Can the President Activate a State's National Guard?
President Donald Trump's mobilization of the National Guard to quell immigration-related protests in Los Angeles marks a rare—and controversial—exercise of presidential power.
Trump's decision to make the deployment against the wishes of California Gov. Gavin Newsom is especially unusual.
The move marks the first time in 60 years that a President has called up National Guard troops to a state without a request from its governor. Newsom confirmed he didn't ask for the mobilization, saying in a post on X on Sunday that he had formally requested that the Trump Administration rescind what he called an 'unlawful deployment of troops in Los Angeles county and return them to my command.' The Democratic governor called the move 'a serious breach of state sovereignty,' and told MSNBC that he plans to file a lawsuit against the Administration.
The decision to activate the National Guard came as thousands of demonstrators across Los Angeles county over the weekend protested Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids that targeted undocumented immigrants. While the protests had been largely peaceful, some of the demonstrations escalated: Rocks and Molotov cocktails were thrown, cars were vandalized, and law enforcement officials deployed crowd control agents including tear gas, 'flash bang' grenades, and rubber bullets.
Read More: Gavin Newsom Says Trump 'Manufactured' Crisis in California, Announces Legal Challenge Over National Guard Order
Though National Guard troops are typically controlled by state governors, the President does have the authority to deploy them in certain circumstances, including in response to civil unrest. It's a power that has existed in some form almost as long as the country itself, dating back to 1792, though it has been used only sparingly in the centuries since.
The deployment of the National Guard in those instances has usually come at the request of state officials—thought not always. The last time a President mobilized the troops without the governor's consent was in 1965, when then-President Lyndon B. Johnson deployed National Guard troops to Alabama, without a request from the state's governor, in order to protect civil rights activists who were marching from Selma to Montgomery, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. Alabama's governor at the time, Democrat George Wallace, didn't want to use state funds to protect the demonstrators. Johnson invoked the Insurrection Act, which authorizes the President to deploy military forces domestically to suppress rebellion or domestic violence or in certain other situations.
The Insurrection Act 'is the primary exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, under which federal military forces are generally barred from participating in civilian law enforcement activities,' according to the Brennan Center for Justice.
The last time the Insurrection Act was invoked was in 1992, when then-President George H.W. Bush called up National Guard troops to quell riots in Los Angeles that were sparked by the acquittal of the four white police officers charged in the beating of Rodney King, an unarmed Black man. Then-California Gov. Pete Wilson had requested the federal aid.
Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act, but he didn't rule out the possibility of doing so in the future.
'Depends on whether or not there's an insurrection,' Trump said, responding to a reporter's question about whether he was prepared to invoke the law. 'We're not going to let them get away with it.'
To mobilize the National Guard troops this weekend, he instead invoked Title 10, Section 12406 of the U.S. Code, which allows for the federal deployment of National Guard forces in limited circumstances, including if 'there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.' The provision states that the President may call the troops 'in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws.' But it also states, 'Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.'
The Trump Administration's move sparked controversy, with many Democratic politicians and advocacy organizations blasting the decision. Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts said in a post on X that deploying National Guard troops 'over the objection of California leaders is an abuse of power and a dangerous escalation.'
'It's what you would see in authoritarian states and it must stop,' she continued.
Legal experts also expressed concern over the Trump Administration's actions.
'For the federal government to take over the California National Guard, without the request of the governor, to put down protests is truly chilling,' Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the law school at the University of California, Berkeley, told the New York Times.
Steve Vladeck, a Georgetown University Law Center professor specializing in military justice and national security law, called the move 'alarming' in a post on his website, saying there is a possibility that putting federal authorities on the ground 'will only raise the risk of escalating violence' and that the National Guard's mobilization could be intended as a 'precursor' to justify a more aggressive deployment in the future if it fails.
'The law may well allow President Trump to do what he did Saturday night,' Vladeck wrote. 'But just because something is legal does not mean that it is wise—for the present or future of our Republic.'
Contact us at letters@time.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
13 minutes ago
- New York Post
Looks like it's up to Hochul to kill the monstrous ‘assisted suicide' bill
New York is on track to become the 12th state to legalize 'assisted suicide' — and with the most radical law yet. The state Senate was rushing to vote late Monday on Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal's Medical Aid in Dying Act, with insiders certain the wheels were fully greased for passage. So it'll be up to Gov. Kathy Hochul to wield her veto and prevent a disgraceful mistake. Again, the New York bill breaks new ground — or sinks to a newer low. All 11 other states (Delaware became No. 11 last month) require a waiting period before you get your suicide-meds prescription filled; it's 15 days in Oregon but could be less than 24 hours in New York. The Empire State bill also has no real mechanism for tracking how many deaths it brings: Some commissioner is supposed to review a 'sample' of patient medical records and produce a yearly report to the Legislature on how it's going; that's it. Beyond the details, this is fundamentally about a reinvention of the medical profession: Out goes 'do no harm,' in comes a 'calculation' as to whether a given life is still worth living. With the state, and insurance companies, having a clear financial interest in ending 'marginal' lives and those whose care costs 'too much.' Anyone who wants to die can, in fact, find a way: This is purely about giving 'assisted suicide' the moral force of law, a big first step on the way to euthanasia for those with chronic conditions — even Alzheimer's. Canada is about to expand its law to allow 'doctor-assisted' killing in some cases where the underlying condition is mental disease, such as depression or anxiety. Advocates claim New York's bill covers only people with terminal diagnoses and six months or less to live — but 'terminal' isn't as exact a term as it sounds, and any diagnosis is simply a doctor's best guess. It's entirely appropriate that the chief Democratic resistance to this bill has been among lawmakers of color: Philosophically as well as historically, euthanasia is intimately connected with eugenics. That is: The same geniuses who imagine that humanity can be 'scientifically' improved by eliminating 'inferior characteristics' from the breeding pool also tend to think 'experts' can calculate which lives have values less than zero. Embrace that pseudo-mathematics, and soon enough the smart set will be busy 'helping' the disabled and those suffering chronic illnesses to 'realize' they're better off ending their lives. We have no idea what back-room deals suddenly made this bill a priority at the very end of the legislative session; it certainly wasn't any shift in public opinion. Hochul should do the right thing and kill the bill: At the very least, that'll force its supporters to explain why New York must have fewer safeguards than any state against abuse of a law that turns doctors into executioners.
Buzz Feed
17 minutes ago
- Buzz Feed
Obama Calls Out MAGA Double Standards In Viral Clip
In a now-viral clip, former President Barack Obama shared what he described as a clear double standard between himself and Donald Trump, arguing that if he had taken the same actions as Trump is, backlash would have been immediate and intense. "Imagine if I had done any of this," Obama said during a panel discussion at Hamilton College. "Imagine if I had pulled Fox News's credentials from the White House press corps," he continued. He paused as the audience chuckled. "You're laughing, but no. This is what's happened." In February 2025, Trump indefinitely banned Associated Press journalists from places like the Oval Office and Air Force One after they refused to use the term "Gulf of America." He continued, "Imagine if I had said to law firms that were representing parties that were upset with policies my administration had initiated, that you will not be allowed into government buildings." For context, Trump issued executive orders targeting major law firms that barred these firms from entering federal buildings, stripped them of security clearances, and threatened contracts. These orders have widely been regarded as retaliatory, meant to punish firms whose clients oppose Trump or his policies. The former president then imagined what it would have looked like if he punished dissent more broadly: "We will punish you economically for dissenting from the Affordable Care Act or the Iran deal. We will ferret out students who protest against my policies." And yet, under Trump, that's exactly what's happening. Hundreds of international students protesting the war in Gaza have had their visas revoked, with many detained or arrested by ICE. His administration has also threatened severe federal funding cuts to universities that allow such protests, most notably Columbia University, which saw $400 million in federal grants revoked amid accusations of noncompliance. "It's unimaginable that the same parties that are silent now would have tolerated behavior like that for me or a whole bunch of my predecessors," he said. "I say this not on a partisan basis," he continued. "This has to do with something more precious, which is, who are we as a country, and what values do we stand for?" Online, commenters echoed Obama's sentiments, pointing to the vastly different reactions he faced as president. "Obama would have been impeached in 3 seconds if he had done 1% of what is going on now. Where are the former presidents? Are they not going to speak up?" one wrote. Others also recalled the trivial controversies Obama's critics focused on during his presidency, such as his choice to wear a tan suit, a fist bump with Michelle Obama, and how he ordered a burger (with Dijon mustard), all of which sparked media frenzies. Ah yes, the good old days when ordering your burger with Dijon was basically an offensible crime. One viral comment summed it all up: "Maga era brainwashing will be closely studied in our history." More than a decade after "Dijongate" — when the first Black president was criticized for something as trivial as mustard on a burger — we now find ourselves in a political moment where the extraordinary has become disturbingly normal. A convicted felon leads a self-proclaimed "law and order" administration, and yet, the outrage is selective. So the question remains: What will we accept next, and who, if anyone, will be held accountable? Let us know your thoughts in the comments.
San Francisco Chronicle
17 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
President Donald Trump pushes ahead with his maximalist immigration campaign in face of LA protests
WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump made no secret of his willingness to exert a maximalist approach to enforcing immigration laws and keeping order as he campaigned to return to the White House. The fulfillment of that pledge is now on full display in Los Angeles. The president has put hundreds of National Guard troops on the streets to quell protests over his administration's immigration raids, a deployment that state and city officials say has only inflamed tensions. Trump called up the California National Guard over the objections of Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom — the first time in 60 years a president has done so — and is deploying active-duty troops to support the guard. By overriding Newsom, Trump is already going beyond what he did to respond to Black Lives Matter protests in 2020, when he warned he could send troops to contain demonstrations that turned violent if governors in the states did not act to do so themselves. Trump said in September of that year that he 'can't call in the National Guard unless we're requested by a governor' and that 'we have to go by the laws.' But now, the past and current president is moving swiftly, with little internal restraint to test the bounds of his executive authority in order to deliver on his promise of mass deportations. What remains to be seen is whether Americans will stand by him once it's operationalized nationwide, as Trump looks to secure billions from Congress to dramatically expand the country's detention and deportation operations. For now, Trump is betting that they will. 'If we didn't do the job, that place would be burning down," Trump told reporters Monday, speaking about California. 'I feel we had no choice. ... I don't want to see what happened so many times in this country.' 'A crisis of Trump's own making' The protests began to unfold Friday as federal authorities arrested immigrants in several locations throughout the sprawling city, including in the fashion district of Los Angeles and at a Home Depot. The anger over the administration's actions quickly spread, with protests in Chicago and Boston as demonstrations in the southern California city also continued Monday. But Trump and other administration officials remained unbowed, capitalizing on the images of burning cars, graffiti and Mexican flags — which, while not dominant, started to become the defining images of the unrest — to bolster their law-and-order cause. Leaders in the country's most populous state were similarly defiant. California officials moved Monday to sue the Trump administration, with the state's attorney general, Rob Bonta, arguing that the deployment of troops 'trampled' on the state's sovereignty and pushing for a restraining order. The initial deployment of 300 National Guard troops was expected to quickly expand to the full 2,000 that were authorized by Trump. The state's senior Democratic senator, Alex Padilla, said in an interview that 'this is absolutely a crisis of Trump's own making.' 'There are a lot of people who are passionate about speaking up for fundamental rights and respecting due process, but the deployment of National Guard only serves to escalate tensions and the situation,' Padilla told The Associated Press. 'It's exactly what Donald Trump wanted to do.' Padilla slammed the deployment as 'counterproductive' and said the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department was not advised ahead of the federalization of the National Guard. His office has also pushed the Pentagon for a justification on the deployment, and 'as far as we're told, the Department of Defense isn't sure what the mission is here," Padilla added. Candidate Trump previewed immigration strategy during campaign Much of this was predictable. During his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump pledged to conduct the largest domestic deportation operation in American history to expel millions of immigrants in the country without legal status. He often praised President Dwight D. Eisenhower's military-style immigration raids, and the candidate and his advisers suggested they would have broad power to deploy troops domestically to enact Trump's far-reaching immigration and public safety goals. Trump's speedy deployment in California of troops against those whom the president has alluded to as 'insurrectionists' on social media is a sharp contrast to his decision to issue no order or formal request for National Guard troops during the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, despite his repeated and false assertions that he had made such an offer. Trump is now surrounded by officials who have no interest in constraining his power. In 2020, Trump's then-Pentagon chief publicly rebuked Trump's threat to send in troops using the Insurrection Act, an 1807 law that empowers the president to use the military within the U.S. and against American citizens. Current Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth signaled support on his personal X account for deploying troops to California, writing, 'The National Guard, and Marines if need be, stand with ICE,' referring to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. The Defense Department said Monday it is deploying about 700 active-duty Marines to Los Angeles to support National Guard troops already on the ground to respond to the protests. White House responds to an 'incompetent' governor Protesters over the weekend blocked off a major freeway and burned self-driving cars as police responded with tear gas, rubber bullets and flash-bang grenades in clashes that encompassed several downtown blocks in Los Angeles and led to several dozen arrests. Much of the city saw no violence. But the protests prompted Trump to issue the directive Saturday mobilizing the California National Guard over Newsom's objections. The president and his top immigration aides accused the governor of mismanaging the protests, with border czar Tom Homan asserting in a Fox News interview Monday that Newsom stoked anti-ICE sentiments and waited two days to declare unlawful assembly in the city. Trump told Newsom in a phone call Friday evening to get the situation in Los Angeles under control, a White House official said. It was only when the administration felt Newsom was not restoring order in the city — and after Trump watched the situation escalate for 24 hours and White House officials saw imagery of federal law enforcement officers with lacerations and other injuries — that the president moved to deploy the Guard, according to the official, who was granted anonymity to discuss private deliberations. 'He's an incompetent governor,' Trump said Monday. 'Look at the job he's doing in California. He's destroying one of our great states.' Local law enforcement officials said Los Angeles police responded as quickly as they could once the protests erupted, and Newsom repeatedly asserted that state and city authorities had the situation under control. 'Los Angeles is no stranger to demonstrations and protests and rallies and marches,' Padilla said. 'Local law enforcement knows how to handle this and has a rapport with the community and community leaders to be able to allow for that.' The aggressive moves prompted blowback from some of Trump's erstwhile allies. Ileana Garcia, a Florida state senator who in 2016 founded the group Latinas for Trump and was hired to direct Latino outreach, called the recent escalation 'unacceptable and inhumane.' 'I understand the importance of deporting criminal aliens, but what we are witnessing are arbitrary measures to hunt down people who are complying with their immigration hearings — in many cases, with credible fear of persecution claims — all driven by a Miller-like desire to satisfy a self-fabricated deportation goal," said Garcia, referring to Stephen Miller, a White House deputy chief of staff and key architect of Trump's immigration crackdown. The tactics could be just a preview to what more could come from the Trump administration and the Republican-controlled Congress. GOP lawmakers are working to pass a massive tax-and-border package that includes billions to hire thousands of new officers for Border Patrol and for ICE. The goal, under the Trump-backed plan, is to remove 1 million immigrants without status annually and house 100,000 people in immigration detention centers.
