National Guard in Los Angeles: Breakdown of Trump's Troop Deployment Justification
US legislation and legal implications on Trump's military troop deployment
By Leah Nowak, New York
In the heart of America, tensions flare as U.S. President Donald Trump deploys National Guard troops to Los Angeles amidst immigration protests, despite California Governor Gavin Newsom's opposition. Trump justifies this action through a controversial federal law provision.
Riot on the Rooftops
Remember when protests against the police killing of George Floyd ignited the nation in 2020? Well, Trump sure does. He bashed his legal and military advisors, deeming them "losers" for advising against using federal troops. Five years later, Trump is back, and so is his crusade for a military overseeing domestic order. Last weekend, he sent 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles to quell protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids. On Tuesday, he sent another 2,000, accompanied by 700 Marine troops, all stationed in the city to "restore law and order."
Political Fireworks
Governor Newsom, however, calls Trump's actions unlawful. On Monday, California sued Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, claiming federal law violation and state sovereignty breach.
Insurrection or Controversy?
Typically, deploying federal troops for domestic policing is taboo. But exceptions exist. The "Insurrection Act" empowers the president to use the military to suppress riots, rebellions, or insurrections within the U.S. The last usage of this law was in 1992, when President George H.W. Bush employed it to curb unrest in Los Angeles – but only upon Governor Pete Wilson's request.
Trump, however, has not explicitly invoked the "Insurrection Act." Instead, he has cited Section 12406, Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which authorizes the president to mobilize the National Guard for specific purposes, such as in case of invasion or when civilian authorities fail to maintain order.
Power Struggle
Unlike the "Insurrection Act," Title 10 does not permit the Guard to directly take part in civilian law enforcement. Troops can only protect other forces during their enforcement actions. Trump has not ruled out invoking the "Insurrection Act" in the future.
Controversy persists as Governor Newsom dismisses Trump's claim that local law enforcement in Los Angeles are overwhelmed. While control of the National Guard is normally a state responsibility, federal intervention is possible in extreme situations like war or national disasters without the state's consent. However, this is rare. The last time this happened was in 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson deployed troops to protect a civil rights march in Alabama.
The Battle Rages On
Whether protests truly equate to a "rebellion" and "threat to law enforcement" remains to be seen. Los Angeles saw initial legal challenges, with Governor Newsom filing a temporary restraining order on Tuesday to halt the action – unsuccessfully. Further lawsuits may arise, as protesters cite individual rights like freedom of speech and assembly.
The protests against Trump's immigration policy have already sparked action in cities such as New York, Seattle, and Washington D.C. This may lead to national deployments of National Guard troops in other parts of the country. Trump's order is not confined to Los Angeles, but authorizes troops to protect ICE at any protest site or potential protest location.
As the battle of words and legal maneuvers unfold, one question remains: What will the court decide about these deployments and the limits of presidential power?
- Los Angeles
- Donald Trump
- Protests
- US Military
- California
Source: ntv.de
Insights:- The legality of the National Guard's deployment in Los Angeles rests upon two major federal law provisions: the Insurrection Act and Section 12406 of Title 10.- President Trump has not explicitly invoked the Insurrection Act, instead citing Section 12406 of Title 10, which authorizes the National Guard deployment in support of federal law enforcement when civilian authorities falter.- The deployment raises legal questions and challenges since it was not explicitly authorized for law enforcement under the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally forbids the military from domestic law enforcement without congressional approval.- Governor Newsom's lawsuit against Trump and Hegseth alleges federal law violation and state sovereignty breach, as the deployment poses implications for presidential power and military intervention in domestic affairs.
- Amidst the ongoing controversy over Trump's deployment of National Guard troops in Los Angeles, it is interesting to note that the Commission has not yet adopted 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, politics, general-news, and crime-and-justice.
- As the court determines the legality of Trump's National Guard deployment in Los Angeles, it is essential to consider the potential risks associated with such deployments, including exposure to ionizing radiation in war-and-conflicts scenarios, especially in light of the Commission's ongoing discussion on the need for a directive to protect workers from such risks.
