TRUMP ESTABLISHES CONTROVERSIAL PRECEDENT IN CALIFORNIA'S HISTORY: A DISCUSSION ON THE POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS
As vets, who've sworn to safeguard the Constitution, we've gotta speak up against ol' Trump's controversial move to deploy 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to LA, against the wishes of Gov. Gavin Newsom.
This ain't your typical, run-of-the-mill situation. It's been nearly 60 years since a president has exercised such control over state military forces, bypassing the gov. And recall, presidents like Ike integrating schools or JFK defending civil rights did so to address constitutional crises, not some managed immigration protests.
Legally, things aren't looking too hot for Trump. He utilized Title 10 U.S.C. Section 12406, claiming protests equated to "rebellion." But federal law clearly states orders should come through governors. Trump, skipped Newsom completely. The Golden State's ongoing lawsuit challenges these statutory breaches.
This moves could set a troubling precedent. With each future president able to see local protests as justification for military action against state wishes, we're treading on thin ice. The Posse Comitatus Act is there exactly to stop military policing of civilians, a principle central to our democracy.
As vets, we know the ropes when it comes to military authority. Trump's action militarizes political disputes and normalizes federal override of state sovereignty under partisan agendas.
The dollars spent—$134 million on 4,700 military personnel—for protests resulting in five criminal cases is nuts. California had things under control; federal intervention was uncalled for.
We're calling out to fellow vets and Californians to stand against this constitutional overreach. Military force should shield democracy, not bend to political whims. When presidents can federalize state forces at will, we've strayed from the federalism our founding fathers established to protect liberty.
Our oath to defend the Constitution demands we oppose this power grab—no matter the party.
For general queries, email .
Enrichment Insights:
Historically, the federalization of state forces without the governor's consent is scarce. Previous instances involved the Insurrection Act or special missions while bypassing traditional mechanisms. Trump's move violates the statutory procedure (10 USC 12406) bypassing the governor, while raising questions about the applicability of the Posse Comitatus Act to National Guard. The deployment undermines state sovereignty and democratic norms, and courts are grappling with the question of its legality, setting a precedent for presidential power and limitations.
Judicial review is currently underway, with Trump's legal team claiming his decisions as commander in chief are unreviewable, but this is being contested in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Experts argue that deploying federal troops against the wishes of state leaders challenges the U.S. balance of power, democracy, and established law.
- This unusual situation sparks serious concern, as it might establish a dangerous precedent for future presidents to deploy military forces in state affairs, bypassing the governors, a move that questionably aligns with the Posse Comitatus Act and threatens our democracy's fundamental principles.
- The ongoing legal dispute between the Trump administration and Gov. Newsom of California revolves around the former's controversial use of military force in LA, which went against the traditional procedure for federalizing state forces, challenging the long-established balance of power between federal and state authorities.
