Latest news with #PosseComitatusAct
RTÉ News
an hour ago
- Politics
- RTÉ News
What powers is Donald Trump using to send troops to Los Angeles?
US President Donald Trump has invoked emergency powers to deploy US National Guard troops and active-duty marines to Los Angeles to quell protests against federal immigration raids. Here, we take a look at what powers Mr Trump is using to send these troops to LA. Is it legal? Mr Trump relied on a seldom-used law known as Title 10 to send an initial 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles. He has since ordered another 2,000 Guard members and 700 marines to the Californian city. National Guard troops are normally mobilised by a state governor and used domestically to respond to natural disasters such as floods or wildfires. Mr Trump, exceptionally, sent the troops to Los Angeles against the wishes of California's Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom. The last time a president defied a state governor to deploy the Guard was in 1965, when president Lyndon B. Johnson sent troops to Alabama to protect civil rights protestors. Title 10 permits National Guard federalisation in times of "a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States" but does not give the troops the powers to perform domestic law enforcement duties. The troops deployed to Los Angeles have been used so far only to provide security around federal buildings in the second-largest US city. Mr Newsom has accused Mr Trump of exceeding his authority by deploying the troops without his green light and has filed suit in federal court seeking to have the deployment declared unlawful. Insurrection Act Mr Trump would need to invoke the rarely-used Insurrection Act of 1807 to allow troops to expand their current role in Los Angeles, according to legal analysts. The Insurrection Act gives a president the authority to deploy the military domestically to perform law enforcement duties such as conducting searches and making arrests. The Insurrection Act was most recently invoked by president George H.W. Bush at the request of the then California governor to help put down riots in Los Angeles in 1992, that followed the acquittal of police officers involved in the beating of a Black motorist, Rodney King. It was used by president Johnson in 1968 to quell riots that broke out in the nation's capital and other cities following the assassination of civil rights leader, Martin Luther King Jr. Posse Comitatus Using the military domestically to conduct law enforcement activities is normally barred by another law, the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act. The Insurrection Act lets a president sidestep the Posse Comitatus Act to suppress "armed rebellion" or "domestic violence" and use the armed forces "as he considers necessary" to enforce the law. William Banks, a professor emeritus of law at Syracuse University, said the Insurrection Act and waiving of Posse Comitatus has been infrequent because of a long US history of "leaving law enforcement to civilians". "To sum up the conditions where (the Insurrection Act) may be used, it's for when all hell breaks loose," said Mr Banks, co-author of the book: Soldiers on the Home Front: The Domestic Role of the American Military. "When state and local officials are unable to control civil affairs without federal involvement, the federal government may intervene," he said. "It's normally been requested by the state officials, and the president simply agrees and decides to send a federal force," he said. Mr Newsom has said repeatedly that there was no need for the deployment of the National Guard and marines and that the Los Angeles Police Department was fully capable of handling the unrest.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump warns that LA military deployment could be first 'of many'
President Donald Trump and his administration officials warned that the use of the military in response to protests against his immigration crackdown may not be limited to just Los Angeles, saying it could be the first "of many" -- and that protesters could be met with "equal or greater force." Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Tuesday that his administration was going to enforce its deportation policy strictly and that it would not tolerate violent protests against ICE officers. "This is the first, perhaps, of many," Trump said of the deployment of 4,000 National Guardsmen and 700 Marines to Los Angeles as demonstrators clash with law enforcement amid the protests. MORE: Trump warns 'any' protesters at military parade will be 'met with heavy force' Demonstrators have clashed with law enforcement sporadically for days, and Trump called in the National Guard, against Gov. Gavin Newsom's wishes, in an attempt to quell the violence and allow immigration enforcement to continue. "You know, if we didn't attack this one very strongly, you'd have them all over the country, but I can inform the rest of the country, that when they do it, if they do it, they're going to be met with equal or greater force," Trump continued. The president's threats come as California's leaders and 22 Democratic governors decry Trump's show of force as a breach of the state's sovereignty and a provocative escalation. Trump's words were echoed in testimony given by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth during a congressional hearing on Capitol Hill earlier in the day. "So in Los Angeles, we believe that ICE, which is a federal law enforcement agency, has the right to safely conduct operations in any state, in any jurisdiction in the country," Hegseth said. "ICE agents should be allowed to be safe and doing their operations, and we have deployed National Guard and the Marines to protect them in the execution of their duties, because we ought to be able to enforce ... immigration law in this country." The president suggested he is open to invoking the Insurrection Act in response to the protests. The act authorizes the president to deploy military forces inside the United States to suppress rebellion or violence. The National Guard and Marines, under Trump's current authorization, are not allowed to act in a law enforcement capacity because of the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act. "There were areas of Los Angeles last night where you could call it an insurrection," Trump said. MORE: Hegseth asserts Trump can send troops anywhere to protect ICE agents conducting raids Trump repeated claims, without evidence, that the protesters are "paid insurrectionists." He decried some protesters who were damaging streets and targeting members of the National Guard. Despite claims from Trump that there were fires and "bad scenes" on Monday night, there wasn't anything all that violent. ABC News observed police moved protesters using skirmish lines and less lethal rounds around the city for a few hours, but there was no widespread violence compared to the weekend. And although Trump claimed that Los Angeles was "under siege," the incidents had been confined on Sunday and Monday to a relatively small area of downtown Los Angeles -- about a 10-block area. So far, the National Guard's presence and role in handling the protests appears to have been minimal. ABC News observed National Guard troops standing outside of a federal building and the Los Angeles Police Department and other local agencies clearing the streets and interacting with protesters. The administration has not immediately provided details about the guardsman's actions from Monday. Congressional Republicans -- including House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune -- backed the president's use of the military in the situation. "Clearly, the local officials there, for whatever reason, didn't seem up to the task of getting the job done there," Thune told reporters Tuesday. Although Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said "violence in the riots is outrageous," he called Trump's order to send in troops "provocative" and "dangerous." "It really threatens the bedrock of our democracy," the New York Democrat said. MORE: LA protest live updates Trump said the National Guard will be in the Los Angeles area "until there's no danger," declining to put a timetable on ending the deployment. "It's easy. Look, it's common sense. … When there's no danger, they'll leave," he said. ABC News' Alex Stone, Lalee Ibssa, Isabella Murray and Kelsey Walsh and contributed to this report.
2 hours ago
- Politics
Trump warns that LA military deployment could be first 'of many' in response to ICE protests
President Donald Trump and his administration officials warned that the use of the military in response to protests against his immigration crackdown may not be limited to just Los Angeles, saying it could be the first "of many" -- and that protesters could be met with "equal or greater force." Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Tuesday that his administration was going to enforce its deportation policy strictly and that it would not tolerate violent protests against ICE officers. "This is the first, perhaps, of many," Trump said of the deployment of 4,000 National Guardsmen and 700 Marines to Los Angeles as demonstrators clash with law enforcement amid the protests. Demonstrators have clashed with law enforcement sporadically for days, and Trump called in the National Guard, against Gov. Gavin Newsom's wishes, in an attempt to quell the violence and allow immigration enforcement to continue. "You know, if we didn't attack this one very strongly, you'd have them all over the country, but I can inform the rest of the country, that when they do it, if they do it, they're going to be met with equal or greater force," Trump continued. The president's threats come as California's leaders and 22 Democratic governors decry Trump's show of force as a breach of the state's sovereignty and a provocative escalation. Trump's words were echoed in testimony given by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth during a congressional hearing on Capitol Hill earlier in the day. "So in Los Angeles, we believe that ICE, which is a federal law enforcement agency, has the right to safely conduct operations in any state, in any jurisdiction in the country," Hegseth said. "ICE agents should be allowed to be safe and doing their operations, and we have deployed National Guard and the Marines to protect them in the execution of their duties, because we ought to be able to enforce ... immigration law in this country." The president suggested he is open to invoking the Insurrection Act in response to the protests. The act authorizes the president to deploy military forces inside the United States to suppress rebellion or violence. The National Guard and Marines, under Trump's current authorization, are not allowed to act in a law enforcement capacity because of the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act. "There were areas of Los Angeles last night where you could call it an insurrection," Trump said. Trump repeated claims, without evidence, that the protesters are "paid insurrectionists." He decried some protesters who were damaging streets and targeting members of the National Guard. Despite claims from Trump that there were fires and "bad scenes" on Monday night, there wasn't anything all that violent. ABC News observed police moved protesters using skirmish lines and less lethal rounds around the city for a few hours, but there was no widespread violence compared to the weekend. And although Trump claimed that Los Angeles was "under siege," the incidents had been confined on Sunday and Monday to a relatively small area of downtown Los Angeles -- about a 10-block area. So far, the National Guard's presence and role in handling the protests appears to have been minimal. ABC News observed National Guard troops standing outside of a federal building and the Los Angeles Police Department and other local agencies clearing the streets and interacting with protesters. The administration has not immediately provided details about the guardsman's actions from Monday. Congressional Republicans -- including House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune -- backed the president's use of the military in the situation. "Clearly, the local officials there, for whatever reason, didn't seem up to the task of getting the job done there," Thune told reporters Tuesday. Although Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said "violence in the riots is outrageous," he called Trump's order to send in troops "provocative" and "dangerous." "It really threatens the bedrock of our democracy," the New York Democrat said. Trump said the National Guard will be in the Los Angeles area "until there's no danger," declining to put a timetable on ending the deployment. "It's easy. Look, it's common sense. … When there's no danger, they'll leave," he said.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump's Deployment of the National Guard in L.A. Has Serious Legal Flaws
Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily. President Donald Trump has deployed California's National Guard in response to protests against immigration arrests in Los Angeles, sending 4,000 guardsmen into the city, along with 700 Marines to assist them. Trump claims he has the authority to federalize the National Guard over the objection of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who condemned the move as a cynical effort to escalate the clash between federal law enforcement and civilians. On Monday, the state attorney general sued Trump in federal court, claiming he has no power to federalize the guard and seeking an injunction against its deployment. And on Tuesday, the AG requested a temporary restraining order 'that prevents federal troops from enforcing the laws in a civilian city.' It is well established that the president can, in certain circumstances, call up the National Guard to enforce the law when a state's governor is unwilling to do so. But it is not at all clear that Trump has done so lawfully here. The president's attempt to invoke control over California's Guard rests on a questionable interpretation of a federal statute that may suffer from a serious legal flaw. The state's lawsuit against him is far from frivolous and raises significant questions about the scope of Trump's authority. It is quite possible that a federal court will soon hold that the president's alleged effort to sustain law and order in Los Angeles is itself a violation of the law. To see why, it's important to understand what Trump has not done: He has declined, so far, to invoke the Insurrection Act, which unquestionably allows the president to seize control over a state's Guard. A key provision of the act allows the president to federalize the Guard when he deems it necessary 'to enforce the laws of the United States' in the face of 'unlawful obstructions' or 'rebellion.' And the law constitutes an exception from the Posse Comitatus Act, which bars domestic use of the military for law enforcement purposes. Taken together, this means that under appropriate circumstances, the president can wield the Insurrection Act to mobilize a state's National Guard without the consent of its governor, or even over their objection. And after doing so, the president can order the Guard to perform domestic law enforcement despite the usual prohibition against military involvement in civilian policing. But Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act in response to the protests in L.A. Instead, he has purported to federalize the National Guard under a lesser-known statute, 10 USC Section 12406. This law allows the president to call up the Guard when 'there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion' against the U.S. government. To justify his invocation of the law, Trump's proclamation alleges that the anti–Immigration and Customs Enforcement protests 'constitute a form of rebellion' against the government. Critically, this statute does not permit federal troops to engage in general domestic law enforcement; they cannot start arresting anyone accused of breaking the law. Instead, guardsmen can only protect and support civilian officers—namely, ICE agents—in carrying out their duties. According to California's lawsuit, though, there are several problems with Trump's legal theory that render it vulnerable to judicial pushback. First, the statute says that when a president seeks to invoke the law, their 'orders … shall be issued through the governors of the States.' But, of course, Newsom did not issue an order to send California's National Guard into L.A. To the contrary: Newsom actively opposes the move—forcing Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to bypass him, giving orders directly to the adjutant general of California. By doing so, Trump and Hegseth defied the plain text of the statute, which appears to envision cooperation, not conflict, between the governor and the president. Georgetown Law's Steve Vladeck suggests that this provision may be 'better understood as a purely administrative provision' rather than 'giving a substantive veto to the governor.' That may be right. But it could also have been intended to prevent the president from using the law to do what Trump is doing now—mobilizing the National Guard, in open defiance of the governor. After all, the Insurrection Act already allows the president to call up the Guard over a governor's objections, and to do so in a broader set of circumstances. Congress could have added this provision to Section 12406 to keep the law narrowly aimed at emergencies in which the state and federal governments agree on the need for a federalized Guard. History provides some support for this reading of the law. No president has ever before used Section 12406 to call up the National Guard without the request of a state's governor. When presidents have needed to wrest control of a state's guardsmen from a lawless governor—such as during fights over desegregation in the 1950s and '60s—they have relied upon the Insurrection Act instead. Moreover, the provision requiring orders to be 'issued through' the governor was absent from the original version of the statute; Congress later amended it to include this requirement. It would be highly unusual for courts to simply ignore limiting language that Congress consciously inserted, especially when presidents already have another way to mobilize the Guard against the wishes of a governor. Second, it is highly questionable that protesters' actions in L.A. amount to a 'rebellion' under Section 12406, as Trump claimed in his proclamation. A small minority of demonstrators has certainly destroyed property and attempted to obstruct ICE enforcement. But these actions are a far cry from the kind of 'rebellion' that the statute seems to contemplate. The law's preceding provision empowers the president during an 'invasion by a foreign nation,' and together, 'invasion' and 'rebellion' describe some kind of organized, armed assault on the federal government. Scattered acts of violence in protest of immigration arrests cannot plausibly be rounded up to any kind of 'rebellion' against the United States. And Trump's attempt to shoehorn these incidents into the statute stretches its text to the breaking point. Federal judges are entitled to call out and halt this abuse of Section 12406. In cases involving the Alien Enemies Act, multiple courts have ruled that there is no 'invasion' justifying the invocation of that 18th-century law. There is no reason why courts cannot similarly hold that there is no 'rebellion' justifying the invocation of Section 12406. In its lawsuit, California argues that 'primarily peaceful protests with some acts of violence or civil disobedience do not rise to the level of a rebellion' under any plausible definition of the term. It is difficult to contest that conclusion. And the judiciary surely has constitutional authority to declare that in light of this fact, Trump has exceeded his power here. Finally, Trump's declaration gestures toward some inherent constitutional prerogative to deploy the troops that bolsters his use of Section 12406. It is true that, under Article 2, presidents have widely acknowledged the power to send in military members to safeguard U.S. governmental functions. Under these circumstances, troops cannot engage in domestic law enforcement; they can only protect federal employees attempting to carry out their own duties. Trump's deployment of 700 Marines arguably falls into this category (though, again, these Marines can only protect civilian officers and cannot undertake general law enforcement themselves). But the National Guard is constitutionally distinct from the rest of the military—a unique joint enterprise between states and the federal government. States still hold primary authority over their Guards, the modern equivalent of state militias, and it is up to Congress to decide when the president can overrule a governor's orders. If Trump's attempt to federalize the Guard is not permitted by a congressionally enacted statute, then he cannot rely on Article 2 as a fallback. In light of these issues, the question arises: Why didn't Trump just invoke the Insurrection Act, which would provide a far more solid basis for him to mobilize the Guard over Newsom's protest? In reality, the act is an emergency power that's historically been reserved for either uncontained crises of violence or lawless defiance of the Constitution, such as the aforementioned Southern states' refusal to acknowledge desegregation orders. No reasonable observer could believe that anything of the kind is going on now. Trump may call the protesters 'insurrectionists' and seek to stoke civil disorder, but he must know that the situation on the ground is a far cry from the L.A. riots or the Little Rock Nine. It would look absurd to invoke this statute prematurely against a handful of bad actors amid mostly peaceful protests. By relying on different authorities, though, Trump has made himself more susceptible to legal challenge. California's lawsuit has been assigned to Judge Charles Breyer, a liberal Bill Clinton appointee. He should give the state's claims the scrutiny they deserve and consider issuing a restraining order or injunction that bars further mobilization of the state's Guard, nixes its current deployment, and prohibits troops from carrying out law enforcement duties. That Trump may try to flout such a ruling is no reason for Breyer to shirk his judicial responsibilities. The separation of the U.S. military from civilian law enforcement is a bedrock principle of American democracy. Courts should not give Trump a free pass to bulldoze this barrier under the pretense of a phony crisis.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Noem Asked for Troops to Be Authorized to Arrest ‘Lawbreakers': Report
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem wants members of the U.S. military to have the authority to arrest protesters in Los Angeles. According to a letter obtained by The San Francisco Chronicle, Noem wrote to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Sunday requesting that he authorize 'DoD forces to either detain, just as they would at any federal facility guarded by military, lawbreakers under Title 18 until they can be arrested and processed by federal law enforcement, or arrest them.' Noem's request came on the eve of Hegseth's announcement that the military would be mobilizing as many as 700 active duty U.S. Marines for deployment to the Los Angeles area, to potentially be used to tamp down anti-ICE protests. President Donald Trump inflamed the protests over the weekend by federalizing and deploying thousands of National Guard members to the city, while casting it as a war zone overrun by marauding criminals. Local authorities have affirmed that instances of violence and vandalism against property are not reflective of the overall tone of the protests as a whole. Noem wrote to Hegseth: 'We need … support to our law enforcement officers and agents across Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and Federal Protective Services (FPS), as they defend against invasive, violent, insurrectionist mobs that seek to protect invaders and military aged males belonging to identified foreign terrorist organizations, and who seek to prevent the deportation of criminal aliens.' California Attorney General Rob Bonta wrote in the state's lawsuit against the Trump administration that 'the Posse Comitatus Act has expressly prohibited the use of the active duty armed forces and federalized national guard for civilian law enforcement,' and decried alleged plans to have Marines and National Guard troops 'accompany federal immigration enforcement officers on raids throughout Los Angeles,' and 'physically interact with or detain civilians.' The protests taking place in Los Angeles, which are now spreading throughout the country, are not in defense of immigrant criminality that is regularly sensationalized by Noem and the Trump administration. They are a reaction to the brutal, inhumane tactics the federal government has been implementing to target immigrant communities. In recent weeks, ICE has surprised migrants at immigration hearings, thrown teenagers on their way to volleyball practice in detention, ripped infants out of their mothers arms while conducting an arrest, and begun carrying out large scale round ups that — by the admission of Trump's 'immigration czar' Tom Homan — ensnare migrants with no criminal record. 'I feel like we are a case study for what happens when the federal government moves in and takes over power from the state government and from the local entities,' Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass told ABC7 on Tuesday. Bass added that she had 'tried to explain to [Homan] that the last thing our city needs is the National Guard. 'If we needed the help, we would ask for the help. There's nothing unusual about doing that, but why did they need to take power away from the governor?' 'If the raids hadn't happened, we would not be looking at the violence in the street right now,' Bass added, noting that the ICE raids were creating a sense of fear in L.A.'s substantial immigrant community. Now the Trump administration seems to be actively attempting to inflame tensions even further by not only threatening to send active duty members of the military into the fray — but potentially giving them the power to act as law enforcement against civilians. Such a move hasn't been made by a president since 1992, when former President George H.W. Bush invoked the Insurrection Act during the Los Angeles riots that broke out after four officers charged in the beating of Rodney King were acquitted. 'U.S. Marines serve a valuable purpose for this country — defending democracy. They are not political pawns. The Secretary of Defense is illegally deploying them onto American streets so Trump can have a talking point at his parade this weekend,' California Governor Gavin Newsom wrote Sunday on social media. 'This is a red line, and they are crossing it,' he added. More from Rolling Stone Trump Finally Gets the Police State He's Been Craving for Years These Kids Fought the Climate Crisis in Court. Now They're Taking on Trump Gavin Newsom Slams Trump's 'Weakness' After Arrest Threat Best of Rolling Stone The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence
