the late 1930s. Under the Biden Administration, the average effective tariff rate was around 2.5%-2.7%. In May, that figure had risen to almost 20%. These tariffs have introduced new costs for businesses that rely on international supply chains. However, I just don't believe we've really seen the impact of them yet. After all, 'Liberation Day' took place at the beginning of Q2, and we're still in Q2. The full earnings impact of these tariffs is expected to become more visible in the second half of 2025, as companies report on their financial results and adjust to the new cost structures. Michael Burry, best known for predicting and profiting from the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis — a story retold in The Big Short — sold nearly all positions at Scion Asset Management in the quarter ending 31 March 2025. This move, alongside concentrated bearish bets through put options — bets that a stock will go down — on major tech and Chinese stocks, seemingly reflected his conviction that the market was sinking. Burry's only notable long was Estée Lauder, suggesting a defensive stance. However, 13F filings only show holdings as of 31 March, so his actions after that date remain unknown. As we know, the market slumped in early April but has since recovered. Within this context, I'm increasing looking at defensive options. I could look at farming stocks like Pilgrim's Pride, for example, which could outperform in a downturn. However, one option closer to home is the National Grid (LSE:NG.). The company recently reported strong financial results for the fiscal year 2025, with statutory and underlying pre-tax profit up 20%. The company is also investing heavily in its infrastructure, with a capital expenditure plan of £10bn aimed at modernising the energy grid and supporting the transition to renewable energy sources. This investment is part of a broader strategy to expand its regulated asset base, which is expected to grow by around 10% annually over the next few years. It does, however, introduce additional execution risk. Net debt is already £47.5bn — very sizeable. It's also not particularly cheap on face value. The stock trades at 14 times forward earnings, which may be a little demanding when we consider debt is on par with market capitalisation. Nonetheless, the forward dividend looks strong at 4.6%. The National Grid is not a stock I'd normally watch, but given my concerns about the potential overheating of the market, it's something I'm adding to my watchlist. It may be worth considering. The post Worried about a stock market crash? The Big Short's Michael Burry was… appeared first on The Motley Fool UK. More reading 5 Stocks For Trying To Build Wealth After 50 One Top Growth Stock from the Motley Fool James Fox has no position in any of the shares mentioned. The Motley Fool UK has recommended National Grid Plc. Views expressed on the companies mentioned in this article are those of the writer and therefore may differ from the official recommendations we make in our subscription services such as Share Advisor, Hidden Winners and Pro. Here at The Motley Fool we believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. Motley Fool UK 2025 Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Stay strong, Harvard
Stay strong, Harvard

Boston Globe

time33 minutes ago

  • Boston Globe

Stay strong, Harvard

Peabody Sadly, it is not surprising that the Trump White House is crying antisemitism at Harvard while simultaneously trying to oust Harvard's two most prominent (and Jewish) leaders. I fervently hope that Harvard, Garber, and Pritzker continue to stand strong. Dana Holmberg Middleborough The Trump administration has anonymously stated that 'no deal' can be made with Harvard as long as Alan Garber and Penny Pritzker remain in their positions. Both Garber and Pritzker are Jewish. To the best of my knowledge, no other university in the country is facing the same levels of harassment from the federal government as Harvard. It is time stop hiding behind the masquerade the government is using: claiming it is protecting Jewish students. This has been a lie from the first day the government took aim at Harvard. Advertisement Ed Mann Framingham

Ben Crump Says Donald Trump's Spending Bill is Terrible Amid Elon Musk Feud
Ben Crump Says Donald Trump's Spending Bill is Terrible Amid Elon Musk Feud

Yahoo

time36 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Ben Crump Says Donald Trump's Spending Bill is Terrible Amid Elon Musk Feud

Ben Crump's picked his side in the Elon Musk and Donald Trump beef ... but, he's not backing a personality, he says he's backing the better idea -- and, he doesn't want the "One Big Beautiful Bill" to pass through the Senate. We caught up with the civil rights activist and attorney and asked him about the fight between POTUS and his former advisor ... and, he doesn't directly say he's on Elon's side -- but, he does think this spending bill is terrible. Crump rips the bill for making cuts to Medicaid -- the medical assistance program for people with lower incomes. BC says the world needs more humanity for all people ... instead of making the life of individuals struggling financially more difficult. As you know ... Elon lost his cool about this spending bill earlier this week -- firing off shots at the president and claiming Trump only won reelection because of his efforts. President Trump called BS on that idea ... but, Elon pushed on and claimed the real reason the administration hasn't released the so-called Epstein files is because the president's name is all over them. He's since deleted the post where he wrote that ... but, today Trump warned of serious consequences if Elon decides to support Dems who are running against Republicans who vote for the bill. BTW ... we also asked Crump about Trump potentially pardoning Diddy -- and, it sounds like Crump's staying out of that one, too. Bottom line ... back the idea, not the man -- that's the Ben Crump way!

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