A Showdown in LA: Trump Deploys National Guard against Governor Newsom's Wishes
- ~=~ 4 Min Read
Military mobilization ordered by Trump, against the wishes of state governor - Trump Deploys National Guard Against Governor's Opposition.
In a bold and controversial move, US President Donald Trump has ordered the deployment of at least 2,000 National Guard soldiers in California to quell protests against the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Governor Gavin Newsom has publicly opposed this action, stating it intentionally escalates the situation and risks eroding public trust.
Protests, some of which turned violent, started in Los Angeles on Friday, as ICE officers were detaining migrants without valid papers for deportation. Governor Newsom appealed to the protesters to stay peaceful and avoid giving authorities a reason to escalate the situation further.
The White House vs. the Governor's Office
Trump, as the commander-in-chief, claims the deployment is necessary to put an end to "lawlessness" in LA. Spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt claimed that the troops will ensure the laws of the United States are enforced. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth slightly escalated the situation by suggesting the use of Marine Corps forces, if necessary. Newsom reacted with shock, claiming Hegseth was threatening to deploy soldiers "against our own citizens."
Normally, the control of the National Guard lies with the states, and deployment by presidential order against a state's wishes is an unusual escalation. The mobilization of regular military forces within the country would be an even greater breach of protocol.
A Historical Precedent
Though rare, this is not the first time the national guard has been deployed against a state's wishes. Indeed, the most infamous example occurred during the Civil Rights Era in Little Rock, Arkansas. Governor Orval Faubus activated the National Guard to block nine Black students from entering Central High School, enforcing school segregation against federal desegregation orders. President Dwight D. Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard, removing them from state control, and deployed them alongside U.S. Army troops to enforce integration[1].
A Delicate Balance
This deployment marks a tense standoff between federal and state authorities over control of the National Guard. Generally, governors retain command over their state National Guard unless federalized. Federalization is usually reserved for national emergencies, insurrections, or when federal laws must be enforced[1].
One of California's two US Senators, Adam Schiff, called the deployment "unprecedented" and intending to cause chaos. He warned against violent clashes with protesters and urged for an end to the violence. Elsewhere, Donald Trump had threatened that if Governor Newsom and the Mayor of Los Angeles didn't do their jobs properly, the government would intervene and solve the problem with "riots and looters." He also linguistically attacked Newsom, calling him "Newscum" on the Truth Social platform. Some interpret this as a move to weaken Newsom's image, given his potential future presidential aspirations[1].
The Road Ahead
As tensions escalate, it remains to be seen if this showdown between federal and state authorities will become a prolonged standoff. The complexity of these situations can lead to a strained relationship between the federal government and individual states, raising questions about the balance of power in the United States[1].
[1] Source: Legal scholars, news media, and historical records.
In the arena of politics and general news, the standoff between President Donald Trump and Governor Gavin Newsom has intensified over the deployment of the National Guard in California, highlighting the delicate balance of power within the USA. This situation echoes historical precedents, such as the Civil Rights Era conflict in Little Rock, Arkansas, where disagreements over federal and state authority were settled through federalization.
Amidst the backdrop of ongoing demonstrations, war-and-conflicts, and international affairs, this domestic issue adds another layer of complexity to the political landscape, with questions surrounding the US government's approach to immigration, police involvement, and the potential long-term effects on both federal and state relations.
