Why Trump Sending the National Guard to LA Is Different From Its Deployment There in 1992
More than three decades before President Donald Trump deployed the National Guard to Los Angeles in response to protests over immigration raids, another President called up the military to quell civil unrest in the same city. But the circumstances are very different this time around.
In 1992, President George H.W. Bush mobilized the National Guard to Los Angeles due to riots that broke out following the acquittal of white police officers who were charged with assaulting Rodney King, an unarmed Black man.
The National Guard's deployment came at the request of California's then-Gov. Pete Wilson and Mayor Tom Bradley, as multiple days of rioting caused extensive damage in the city and left dozens dead.
Compared to the destruction and violence in 1992, the damage resulting from the demonstrations thus far against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has been minor. And President Donald Trump deployed the National Guard to Los Angeles against the wishes of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, marking the first time a President has done so without the governor's consent in six decades.
Here's what to know about the National Guard's mobilization in 1992—and how it differs from the current situation.
Why was the National Guard deployed to Los Angeles in 1992?
The city of Los Angeles descended into widespread unrest on April 29, 1992, after a jury acquitted four police officers who were videotaped beating Rodney King.
Over the course of several days, more than 60 people died, while another 2,000 were injured. More than 1,000 buildings were defaced, leading to damages that amounted to some $1 billion.
Bush called up the National Guard under the Insurrection Act, which authorizes the President to deploy the typically state-controlled military force in certain situations involving invasions or insurrections, on the third days of the riots
'What followed Wednesday's jury verdict in the Rodney King case was a tragic series of events for the city of Los Angeles: Nearly 4,000 fires, staggering property damage, hundreds of injuries, and the senseless deaths of over 30 people,' Bush said in an address at the time. He went on to announce the commitment of thousands of additional troops to the city 'to help restore order' at the behest of the governor and mayor, and the federalization of the National Guard.
Why is Trump's mobilization of the National Guard different?
Demonstrations began in Los Angeles on Friday in response to immigration raids targeting undocumented workers. The Los Angeles Police Department on Saturday referred to the protests as 'peaceful,' though some escalated as rocks and Molotov cocktails were thrown and cars were set on fire.
The city's mayor, Karen Bass, downplayed the extent of the demonstrations in an interview with CNN. 'This is not citywide civil unrest taking place in Los Angeles. A few streets downtown – it looks horrible,' she said, adding that people who committed acts of vandalism would be arrested and prosecuted.
But on Saturday, Trump deployed 2,000 members of the National Guard to the city. Rather than the Insurrection Act, which Bush used, he invoked Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code.
That provision allows the President to call in the National Guard in situations where authorities can't execute the country's laws with 'regular forces,' or if an invasion or rebellion is underway occurring or there is the threat of one.
It also specifies that '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.'
Far from asking for the National Guard to be mobilized, Newsom requested that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth 'immediately rescind' the federal order and 'return the National Guard to its rightful control by the State of California, to be deployed as appropriate when necessary.'
The governor sued Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Monday, claiming that the act surpassed the federal government's authority and violated the Tenth Amendment. 'Let me be clear: There is no invasion. There is no rebellion. The President is trying to manufacture chaos and crisis on the ground for his own political ends,' California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a Monday statement.
Bass, too, has vocally opposed the National Guard's deployment, calling it a 'chaotic escalation.'
'The fear people are feeling in our city right now is very real – it's felt in our communities and within our families and it puts our neighborhoods at risk. This is the last thing that our city needs,' the mayor said in a Sunday post on X.
Trump further escalated the mounting tensions over the mobilization on Monday by suggesting that Newsom should be arrested over his handling of the demonstrations in Los Angeles.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump vs. California
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Under Donald Trump, the federal government is like a bad parent: never there when you need him but eager to stick his nose in your business when you don't want him to. The relationship between Trump and California has always been bad, but the past few days represent a new low. On Friday, CNN reported that the White House was seeking to cut off as much federal funding to the Golden State as possible, especially to state universities. That afternoon, protests broke out in Los Angeles as ICE agents sought to make arrests. By Saturday, Trump had announced that he was federalizing members of the National Guard and deploying them to L.A., over the objections of Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat. Americans have seen the National Guard called out to deal with the aftermath of riots in the past, but its involvement over the weekend represents a dramatic escalation. The National Guard was deployed to L.A. in 1992, during riots after the acquittal of four police officers in the beating of Rodney King. The scale of the destruction in that instance, compared with scattered violence in L.A. this weekend, helps show why Trump's order was disproportionate. (National Guard troops were also deployed in Minneapolis during protests after the murder of George Floyd, at the request of Governor Tim Walz. Trump has falsely claimed that he deployed the troops when Walz wouldn't.) In all of these recent cases, however, governors have made the call to bring out the National Guard. A president has not done so since 1965, when Lyndon Johnson took control of the Alabama National Guard from the arch-segregationist Governor George Wallace and ordered it to protect civil-rights leaders' third attempt to march from Selma to Montgomery. The situations aren't even closely analogous. Johnson acted only after local leaders had demonstrated that law enforcement would violently attack the peaceful marchers. By contrast, the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department have plenty of experience and sufficient man power to deal with protests of the weekend's size, and military forces are a riskier choice because they aren't trained as police. This morning, Newsom said he will sue the administration over the deployment. Elizabeth Goitein, a scholar at the Brennan Center for Justice who has written extensively in The Atlantic about the abuse of presidential emergency powers, told The Washington Post that Trump's order 'is completely unprecedented under any legal authority.' 'The use of the military to quell civil unrest is supposed to be an absolute last resort,' she added. Trump is doing this, as my colleague Tom Nichols writes, because he wants to provoke a confrontation with California. The president sees tough immigration enforcement as a political winner, but he also wants to use the face-off to expand the federal government's power to control states. Trump's vision is federalism as a one-way street: If states need help, they might be on their own, but if states believe that federal intervention is unnecessary or even harmful, too bad. If the president wants to shut off funds to states for nothing more than political retribution or personal animus, he believes that he can do that. (A White House spokesperson told CNN that decisions about potential cuts were not final but said that 'no taxpayer should be forced to fund the demise of our country,' a laughably vague and overheated rationale.) If states have been struck by major disasters, however, they'd better hope they voted for Trump, or that their governors have a good relationship with him. Some of these attempts to strong-arm states are likely illegal, and will be successfully challenged in court. Others are in gray areas, and still others are plainly legal—manifestations of what I call 'total politics,' in which officials wield powers that are legal but improper or unwise. This is a marked shift from the traditional American conservative defense of states' rights. Although that argument has often been deployed to defend racist policies, such as slavery and segregation, the right has also argued for the prerogative of local people to stave off an overweaning federal government. Conservatives also tended to view Lyndon Johnson as a boogeyman, not a role model. Kristi Noem, now the secretary of Homeland Security, bristled at the idea of federalizing the National Guard just last year, when she was serving as governor of South Dakota. But Trump's entire approach is to centralize control. He has pursued Project 2025's plan to seize new powers for the executive branch and to establish right-wing Big Government, flexing the coercive capacity of the federal government over citizens' lives. Tom Homan, Trump's border czar, has suggested that he wouldn't hesitate to arrest Newsom, and Trump endorsed the idea today. And Trump allies have proposed all sorts of other ways to force state governments to comply, such as cutting off Justice Department grants or FEMA assistance for states that don't sign up to enforce Trump's immigration policies, an issue where state governments do not traditionally have a role. This duress is not limited to blue states. Just last week, under pressure from the DOJ, Texas agreed to trash a 24-year-old law (signed by then-Governor Rick Perry, who later became Trump's secretary of energy) that gives in-state college tuition to some undocumented immigrants. If nothing else, the Trump era has given progressives a new appreciation for states' rights. Democrat attorneys general have become some of the most effective opponents of the Trump White House, just as Republican ones battled the Obama and Biden administrations. On Friday, Newsom mused about California withholding federal taxes. This is plainly illegal, but you can see where he's coming from: In fiscal year 2022, the state contributed $83 billion dollars more to the federal government than it received. If California is not getting disaster aid but is getting hostile deployments of federal troops, Californians might find it harder to see what's in it for them. No wonder one poll commissioned by an advocacy group earlier this year found that 61 percent of the state's residents thought California would be better off as a separate nation. Secession isn't going to happen: As journalists writing about aspiring red-state secessionists in recent years have noted, leaving the Union is unconstitutional. But the fact that these questions keep coming up is a testament to the fraying relationship between the federal government and the states. Trump's recent actions toward California show why tensions between Washington and the states are likely to get worse as long as he's president. Related: David Frum: For Trump, this is a dress rehearsal. Tom Nichols: Trump is using the National Guard as bait. Here are three new stories from The Atlantic: An uproar at the NIH The real problem with the Democrats' ground game Where is Barack Obama? Today's News President Donald Trump's travel ban is in effect, affecting nationals from 19 countries. Israel intercepted a high-profile aid ship en route to Gaza and detained those on board, including the activist Greta Thunberg. They have been brought to the Israeli port of Ashdod, according to Israel's foreign ministry. Officials from America and China met in London for a second round of trade-truce negotiations. Dispatches The Wonder Reader: Summer is heating up. Isabel Fattal compiles stories about an invention that changed the course of human life: the AC unit. Explore all of our newsletters here. Evening Read What's So Shocking About a Man Who Loves His Wife? By Jeremy Gordon The first time that someone called me a 'wife guy,' I wasn't sure how to react. If you are encountering this phrase for the first time and think wife guy surely must mean 'a guy who loves his wife,' you would be dead wrong. The term, which rose to popularity sometime during the first Trump administration, describes someone whose spousal affection is so ostentatious that it becomes inherently untrustworthy. 'The wife guy defines himself,' the critic Amanda Hess has written, 'through a kind of overreaction to being married.' The wife guy posts a photo of his wife to Instagram along with several emojis of a man smiling with hearts in place of his eyes. He will repeat this sort of action so many times that even his closest friends may think, Enough already. Read the full article. More From The Atlantic The Democrats have an authenticity gap. The Wyoming hospital upending the logic of private equity Helen Lewis: The Trump administration's nasty campaign against trans people Culture Break Read. These six books are great reads for anybody interested in the power of saying no. Examine. Money is ruining television, Sophie Gilbert writes. Depictions of extreme wealth are everywhere on the small screen, and, well, it's all quite boring. Play our daily crossword. P.S. My colleague Katherine J. Wu's latest wrenching dispatch from the dismantling of the federal scientific establishment was published today. Katherine writes about a letter from more than 300 National Institutes for Health officials criticizing the NIH's direction in the past few months. One official, who both signed the letter and spoke with Katherine anonymously, told her, 'We're just becoming a weapon of the state.' The official added, 'They're using grants as a lever to punish institutions and academia, and to censor and stifle science.' That quote struck me because it dovetails directly with the mindset that Trump demonstrates in his dealing with the states: Parts of the federal government are most valuable to him when they can be used not to provide services to citizens, but to serve as a cudgel. — David Stephanie Bai contributed to this newsletter. When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic. Article originally published at The Atlantic
New York Times
16 minutes ago
- New York Times
Trump's Crackdown on L.A. Protests Contrasts With His Jan. 6 Response
When violent protests originate from the right — such as those in Charlottesville, Va., in 2017, or at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 — President Trump has chosen to downplay the violence or suggest the protesters have a noble cause and have been treated unfairly. But when protests originate from what he views as the political left, Mr. Trump often expresses an open desire for law enforcement and the military to harshly crack down on them. Over the weekend, Mr. Trump ordered that 2,000 National Guard troops be deployed on the streets of downtown Los Angeles to quell protests against his administration's immigration enforcement efforts. That was followed by orders on Monday to send 700 Marines to join them, and then later in the day, with an order for 2,000 additional National Guard troops. Even though the demonstrations have been largely contained to specific areas and mostly peaceful, Mr. Trump claimed on social media that the protesters were 'insurrectionist mobs' and that Los Angeles had been 'invaded and occupied by Illegal Aliens and Criminals.' In endorsing harsh law enforcement tactics against immigration protests, Mr. Trump is picking a political fight on ground that Republicans believe is advantageous terrain. Stephen K. Bannon, a former adviser to Mr. Trump, said on his podcast on Monday that the president's response was 'quite smart.' 'He just won a massive national election on this very topic,' Mr. Bannon said, magnifying Mr. Trump's showing in a race he won by less than 2.3 million popular votes. Mr. Bannon accused Democratic-led jurisdictions of inviting in undocumented immigrants and refusing to arrest violent protesters. 'This is why President Trump has to bring in the National Guard and federalize them,' he said. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Perfect storm as Trump's mass deportation drive collides with city of immigrants
This weekend, tensions boiled over in the Los Angeles area after a week of immigration sweeps in the region sparked violent protests against the Trump administration and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency. President Donald Trump's decision to send 700 US Marines and 2,000 National Guard troops to the Los Angeles area to support the federal response to the unrest has opened a volatile chapter in his mass deportation campaign. The location of the raids and subsequent protests – a liberal-leaning city in a state controlled by Democrats – also gave the White House an ideal public foil as it seeks to show progress on removing illegal immigrants and instilling law and order. Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat and prominent critic of the president, wrote on X that the troop deployment was a "deranged fantasy of a dictatorial President". The raids in America's second-biggest city are unfolding against the backdrop of an aggressive push to raise arrest and deportation numbers, as the administration has been disappointed with its current pace. ICE has ramped up its enforcement actions in recent weeks as it faces pressure to show progress on Trump's signature policy initiative. The agency arrested 2,200 people on 4 June, according to NBC News, a record for a single day. The network reported that hundreds of those arrested were enrolled in a programme known as Alternative to Detention, which allows for the release and monitoring of individuals not deemed an immediate threat. Live updates from LA protests LA's unrest in maps and pictures White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, the man widely seen as the intellectual architect of the deportation policy, has repeatedly said the White House hopes that ICE can scale up to 3,000 arrests a day, up from 660 or so during the first 100 days of Trump's presidency. "President Trump is going to keep pushing to get that number up higher each and every single day," Miller told Fox News in late May. Yet for much of the first 100 days of the administration, deportations were on par with, and at times below, those recorded during the last year of Joe Biden's presidency. The White House stopped publishing daily deportation figures early in 2020. "I'm not satisfied with the numbers," the administration's border tsar, Tom Homan, told reporters at the White House at the end of May. "We need to increase." Homan added that the Trump administration had "increased the teams a lot" and that "we expect a fast increase in the number of arrests". Several senior ICE officials - including Kenneth Genalo, its top deportation official - have left their roles at the agency in recent months. In February, ICE also moved two top officials overseeing deportations, as well as the agency's acting director, Caleb Vitello. At the time of the more recent reshuffle, the agency characterised the move as organisational realignments that will "help ICE achieve President Trump and the American people's mandate of arresting and deporting illegal aliens and making American communities safe". How LA erupted over a rumour Everything we know about the protests Analysis: A political fight Trump is eager to have The Department of Homeland Security said in a press release that the immigrants detained in the recent Los Angeles raids included individuals convicted of sex crimes, burglary, and drug related charges, among other offences. Local immigration advocates and community members, however, say that families have been torn apart and nonviolent immigrants detained. At a rally on Monday, Los Angeles City Councilmember Ysabel Jurado said that a Friday raid at a warehouse in the Fashion District "was not about public safety, it was a fear driven, state violence designed to silence, to intimidate, to disappear". While opinion polls show that Trump's immigration policies are popular with a majority of Americans, some of his backers have expressed concern about tactics. The co-founder of Latinas for Trump, for example, Florida State Senator Ileana Garcia, wrote on X that "this is not what we voted for". "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," she added. Federal authorities have conducted more frequent immigration raids across the US, in states that lean both towards Democrats and Republicans. Some Republican-controlled states, like Tennessee, have assisted federal authorities. "California was willing to resist," said John Acevedo, an associate dean at Emory Law School, who studies free speech and protests in the US. Images of violence and resistance on the streets of Los Angeles gave Trump a catalyst for the deployment of the National Guard. "For his base, it does quite a bit. It shows he's serious, and allows them to show he will use all means necessary to enforce his [immigration] rules," Prof Acevedo said. Protesters in Los Angeles - which calls itself a sanctuary city, meaning it limits co-operation with federal immigration enforcement - did not relish the role they believed the administration had chosen for their city. "This is my people, you know, I'm fighting for us," said Maria Gutierrez, a Mexican-American who protested for two days in Paramount, a city in LA County that saw protests after residents spotted ICE agents in the area. The unrest there involved looting and at least one car burning. Authorities used rubber bullets and tear gas. She said there are some protesting in LA, including those in the nearby city of Compton, that share a belief that they were protecting the city from immigration enforcement and saw the Trump administration's threats as a challenge. Ms Gutierrez believed undocumented immigrants who commit violent offences should be targeted, but not those who she believes work hard and aspire to a better life. "This is our city. We're angry, we know how to protect ourselves and this isn't going to scare us," she said. But the community is not united in support for the protests that have captured national attention. Juan, who lives near Paramount, came to the US illegally and later became a citizen, but supports ICE's actions. "ICE agents have a job to do, just like you and I," said Juan, who asked the BBC to withhold his last name given the federal operations in the area. He said he worked for years as a day labourer, but gained citizenship and has four children who graduated from college. "It's hard," he said. "I have family who don't have papers, too. "But you can't really fight it if you're here and you're not supposed to be." "A crime is a crime," he said.
