Latest news with #InsurrectionActof1807
Axios
7 hours ago
- Politics
- Axios
Unrestrained Trump flirts with Insurrection Act as Marines deploy to L.A.
President Trump is edging closer than ever to invoking the Insurrection Act, driven by a vision of executive power free from the guardrails, governors and generals who stifled him in 2020. Why it matters: The Insurrection Act of 1807, which allows the deployment of U.S. troops to quell domestic unrest, is among the most extreme emergency powers available to a sitting president. Trump already has broken decades of precedent by federalizing California's National Guard without the state's consent, aiming to crush the escalating protests in Los Angeles sparked by his administration's immigration raids. He's now openly telegraphing his willingness — even eagerness — to invoke the law, telling reporters Monday: "The people that are causing the problem are professional agitators. They're insurrectionists." State of play: More than 700 Marines were mobilized Monday to respond to the protests in L.A., joining up to 4,000 National Guardsmen. Without the Insurrection Act, the troops' mission is legally limited to protecting federal agents and property. California Gov. Gavin Newsom — whom Trump suggested Monday should be arrested — has accused the administration of manufacturing a crisis and illegally militarizing the city. "This is an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism that threatens the foundation of our republic. We cannot let it stand," Newsom, who is suing Trump to reverse the National Guard order, posted on X. The protests erupted after sweeping ICE raids led to more than 100 arrests in the Los Angeles area. Demonstrators have blocked highways, torched vehicles and clashed with police, but much of the sprawling city is operating as normal. The latest: The NYPD arrested two dozen protesters who swarmed the lobby of Trump Tower as protests against ICE raids spread across the country. Waymo, which had self-driving cars set ablaze over the weekend, suspended service in downtown LA and curtailed service in San Francisco. Flashback: For years, the Insurrection Act has loomed large in the minds of Trump and his conservative allies. In the summer of 2020, as Trump privately fumed over nationwide Black Lives Matter protests, White House aides drafted a proclamation to send thousands of active-duty U.S. troops into the streets. Trump ultimately was talked down by Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley and Defense Secretary Mark Esper, but he has publicly expressed regret over not acting more forcefully. Top Trump allies, including architects of the far-right roadmap "Project 2025," have at various points called for using the Insurrection Act to secure the border, preempt Inauguration Day protests, and even subvert the 2020 election. The big picture: For Trump, the Los Angeles protests represent a perfect opportunity to fuse power, politics and spectacle. Immigration is Trump's home turf — his best-polling issue and the political anchor of his 2024 campaign, which promised mass deportations beginning on "day one." Newsom, his primary Democratic foil in the escalating showdown, is the ultimate MAGA bogeyman and a likely 2028 presidential candidate. California, to many conservatives, embodies the chaos of Democratic rule: a sanctuary state that they claim is being overrun by migrants and plagued by crime. What they're saying: "The American people have made their opinion known on the President's immigration agenda, which is why President Trump is in the White House and Democrats lost the Presidency, the House, and the Senate," White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement. What to watch: The Trump administration has already shown it's willing to steamroll longstanding norms around immigration enforcement — emboldened by the belief that public opinion is firmly on its side. Over the past two months, a Wisconsin judge, the mayor of Newark, N.J., and even a sitting member of Congress have been among those arrested for allegedly obstructing federal immigration operations. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has signaled he's itching to get in on the action, with Pentagon social media accounts dropping the pretense of non-partisanship to attack California's leaders in openly political terms.
Epoch Times
17 hours ago
- Politics
- Epoch Times
What to Know About the Insurrection Act of 1807
As protests against federal immigration enforcement flared across Los Angeles over the weekend, questions have arisen about whether President Donald Trump will invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807, and send active duty U.S. military members to quell the rioting and vandalism. The
Hindustan Times
19 hours ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Did Trump invoke the Insurrection Act in Los Angeles amid protests? What Marines' mobilization means
After President Donald Trump reportedly deployed about 700 Marines to Los Angeles amid protests on Monday, claims about the Insurrection Act being invoked surfaced on social media. Marines being mobilized in California marks another escalation in Trump's response to anti-ICE street protests over his aggressive immigration policies. A US official told Reuters and AP that a Marine battalion would be sent on temporary duty until more National Guard troops could reach the scene. Marines have previously only been deployed domestically for major disasters such as Hurricane Katrina and the September 11, 2001, attacks. The Trump administration has yet to confirm the nature of the latest deployment. Read More: Los Angeles protests: California governor Newsom to sue Trump admin over National Guard deployment According to Reuters, the Trump administration is not invoking the Insurrection Act, which would allow troops to directly participate in civilian law enforcement. The official added that the situation was fluid and could change. The Insurrection Act of 1807 is a US federal law that empowers the president to deploy military forces domestically to suppress insurrections, rebellions, or domestic violence that hinder law enforcement or obstruct federal authority. The president can deploy active-duty military or federalized National Guard to: Suppress an insurrection against a state, upon the governor's request. Restore order when a rebellion obstructs federal law execution. Protect civil rights or quell domestic violence if state authorities fail to do so. Read More: Los Angeles protests: 'Incendiary devices' hurled at police horses, says LAPD The president has broad authority to determine when conditions warrant deployment, requiring only a proclamation to disperse. No congressional approval is needed, though the Posse Comitatus Act (1878) generally limits military law enforcement roles unless authorized. The Act was invoked in 1808 against a Lake Champlain smuggling ring and in 1832 during South Carolina's Nullification Crisis. Presidents Eisenhower (1957, Little Rock) and Kennedy (1962–63, Mississippi and Alabama) used it to enforce desegregation against state resistance.
Yahoo
21 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Contributor: Federalizing the state National Guard is a chilling push past the law
The use of the military to quell protests is something associated with dictators in foreign countries, and as of Saturday night, with a president of the United States. When President Trump federalized 2,000 members of the California National Guard, deploying them because of protests against federal immigration authorities, he sent a chilling signal about his willingness to use the military against demonstrators. There are two relevant aspects of federal law: One allows the president to federalize a state's National Guard and the other permits the president to use the military in domestic situations. Neither, at this point, provides legal authority for Saturday's action. As for the former, a federal statute, 10 U.S.C. section 12406, authorizes the president to take over a state's National Guard if 'the United States, or any of the Commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation; there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.' This is the statutory provision Trump has invoked. But it is highly questionable that the protests against ICE agents rise to the level of a 'rebellion against the authority of the Government.' This statute does not give the president the authority to use the troops. Another law, the Posse Comitatus Act, generally prohibits the military from being used within the United States. The 2,000 National Guard troops are only deployed to protect ICE officers. However, even this is legally questionable unless the president invokes the Insurrection Act of 1807, which creates a basis for using the military in domestic situations and an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act. On Sunday, Trump said he was considering invoking the Insurrection Act. The Insurrection Act allows a president to deploy troops domestically in three situations. One is if a governor or state legislature asks for the deployment to put down an insurrection. The last time this occurred was in 1992, when California Gov. Pete Wilson asked President George H.W. Bush to use the National Guard to stop the riots that occurred after police officers were acquitted in the beating of Rodney King. With Gov. Gavin Newsom opposing the federalizing of the National Guard, this isn't the case in Los Angeles today. A second part of the Insurrection Act allows deployment in order to 'enforce the laws' of the United States or to 'suppress rebellion' whenever 'unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion' make it 'impracticable' to enforce federal law by the 'ordinary course of judicial proceedings.' Since no one disputes the courts are fully functioning, this provision has no relevance. It is the third part of the Insurrection Act that is more likely to be cited by the Trump administration. It allows the president to use military troops in a state to suppress 'any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy' that 'so hinders the execution of the laws' that any portion of the state's inhabitants are deprived of a constitutional right and state authorities are unable or unwilling to protect that right. President Eisenhower used this power to send federal troops to help desegregate the Little Rock, Ark., public schools when the governor defied federal court orders. This section of the law has additional language: The president may deploy troops in a state that 'opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.' This broad language is what I would expect Trump to invoke to use the troops directly against the anti-ICE protests. The Insurrection Act does not define crucial terms such as 'insurrection,' 'rebellion' or 'domestic violence.' In 1827, in Martin vs. Mott, the Supreme Court said that 'the authority to decide whether [an exigency requiring the militia to be called out] has arisen belongs exclusively to the President, and ... his decision is conclusive upon all other persons.' There have been many calls over the years to modify the expansive language of the Insurrection Act. But since presidents have rarely used it, and not in a very long time, reform efforts seemed unnecessary. The broad presidential authority under the Insurrection Act thus has remained on the books as a loaded weapon. There is a strong set of norms that has restrained presidents from using federal troops in domestic situations, especially absent a request from a state governor. But Trump shows no respect for norms. Any use of the military in domestic situations should be regarded as a last resort in the United States. The readiness of the administration to quickly invoke any aspect of this authority is frightening, a message about the willingness of a remade federal government to quell demonstrations. The protests in Los Angeles do not rise to the conditions that warrant the federalization of the National Guard. This is not to deny that some of the anti-ICE protests have turned violent. However, they have been limited in size and there is no reason to believe that law enforcement could not control them absent military force. But the statutes Trump can invoke give presidents broad powers. In the context of everything that we have seen from the Trump administration, nationalizing the California National Guard should make us even more afraid. Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, is an Opinion Voices contributing writer. If it's in the news right now, the L.A. Times' Opinion section covers it. Sign up for our weekly opinion newsletter. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
a day ago
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Federalizing the state National Guard is a chilling push past the law
The use of the military to quell protests is something associated with dictators in foreign countries, and as of Saturday night, with a president of the United States. When President Trump federalized 2,000 members of the California National Guard, deploying them because of protests against federal immigration authorities, he sent a chilling signal about his willingness to use the military against demonstrators. There are two relevant aspects of federal law: One allows the president to federalize a state's National Guard and the other permits the president to use the military in domestic situations. Neither, at this point, provides legal authority for Saturday's action. As for the former, a federal statute, 10 U.S.C. section 12406, authorizes the president to take over a state's National Guard if 'the United States, or any of the Commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation; there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.' This is the statutory provision Trump has invoked. But it is highly questionable that the protests against ICE agents rise to the level of a 'rebellion against the authority of the Government.' This statute does not give the president the authority to use the troops. Another law, the Posse Comitatus Act, generally prohibits the military from being used within the United States. The 2,000 National Guard troops are only deployed to protect ICE officers. However, even this is legally questionable unless the president invokes the Insurrection Act of 1807, which creates a basis for using the military in domestic situations and an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act. On Sunday, Trump said he was considering invoking the Insurrection Act. The Insurrection Act allows a president to deploy troops domestically in three situations. One is if a governor or state legislature asks for the deployment to put down an insurrection. The last time this occurred was in 1992, when California Gov. Pete Wilson asked President George H.W. Bush to use the National Guard to stop the riots that occurred after police officers were acquitted in the beating of Rodney King. With Gov. Gavin Newsom opposing the federalizing of the National Guard, this isn't the case in Los Angeles today. A second part of the Insurrection Act allows deployment in order to 'enforce the laws' of the United States or to 'suppress rebellion' whenever 'unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion' make it 'impracticable' to enforce federal law by the 'ordinary course of judicial proceedings.' Since no one disputes the courts are fully functioning, this provision has no relevance. It is the third part of the Insurrection Act that is more likely to be cited by the Trump administration. It allows the president to use military troops in a state to suppress 'any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy' that 'so hinders the execution of the laws' that any portion of the state's inhabitants are deprived of a constitutional right and state authorities are unable or unwilling to protect that right. President Eisenhower used this power to send federal troops to help desegregate the Little Rock, Ark., public schools when the governor defied federal court orders. This section of the law has additional language: The president may deploy troops in a state that 'opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.' This broad language is what I would expect Trump to invoke to use the troops directly against the anti-ICE protests. The Insurrection Act does not define crucial terms such as 'insurrection,' 'rebellion' or 'domestic violence.' In 1827, in Martin vs. Mott, the Supreme Court said that 'the authority to decide whether [an exigency requiring the militia to be called out] has arisen belongs exclusively to the President, and ... his decision is conclusive upon all other persons.' There have been many calls over the years to modify the expansive language of the Insurrection Act. But since presidents have rarely used it, and not in a very long time, reform efforts seemed unnecessary. The broad presidential authority under the Insurrection Act thus has remained on the books as a loaded weapon. There is a strong set of norms that has restrained presidents from using federal troops in domestic situations, especially absent a request from a state governor. But Trump shows no respect for norms. Any use of the military in domestic situations should be regarded as a last resort in the United States. The readiness of the administration to quickly invoke any aspect of this authority is frightening, a message about the willingness of a remade federal government to quell demonstrations. The protests in Los Angeles do not rise to the conditions that warrant the federalization of the National Guard. This is not to deny that some of the anti-ICE protests have turned violent. However, they have been limited in size and there is no reason to believe that law enforcement could not control them absent military force. But the statutes Trump can invoke give presidents broad powers. In the context of everything that we have seen from the Trump administration, nationalizing the California National Guard should make us even more afraid. Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, is an Opinion Voices contributing writer.
