Skip to content
crime-and-justice — War-and-conflicts — Immigration — General-news — Politics

Military's risky politicization under Donald Trump's administration

Authoritarian rule solidifies as populist leadership takes root in the core of the United States.

,   and  ASMedia
3 min read
Authoritarian rule intensifies under the populist regime in the United States.
Authoritarian rule intensifies under the populist regime in the United States.

Military's risky politicization under Donald Trump's administration

In a surprising turn of events, the U.S. National Guard has adjusted its mission after several days of safeguarding federal buildings in Los Angeles. Now, they accompany immigration agents during arrests and status checks, ramping up tension in the California megacity.

ICE, justifying the expanded mission, claims it is necessary to protect government representatives during their daily operations. The intensified presence of National Guard members, announced by the U.S. president, coupled with the arrival of a 700-strong U.S. Marine unit without the consent of California's Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom, stirs up concerns about the federal government's involvement in anti-immigration policies.

This move is but one part of a broader project aiming at eroding American democracy, reminiscent of an authoritarian regime's characteristic features. Carrie A. Lee, a researcher at the German Marshall Fund, shares her apprehensions, stating, "Americans should be very concerned to see military units deployed and tasked with law enforcement operations, such as immigration service raids, in collaboration with ICE and the Department of Homeland Security."

California's governor, Gavin Newsom, has publicly challenged this military intervention on his territory, taking the matter to court and declaring, "Democracy is under attack before our eyes."

Political Precedents

Historically, deploying the National Guard to enforce federal authority is not unheard of. Examples include President Dwight Eisenhower deploying troops to Little Rock, Arkansas, in 1957 to enforce desegregation orders, and President Lyndon B. Johnson sending troops to Alabama in 1965 to protect civil rights marchers. However, the current deployment is unique in its intent to support immigration enforcement, a new territory for the National Guard's role.

Implications

  1. State Sovereignty: The deployment without the governor's approval has sparked concerns about state sovereignty and the limits of federal power. Critics argue this move represents an overreach of federal authority into state matters.
  2. Community Impact: The presence of military personnel supporting immigration enforcement can lead to intimidation within communities, particularly in sanctuary cities.
  3. Political Tensions: The move has ignited political tensions between the federal government and states that do not cooperate fully with immigration enforcement, potentially setting a precedent for future deployments in similar situations.
  1. Tenth Amendment: The deployment has faced legal challenges, with concerns that it violates the Tenth Amendment, which protects state authority.
  2. Posse Comitatus Act: Questions have arisen about adherence to the Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts the military's role in domestic law enforcement, given that military personnel are indirectly involved in law enforcement activities.
  3. Title 10 of U.S. Code: President Trump cited Title 10 as his authority for the deployment, but critics argue that the conditions specified in the law—such as rebellion or inability to execute federal laws—do not apply in this context.

In conclusion, the deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles to support immigration agents marks a controversial expansion of the Guard's role, with significant implications for state-federal relations and legal challenges regarding the use of military force in domestic law enforcement.

  1. The current deployment of the National Guard without California's governor's approval has raised questions about state sovereignty and the limits of federal power, potentially violating the Tenth Amendment's protection of state authority.
  2. The involvement of the National Guard in immigration enforcement operations may lead to an escalation of tension in communities, particularly in sanctuary cities, causing feelings of intimidation and fear.
  3. The collaboration between the federal government and the National Guard for immigration enforcement purposes has sparked political tensions, potentially setting a precedent for future deployments in similar situations, influencing the relationship between federal and state governments.

Read also:

Related

Latest