In his own words: Trump said during 2024 campaign he would use military for immigration enforcement
President Donald Trump in recent days has sent thousands of National Guard troops and 700 active duty Marines to quell Los Angeles-area protests over immigration enforcement actions, despite the objections of Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom and local leaders.
Those troops soon could also be supporting immigration enforcement operations, including by holding secure perimeters around areas where raids are taking place and securing streets for immigration agents. That's according to Paul Eck, deputy general counsel in the California Military Department, who said in a court filing that the agency was informed the Pentagon plans to direct the California National Guard to start providing such support.
Those actions would be in line with what Trump pledged during last year's campaign, when as a candidate he promised the largest mass deportation effort the U.S. has seen, and said he would be willing to use military might to make it happen.
But Trump has changed his position since his 2020 presidential bid, namely around using the Insurrection Act to send military units to respond to unrest in the states.
Here's a look at how Trump has talked about use of the military when it comes to immigration — and how his position evolved — in his own words:
2025: 'If there's an insurrection, I would certainly invoke it'
'If there's an insurrection, I would certainly invoke it. We'll see. But I can tell you last night was terrible, and the night before that was terrible.' — Trump, Tuesday, to reporters in the Oval Office.
___
During an Oval Office engagement with reporters, Trump left open the possibility of invoking one of the most extreme emergency powers available to a U.S. president.
The Insurrection Act authorizes the president to deploy military forces inside the United States to suppress rebellion or domestic violence or to enforce the law in certain situations.
It is often referred to as the 'Insurrection Act of 1807,' but the law is actually an amalgamation of different statutes enacted by Congress between 1792 and 1871.
In calling up National Guard forces over Newsom's objections, Trump cited a legal provision that allows him to mobilize federal service members when there is 'a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.'
2024: 'I would have no problem using the military'
'If I thought things were getting out of control, I would have no problem using the military, per se. We have to have safety in our country. We have to have law and order in our country. And whichever gets us there, but I think the National Guard will do the job.' — Trump, April 30, 2024, interview with Time Magazine.
___
While campaigning in 2024, Trump said he would use the National Guard as part of efforts to deport millions of migrants across the country. He didn't say how he would carry out the operations and what role the National Guard would play, but added he would resort to the military if 'things were getting out of control.'
When asked to clarify if he would use the military inland, he said, 'I don't think I'd have to do that. I think the National Guard would be able to do that. If they weren't able to, then I'd use the military.'
Trump told Time that he would deport between 15 million and 20 million people who are in the country illegally. The foreign-born population, including immigrants in the country both legally and illegally, was estimated to be 46.2 million, or nearly 14% of the U.S. total, in 2022, according to the Census Bureau, which also reported about 11 million immigrants in the country illegally.
After winning the November election, the possible contours of Trump's incoming administration and how it would handle issues, including immigration, began to take greater shape.
On Nov. 17, after conservative activist Tom Fitton proclaimed in a social media post that the incoming president 'will declare a national emergency and will use military assets to reverse the Biden invasion through a mass deportation program,' Trump replied: 'TRUE!!!'
On his first day back in office, Trump rolled out a blueprint to beef up security at the southern border in a series of executive orders that began taking effect soon after his Jan. 20 inauguration. Trump ordered the government, with Defense Department assistance, to 'finish' construction of the border wall and send troops to the border. He did not say how many would go — leaving it up to the defense secretary — or what their exact role would be.
His executive orders suggested the military would help the Department of Homeland Security with 'detention space, transportation (including aircraft), and other logistics services.' Trump directed the defense secretary to come up with a plan to 'seal the borders' and repel 'unlawful mass migration.'
2020: 'There's no reason to ever' make insurrection determination
'We have to go by the laws. We can't move in the National Guard. I can call insurrection, but there's no reason to ever do that.' — Trump, Sept. 15, 2020, in a town hall hosted by ABC News in Philadelphia.
___
Questioned during a 2020 election town hall about his campaign promise of restoring law and order, Trump said he could not activate the National Guard unless a governor requested it, referring to the response to wildfires that ravaged Portland in 2020.
'We have laws. We have to go by the laws. We can't move in the National Guard. I can call insurrection, but there's no reason to ever do that,' he said. 'Even in a Portland case, we can't call in the National Guard unless we're requested by a governor. If a governor or a mayor is a Democrat, like in Portland, we call them constantly.'
That reference wasn't explicitly to immigration, but it was referring to Trump's willingness to overrule a state's governor and federalize National Guard resources.
___
Kinnard can be reached at http://x.com/MegKinnardAP
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Factbox-Breakdown of U.S. tariffs on China since Trump's first term
BEIJING (Reuters) -Billions of dollars of Chinese goods have been impacted by additional U.S. tariffs since 2018, initially under the first Donald Trump presidency and later under the Biden administration. Returning to the White House this year, Trump has imposed even more duties on China. The U.S. tariffs range from those imposed under Section 301 of its trade act due to what Washington claims are unfair Chinese trade practices, to duties under Section 232 levied for national security reasons. This year, Trump has imposed another 20% levies on all Chinese goods, saying Beijing has not done enough to stop the flow of fentanyl into the United States. So-called reciprocal tariffs, under which the U.S. will match duties imposed by other countries, have also been levied in a bid to rebalance trade flows. Below are the U.S. tariffs on China effective as of June 12, 2025: Tariff Rate Products Effective date Reciprocal 10% All Paused for 90 days until Aug 10, 2025 Fentanyl 20% All Mar 4, 2025 Section Up to List 1: Pharmaceuticals, July 6, 2018 301 25% iron and steel, aluminium, vehicles and aircraft, medical or surgical instruments and apparatus and more. List 2: Vehicles, Aug 23, 2018 railway or tramway locomotives, aircraft and their parts, medical or surgical instruments and apparatus and more. List 3: Prepared May 10, 2019 foodstuffs, beverages, mineral products, fertilizers, wood products, textiles, precious and base metals, vehicles, aircraft, vessels, machinery and mechanical appliances and more. List 4A: Prepared Feb 14, 2020 foodstuffs, beverages, mineral products, fertilizers, footwear, wood products, ceramic products, glass, textiles, precious and base metals, machinery and mechanical appliances, vehicles, aircraft, vessels, art, antiques and more. In September 2019, the U.S. imposed 15% tariffs on more than $120 billion of Chinese goods under Section 301, which it then halved to 7.5% less than six months later. The 25% U.S. tariffs on $250 billion of Chinese goods under the earlier List 1-3 remain unchanged. In September 2024, the U.S. Trade Representative under the Biden administration announced additional tariffs of 25-100% on 14 product groups following a four-year review of the Section 301 tariff actions. The levies were imposed on strategic Chinese sectors or sectors where the United States has made significant domestic investments. Additional tariffs on goods under Section 301: Effective date EVs 100% Sep 27, 2024 Solar cells, syringes and 50% needles Non-lithium-ion battery parts, 25% lithium-ion electrical vehicle batteries, other critical minerals, ship-to-shore cranes, steel and aluminium products, facemasks Semiconductors 50% Jan 1, 2025 Lithium-ion non-electrical 25% Jan 1, 2026 vehicle batteries, medical gloves, natural graphite, permanent magnets In addition to the above duties, the first Trump administration in 2018 imposed a range of tariffs under Section 232 aimed at restricting goods deemed a threat to national security, including all aluminium and steel imports, shutting most Chinese suppliers out of the U.S. market. 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
Newsweek
31 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Gold Card Visa Launches: How to Apply
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump's administration has rolled out a website to register interest for its $5 million "gold card" visa. "Thousands have been calling and asking how they can sign up to ride a beautiful road in gaining access to the Greatest Country and Market anywhere in the World," Trump wrote in a post on TruthSocial on Wednesday. The president first proposed a gold card program that would offer U.S. residency to individuals who invest $5 million in the country. It is one of the few pathways to citizenship unveiled by the Trump administration. Visitors to are asked to provide their name, region, and email address, and indicate whether they are applying as an individual or a business, to receive a notification as soon as access becomes available. After applicants inquire, the website will display a message that reads: "You'll be the first to hear when access opens." This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.
CNN
33 minutes ago
- CNN
Why Trump's move toward using the military on US soil is so fraught
The country hangs on a hugely significant precipice, as President Donald Trump moves toward making good on his long-running suggestions of an extraordinary step: deploying the military on US soil. About 700 Marines have now been mobilized to join the National Guard in Los Angeles to deal with demonstrations over federal immigration raids, CNN reports. The Marines were previously on 'ready to deploy' status. (It is still unclear what their specific task will be once in Los Angeles, sources told CNN. And like the National Guard troops, they are prohibited from conducting law enforcement activity such as making arrests unless Trump invokes the Insurrection Act.) But to hear the White House tell it, this show of force is not just the right thing to do but also a political winner. Responding to a poll showing 54% of Americans approved of Trump's deportation program, White House spokesman Steven Cheung wrote on X Sunday, 'And the approval number will be even higher after the national guard was sent to LA to beat back the violence this weekend.' But whether the American people actually want this military activation isn't nearly so clear. In fact, they've rejected such things in the past. The administration may be making a huge gamble on the American people's tolerance for a heavy-handed federal response. And while Americans might not have much sympathy for the demonstrators in Los Angeles who engage in violence or for undocumented immigrants, recent surveys have shown they often say Trump goes too far in his attempts to address such problems. There is something of an analog for the current situation. It came in 2020 when federal law enforcement suddenly moved to clear Lafayette Square, near the White House, of racial justice demonstrators, resulting in violent scenes. This wasn't the military, but it was controversial – in part because Trump then walked across the square with military leaders for a photo-op. (Then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper also resisted Trump's suggestions of using active-duty military at the time.) The American people did not like what they saw. A USA Today/Ipsos poll conducted a week later showed 63% of Americans opposed the use of rubber bullets and tear gas that day. It also showed Americans opposed deploying military forces in other states by 10 points, 51-41%. Similarly a CNN poll conducted by SSRS at the time asked a broader question – whether it would be appropriate for a president to 'deploy the U.S. military in response to protests in the United States.' Americans said this would be 'inappropriate' by a wide margin, 60-36%. All of which suggest Americans are predisposed to viewing such actions skeptically. These numbers come with caveats, though. The CNN poll question is a great window into how this could be received. But it's possible people's views have shifted or could shift with circumstances, including the role the Marines end up playing in Los Angeles. Back in 2020, the racial justice protests were relatively popular, and people didn't view them as particularly violent. Americans sympathized with the cause, believing George Floyd had been murdered by police. It's too early to tell how people view the demonstrators in Los Angeles. And the plight of the undocumented immigrants whom the administration is trying to deport is probably less sympathetic than the racial justice protesters' cause. (Clear majorities generally support deporting undocumented immigrants, who are in this country without authorization.) But when it comes to the administration's immigration crackdown, Americans have also expressed nuanced feelings. And the poll the White House cited this weekend is a case in point. In the CBS News/YouGov survey, which was conducted before Saturday's protests broke out in Los Angeles, Americans said they approved of Trump's deportation program, 54-46%. They also liked its 'goals,' 55-45%. But that's not quite the same as saying they approved of the administration's actions, full stop. The same poll asked whether people liked 'the way you think [Trump] is going about' the deportations. And there, Americans actually disliked his approach by double-digits, 56-44%. While independents were about evenly split on Trump's deportation program, they disliked how he's gone about it by 30 points , 65-35%. This is a dichotomy we see in lots of polling of Trump's deportation actions. Americans like the idea of mass deportation, but not so much the implementation. They like the president a lot on securing the border. But they like him significantly less on 'immigration,' and they like him even less when 'deportation,' specifically, is invoked in the question. One possible reason: Americans see the administration moving haphazardly. That could most notably be the case with things like deporting the wrong people and actions that have been halted by the courts, including ones in which judges have said people haven't been given enough due process. It's possible that people could come to sympathize with the cause of the Los Angeles protesters – if not the violent ones – at least to some degree. While Americans generally favor mass deportation, those numbers decline significantly when you mention the prospect of deporting otherwise-law-abiding people with jobs and those who have been in this country for a long time. (For example, a recent Pew Research Center poll showed Americans opposed deporting undocumented immigrants who have jobs, 56-41%, and they opposed deporting the parents of US citizen children 60-37%.) But the raids that set off the protests have been directed at workplaces generally – not necessarily at criminals or gang members. The Department of Homeland Security has claimed at least five of the people arrested during Sunday immigration sweeps in Los Angeles had criminal convictions or were accused of crimes. Through it all, the administration has made a rather Machiavellian political calculation: that however much people dislike the means, their support for the ends will carry the day. Maybe people say they don't like the lack of due process the administration has provided – or the wrong people getting sent to a brutal Salvadoran prison – but how much do they really care if the end result is lots of deportations? Similarly, the administration could be making the calculation that scenes of violence in Los Angeles could marshal support for a previously unthinkable step of deploying the military domestically against protesters – something Americans opposed by 24 points just five years ago. So much depends on what the Marines end up doing in Los Angeles and whether Trump invokes the Insurrection Act to allow them to engage in policing activities. But the Trump administration has clearly gone too far for people before as part of their deportation efforts. And the one big crackdown on protesters we have seen in the Trump era didn't go well. This would appear pretty fraught – not just practically, but politically.
