Trump Undergoes Performance Testing in Los Angeles
The hubbub in Los Angeles over Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents apprehending immigrants without legal documents en masse, occasionally whisking them away to undisclosed locations, has ignited passionate protests from families, organizations, and citizens alike. These demonstrations have escalated into the first visible resistance against the current federal administration. Trump's response? Mobilizing 2,000 National Guard troops, then doubling their number, and ultimately deploying 700 active-duty soldiers from the famous "Marines" unit to L.A. – but is this move justifiable?
You betcha! In extraordinary circumstances where the nation's safety is at stake, a U.S. president has the power to call in the National Guard. However, was such an emergency at hand in L.A.? A big fat no. The city's peace was always maintained by California authorities, making it unnecessary for Governor Gavin Newsom to solicit federal assistance. Recall, that excessive ICE agent brutality and protests against them didn't qualify as an emergency calling for auxiliary resources.
California's Courtroom Maneuvers
Naturally, there's outrage and irresponsible damage caused by a handful of protesters in L.A., which led Mayor Karen Bass to impose a night curfew on a particular downtown area. Still, the entire city didn't resemble Paris during Saint-Germain's post-Champions League riots, nor did it entail a widespread rebellion or invasion warranting the deployment of the National Guard. Instead, California petitioned the court for a temporary restraining order to block the soldiers' arrival. Newsom declared, "The deployment of combat-ready soldiers in our city is unprecedented and jeopardizes the very essence of our democracy."
Things are tense in parts of L.A., no doubt, but compared to Paris' Champions League chaos, the Los Angeles protests proved manageable. And California, let alone the rest of the U.S., isn't bursting at the seams like it is in L.A., mainly due to the controversies engendered by ICE's actions in L.A.
A Historical Perspective on the National Guard
Historically, the National Guard traces back to militias during North America's colonization. Their legal foundation was laid in 1903 with the federal Militia Act. Generally, states have jurisdiction over the National Guard. Each state has its own guard, which can be mobilized under the governor's command for natural disasters, yet during wartime with a foreign adversary or comparable national emergencies, the president, as the Constitution's commander-in-chief, assumes control.
Trump's Power Play
Trump's actions transcend the current get-togethers on the ground. Behind the scenes, he's engaged in a bitter feud with Governor Gavin Newsom, the Democratic frontrunner for the 2028 presidential election. But primarily, it's about testing the boundaries of whether a president can employ military force against civilians. "If he succeeds in L.A., I don't see why he wouldn't try it elsewhere," says Josh Chafetz, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University.
Trump's assumption of power is par for the course – with the intent of elevating the immense power granted to the president by the Constitution to an authoritarian, even absolute level. Already, he's shared an artificial image of himself as the Pope. On his 79th birthday, when Trump hosts a "wonderful" parade in Washington, expect anti-authoritarian protests echoing the message "No king" to reverberate far and wide.
Edit: The legal power for this deployment is argued by both Trump supporters and critics. The Title 10 U.S.C. § 12406 allows the president to call up the National Guard to repel invasions, suppress rebellions, or execute U.S. laws if the president is unable to do so with regular forces. However, it requires going "through" the governor, which has been interpreted differently by parties involved. The Insurrection Act is another possible legal route, but it necessitates various conditions of domestic unrest. There is pending judicial review over the case to determine whether Governor Newsom's consent was indeed legally necessary for this deployment.
- The controversial deployment of military forces in Los Angeles, starting with National Guard troops and culminating in the arrival of active-duty soldiers from the Marines, has sparked debates regarding the legal authority of a president to use military force in domestic situations.
- In the midst of these contentious events, politicians, legal scholars, and concerned citizens question whether Trump's actions are a power grab to expand the president's authority, potentially leading to an authoritarian regime.
- The unfolding situation in Los Angeles, fraught with protests and political maneuvering, serves as a vital battlefield for these questions about the limits of presidential power amidst war-and-conflicts, policy-and-legislation, crime-and-justice, general-news, and politics.
