If the LA protests are so dangerous, why isn't Trump deploying the Insurrection Act?
In 1992, Los Angeles was on fire, with people dying, when President H.W. Bush federalized the National Guard, invoked the Insurrection Act and sent active-duty Marines to help California Gov. Pete Wilson quell the violence of the Rodney King riots — at Wilson's request.
In stark contrast, despite claiming that there are 'violent, insurrectionist mobs' here in Los Angeles, and despite having preemptively federalized National Guard troops over the weekend (now numbering approximately 4,000) and ordering them to Los Angeles, Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act. And unlike Bush in 1992, Trump hasn't given these deployed troops the law enforcement authorities needed in such a situation — powers they are legally barred from exercising currently — despite having sent 700 active-duty Marines to ostensibly protect federal assets from these claimed mobs.
This means that America is witnessing federal troops deployed to our nation's second largest city to keep law and order without the requisite legal authorities, and without the governor's request or support.
Indeed, if the National Guard had remained under the command of the California governor, guard troops would have had law enforcement authority, as assisting and conducting law enforcement is one of their missions when serving their governor and state. However, now that they are federalized, they (along with the Marines deployed to Los Angeles) do not have law enforcement power. Hence, they cannot pursue real law and order through policing action.
This situation is therefore extraordinary, and implicates a historic fear of the president exploiting the military to suppress civil liberties and go after political opponents.
The active federal American military, going back to our nation's inception, has been viewed as something to fear if deployed on our city streets. The founding fathers and generations of Americans since the Declaration of Independence have viewed the use of federal troops to police American cities as a tool of tyranny — just think of the Red Coats ransacking American colonists' homes. This aversion to using the military to conduct domestic law enforcement is statutorily found in the Reconstruction-era Posse Comitatus Act, a federal law that strictly prohibits using the federal military (including federalized National Guard troops) to police city streets or otherwise engage in law enforcement activities.
There are legal exceptions to bypass this prohibition, of course. These exceptions recognize that the president may need, in time of invasion, rebellion and unlawful assemblies that impede federal law, flexible legal and practical tools, including military assets. The Insurrection Act is the statutory exception historically used in such violent emergencies, such as 1992 during the L.A. riots when it was last invoked, to provide legal authority for federal troops to help local law enforcement deal with civil unrest.
Yet it's not been invoked here. It is highly unusual that the president has repeatedly outlined a need for military forces in Los Angeles — despite the fact that most of the anti-immigration protests have been peaceful — yet has not given those forces the legal authorities that they need to actually deal with said need.
Practically speaking, Trump is putting these troops in a dangerous situation. What are the Marine's and federalized National Guard's command, control and coordination systems, particularly with the Los Angeles Police Department and other local law enforcement who are fully trained to do this job? What are their rules for use of force — are they the military's Standing Rules for Use of Force that specify they are to be used in law enforcement situations, despite this deployed force not having law enforcement authority? Are they properly trained and equipped for this job of protecting federal assets, given that Marines are trained in crowd control in combat situations, not domestic policing under the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution? What force are they prepared to use, and how, in response to protestors potentially becoming violent?
Furthermore, what can these troops actually do to protect federal property and people? According to federal case law, because military forces working for the president cannot engage in law enforcement activities, they cannot engage in arrests, searches or seizures. Yet if there are actually violent insurrectionist mobs in Los Angeles — I was at the protests, I didn't see anything of the kind — wouldn't we want them arrested?
The deployment of troops instead has been unnecessary, wasteful, distracting and potentially harmful to both deployed troops and the local and state law enforcement personnel who are patrolling the streets and dealing with protestors. It adds command, control and coordination complexity to the mix, and takes away a resource from the governor (i.e., his own National Guard units under his command that would have law enforcement power).
Perhaps Trump is hoping violence erupts so he can declare martial law, or that so he can order troops to arrest people without resorting to the Insurrection Act, perhaps even claiming inherent constitutional power to enforce the law. This potential end run around the few legal safeguards established to keep the use of the military on our city streets limited to truly emergency and extraordinary circumstances is more than alarming, and must be loudly condemned.
Rachel E. VanLandingham, Lt. Col., USAF (ret.), is Irwin R. Buchalter Professor of Law at Southwestern Law School and president emerita and current director of the National Institute of Military Justice.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
a minute ago
- CNBC
States brace for less disaster relief aid as Trump administration reshapes FEMA
The Trump administration is quickly reshaping the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, in ways that carry vast implications for state and local governments. "We're going to give out less money. We're going to give it out directly. It'll be from the president's office," President Donald Trump said at a press conference June 11. The agency is responsible for coordinating response and recovery in disasters that range from floods to wildfires to terrorist attacks. The agency reported a total budget authority of $60 billion in fiscal year 2025. Federal spending on disaster relief often draws supplemental appropriations from Congress. Critics of FEMA say the agency is slow to pay out victims and provide guidance for communities in the process of rebuilding. "We've recommended for years that they work on streamlining their recovery programs, that they better coordinate their programs so communities and survivors don't have to navigate multiple federal bureaucratic programs. And honestly, they just have not been able to do it," Chris Currie, a director at the Government Accountability Office, said in an interview with CNBC. FEMA is currently managing more than 600 open disaster declarations, some of which date back almost 20 years, according to a Government Accountability Office report published in March. The spending, according to FEMA, includes $80 million in fiscal year 2025 for recovery from Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma, which devastated huge swaths of the Gulf Coast in 2005. Cuts in federal funding for disaster relief would put the burden on state and local governments in areas affected by disasters. When Hurricane Helene hit the U.S. in late September 2024, it caused $59.6 billion in damage in North Carolina, according to the Governor's Recovery Office for Western North Carolina. As of May 2025, the federal government had provided about $3.7 billion in recovery funds — approximately 6.2% of the total cost of the damage, according to Democratic Gov. Josh Stein's office. A FEMA spokesperson said in a statement to CNBC, "FEMA's principles for emergency management assert that disasters are best managed when they're federally supported, state managed and locally executed." Much work remains nearly a year after Helene damaged many parts of western North Carolina. More than 73,000 homes were damaged, according to an April report from Rep. Chuck Edwards, R-N.C. Major roadways were also damaged, including a stretch of I-40, and the state needs additional federal funds to cover the cost of road repairs, Edwards' report said. The average income in the disaster area ranges from $35,809 to $55,607, depending on the county, Edwards' report said. "To not have FEMA means that now local governments will have to deal with disaster, and it's always bigger than the revenues of the local government," said Sarah Wells Rolland, founder and owner of the Village Potters Clay Center in Asheville, North Carolina. "For the funding to be taken away I think is a colossal disaster." Wells Rolland said her business operated in Asheville's River Arts District for 13 years before Hurricane Helene passed through town. The business was destroyed by more than 24 feet of flood waters, according to NOAA. The Village Potters Clay Center, which generated about $743,000 in annual revenues in 2023, documented almost $200,000 in equipment losses, according to Wells Rolland. The business had flood insurance through FEMA's National Flood Insurance Policy and received a payment of $165,000, according to Wells Rolland. She plans to reopen this fall in a new location on higher ground. "We're an economic driver for tourism, hospitality, restaurants, regional development, you know, so we're an essential part of our economic community," said Jeffrey Burroughs, president of the River Arts District Association. "If we can't take on another loan, how do we get the funding to help sustain us so that we can stay open?" Watch the video above to see how FEMA could evolve in the coming years.
WIRED
a minute ago
- WIRED
The PlayStation 5 Is About to Get More Expensive
Starting August 21 in the US, every edition will cost $50 more than it did the day before, thanks to Trump's tariffs. People walk past a display case (L) showing a new PlayStation 5, in the lobby of the Sony headquarters building in central Tokyo. Photograph: RICHARD A. BROOKS; Getty Images Tech companies are continuing to feel the impact of President Donald Trump's tariffs, this time in the gaming sector. Sony announced today that all editions of the PlayStation 5 will now cost $50 more in less than 24 hours. New prices take effect August 21. Under Sony's new pricing, a standard PlayStation 5 will cost $549.99; a digital edition $499.99; and the PlayStation 5 Pro, the most powerful of the bunch, will soon be $749.99. Those changes only apply to the United States; accessories will not be affected. 'Similar to many global businesses, we continue to navigate a challenging economic environment,' wrote Isabelle Tomatis, Sony Interactive Entertainment's vice president of global marketing, in a brief announcement. Daniel Ahmad, , director of research and insight at Niko Partners, tells WIRED that although Sony has been proactive in taking steps to avoid tariff impacts on its consoles—including stockpiling units in the US and diversifying its manufacturing sources—the company is still affected. 'With stockpiles running low, the company is making the decision to pass on the cost of these tariffs and additional costs to consumers in the US,' Ahmad says. Tariffs on those consoles range from 15 percent in Japan to up to 30 percent in China. Since Trump announced sweeping tariffs in April, game companies have scrambled to keep up. Microsoft announced higher prices for Xbox consoles and games in May due to 'market conditions.' In an unprecedented move, Nintendo temporarily delayed pre-orders on the Switch 2 days after its official unveiling. Although the Switch 2 price has not yet been affected by tariffs, Nintendo raised the price of the original Switch on August 3, also citing the market. Sony's decision 'mirrors' Xbox and Nintendo's recent increases for its own consoles, Ahmad says. 'It's worth noting that tariff negotiations are still ongoing for some countries,' he says, pointing to a 90 day pause on China tariffs. 'If a deal is not signed between the two countries, it could lead to an increase in the tariff rate.' In other words, more increases could be on the way.
CNN
a minute ago
- CNN
DC residents feel less safe after Trump takeover: poll
Roughly 8 in 10 Washington, DC, residents oppose President Donald Trump ordering the federal government to take control of the city's police department as well as his deployment of the National Guard and FBI to patrol the city, a new Washington Post-Schar School poll finds. Notably, more than half of those living in the capital city have noticed the increased federal presence and 61% of those people feel less safe as a result of Trump's action. The figures go against the narrative Trump and other top administration officials have touted about the impact of the federal takeover. 'We went from the most unsafe place anywhere to a place that now people, friends are calling me up, Democrats are calling me up, and they're saying, 'Sir, I want to thank you. My wife and I went out to dinner last night for the first time in four years, and Washington, DC, is safe. And you did that in four days,'' Trump said at the White House on Monday. Overall, a 79% majority of DC residents oppose Trump's order, according to the survey, with just 17% supportive of the decision. Most, 69%, say they're strongly opposed. DC residents say, 65% to 20%, that they don't think Trump's actions will reduce the amount of violent crime in the city. By contrast, majorities say they think increased economic opportunities in poor neighborhoods (77%), stricter national gun laws (70%), an increased number of Metropolitan Police officers patrolling communities (63%) and using outreach workers to resolve disputes (57%) would help to reduce violent crime. Trump, who was supported by just over 6% of DC voters in last year's presidential election, remains broadly unpopular in the District, the poll finds, with his overall job approval rating now standing at just 15% among all residents. The poll also finds a significant shift in DC residents' attitudes toward crime since this spring, perhaps reflecting the changing political context of the question — just 31% now describe crime as an extremely or very serious problem in the District (down from 50%) and a 54% majority say they believe the problem of crime in the city is improving (up from 29%). Among the 35% of residents who say they, a family member, or a close friend has been a victim of crime in the past five years, support for Trump's actions stands at 34%, compared with 8% support among those who do not know a recent crime victim. About half of residents say Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser should be doing more to oppose Trump, with 30% saying she is handling things about right and 12% that she should be more supportive. A 71% majority also say DC police should not help the federal government much or at all to deport undocumented immigrants living in the city. Local police officers have been seen participating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement checkpoints over the past week. Bowser's rating stands at 53%, unchanged from a May survey, with 54% saying that DC police are doing a good or excellent job. The Washington Post-Schar School poll was conducted August 14-17 and surveyed 604 DC residents through a combination of live phone interviews and online surveys. Results for the full sample have a margin of error of +/- 4.1 percentage points.
