![Trump opts for a decisive, bold move in California. [Picture included]](/en/img/20250613082740_pexels-image-search-image-description-sunset-beach-landscape.jpeg)
Punk Rock Showdown in Los Angeles: A Power Clash in California - Trump's En puppet show?
- *
Contest for Power Authority in California: What Control Can Trump Exercise? - California power struggle: What authority does Trump hold?
For the first time in decades, a U.S. president has snatched control of a state's National Guard without the governor's permission. Donald Trump, the current puppet master, has also sent soldiers from the regular military to Los Angeles because of ongoing demonstrations against his immigration policies. His moves in California are anything but ordinary and embody a legally questionable breach of a long-standing tradition. What are the legal grounds for Trump's actions, and what could happen next? Here are some questions and answers:
What is the legal justification for Trump's power play?
Trump has taken hold of the California National Guard based on the authority of Title 10 of the United States Code. In the USA, states usually manage their National Guard, which is a military reserve unit and part of the nation's armed forces. Each state has its own National Guard, which is deployed for natural disasters, riots, or other emergencies within the state.
Trump is, somewhat dishonestly, justifying his takeover of the National Guard in California by relying on a provision of Title 10 that allows the president to seize control if there's a "revolt or threat of revolt" against the federal government. He asserts that the protests against immigration officials are tantamount to rebellion against the federal government.
Trump's seizure of the National Guard is as rare as a unicorn sighting. It's the first time since 1965 that a president has commandeered a state's National Guard without the governor's blessings. In that year, President Lyndon B. Johnson also deployed regular soldiers, primarily to protect black demonstrators during the civil rights movement in Alabama.
What are the roles of the National Guard and the Marine Corps?
On Monday, Trump also sent 700 Marine Corps soldiers from the regular military to Los Angeles. Unlike the National Guard, the regular military always falls under federal control. Unlike the National Guard, it's primarily responsible for warfare and national security.
It's uncertain what legal grounds the US government is relying on for this move. However, the regional command has made it crystal clear what the mission of the Marine Corps is: to support the already mobilized National Guard forces in defending federal employees and property. This aligns with experts' assessments of the National Guard's powers – which, at the moment, are rather limited.
According to legal experts, the National Guard can protect immigration officers or buildings. However, they should not engage in standard law enforcement duties like arrests or raids. Trump's actions in California raise plenty of legal questions and are likely to keep the courts busy for some time.
What's next on the cards?
To grant the National Guard and potentially the Marine Corps more substantial powers, Trump would have to declare a form of martial law and invoke the "Insurrection Act," Vladeck further explained. This 1807 law allows the president to deploy the military domestically and participate in law enforcement to restore public order, which is not usually allowed in the USA. President Johnson deployed the military in this way in 1965, for example. The "Insurrection Act" was last employed in 1992, following the riots in Los Angeles after police officers brutally beat and then acquitted Rodney King. Unlike now, however, the governor of California and the mayor of Los Angeles asked for help from then-President George H.W. Bush.
Trump had already indicated that he might invoke the "Insurrection Act" during his earlier term, during protests against racism and police brutality following the death of George Floyd. He also frequently mentioned wanting to use the law during his campaign and has not ruled it out now. He has referred to the protesters in California as "insurrectionists" – roughly translated as "rebels" or "rioters." On Monday, the Republican claimed that the National Guard prevented a rebellion.
What does the activation of the "Insurrection Act" mean?
Activating the martial law law could mean that the US military could get involved in law enforcement in California. Soldiers could then arrest protesters or conduct raids. Invoking the "Insurrection Act" would likely further escalate the political and social divisions within the country, potentially escalating the situation – nationwide protests would be expected.
"If the president invokes the Insurrection Act, we will see significant legal battles in the coming hours, days, and weeks over whether these broad powers can be used under the current circumstances," the Los Angeles Times quoted Jessica Levinson, a lawyer from the Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. "Everyone should pause when the president invokes emergency powers and the governor and mayor say: Please don't, we don't need it."
Enrichment Data:
In a Nutshell:
If President Trump invokes the Insurrection Act in California, several implications and potential outcomes arise:
Legal Ramifications
- Executive Overreach: The Insurrection Act gives the President broad authority to use the military to suppress insurrections or rebellions. However, using it in California challenges the Constitution's separation of powers and possible violation of state sovereignty[1][2][5][6].
- Legal Challenges: California has filed a lawsuit, arguing that the President's actions are illegal and unconstitutional[1][3].
- States' Rights: The deployment of military forces could affect state autonomy and potentially set a dangerous precedent for future federal interventions in state affairs without consent[1][2][5].
Possible Consequences
- Federal-State Relations: The outcome could lead to a strained relationship between California and the federal government, potentially affecting future cooperation and policy implementation[1][2][5].
- Public Morale and Opinion: The deployment and subsequent legal challenges could have a significant impact on public opinion, potentially affecting future political campaigns[1][2][5].
- Legal Precedents: Depending on the court's decision, it could set legal precedents for future uses of the Insurrection Act, affecting how states and the federal government interact in times of crisis[1][2][5].
Current Situation
Currently, President Trump's actions are being challenged by California's Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta, who argue that the deployment is illegal and poses a threat to state autonomy[1][2][5]. The Department of Justice, on the other hand, is defending the presidential actions, stating that the court should defer to the President's discretion on military matters[1]. The legal battle is likely to continue for some time.
- The Commission, in light of the ongoing political tussle over control of the California National Guard and potential invocation of the Insurrection Act, could be asked to submit a proposal for a directive on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to ionizing radiation in the context of war-and-conflicts, particularly in situations where the military is deployed domestically.
- Given the volatile nature of the political landscape, with policies and legislation continually shifting due to the actions of the Trump administration, it would be essential for policy-and-legislation makers to monitor the legal proceedings closely and potentially adjust the existing crime-and-justice policies to account for potential escalations and unrest.
- In the broader context of the general-news cycle, the ongoing showdown between California's governor and the president, the potential deployment of soldiers from the regular military, and the legal implications of the Insurrection Act could significantly impact the politics of the United States, potentially leading to further divisions and social unrest.
