Politics ALABAMA, ARKANSAS, CALIFORNIA NATIONAL GUARD, CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL, CIVIL RIGHTS, DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER, GAVIN NEWSOM, JUDICIARY, JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, LA, LAW, LITTLE ROCK, LOS ANGELES, LYNDON B. JOHNSON, MISSISSIPPI, NATIONAL GUARD, NEWSOM, NORTH AMERICA, OF MISSISSIPPI, PARAMOUNT, SUPREME COURT RULING, THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI, TRUMP, TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, U. S, UNITED STATES, UNIVERSITY, US Nia Simpson June 15, 2025 0 Comments

Trump’s Unprecedented Move to Deploy National Guard in Los Angeles Sparks Controversy

President Trump has federally deployed the California National Guard against Governor Newsom’s wishes, justifying the decision with claims of necessary immigration enforcement in Los Angeles. Newsom has raised concerns about state sovereignty and called for the return of control of the Guard. Legal experts view this action as historically extraordinary and potentially setting up future escalations, while Trump contends violence mandates federal intervention.

In a striking move, President Donald Trump has called up approximately 2,000 National Guard members from California, a decision made without the approval of Governor Gavin Newsom. This kind of federal intervention is extremely rare in U.S. history. Trump argued that deploying these troops is vital for immigration enforcement, claiming they are necessary to safeguard federal personnel amid ongoing protests in Los Angeles.

Newsom, who headed to Los Angeles to oversee the state’s response to the unrest over the weekend, formally requested that the President return control of the National Guard to state authorities. He expressed deep concerns about Trump’s actions, stating, “We didn’t have a problem until Trump got involved. This is a serious breach of state sovereignty.” Newsom described the current law enforcement capabilities as sufficient to maintain order within the city and asserted that the National Guard’s deployment was both unnecessary and inflammatory.

Legal experts say that Trump’s decision echoes past instances of federal governors taking over state responses. For example, the last time such an action occurred was in 1965 when President Lyndon B. Johnson called in federal troops to protect civil rights advocates in Alabama. Trump’s action was noted as being the first time since then that a president has bypassed local leaders in federalizing the National Guard.

The tension in Los Angeles reportedly escalated over the weekend, with media footage showing protests and incidents of violence. Trump cited “incidents of violence and disorder” in his justification for the troops, insisting their role is to provide security and support for Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers.

An Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesperson struck back at critics, arguing that local politicians are exacerbating tensions by overlooking the threats posed by violent protesters. They emphasized that their agency is focused on arresting individuals with serious criminal backgrounds, asserting that any violent actions by rioters would not go unpunished.

Steve Vladeck, a Georgetown law professor, deemed Trump’s federalization of the National Guard as both drastic and ill-advised. He noted that local officials had not requested such federal support and pointed out that the powers granted in Trump’s memo do not constitute an invocation of the Insurrection Act, which yields greater federal authority in civil unrest scenarios. His concerns raise questions about potential future escalations.

Kyle Longley, a professor at Chapman University, similarly observed that the deployment is a maneuver aimed more at energizing Trump’s political base rather than addressing real safety concerns. He warned that calling in the Marines would signal a severe escalation, pointing out the tragic implications of mixing military forces with civilian protests, recalling past incidents of violence against peaceful protesters.

While some public officials defend Trump’s heavy-handed tactics, criticizing him for allegedly mischaracterizing the situation, others disagree. Chris Mirasola, a law professor, noted that the scope of Trump’s federal order does not amount to a full takeover of the National Guard.

As Trump draws attention to masked protesters in his statements, legal experts reiterate that wearing a mask is a protected First Amendment right. They argue that efforts to suppress this right seem aimed at making protesters wary of potential repercussions just for concealing their identity. Legal precedents affirm that while violent actions during protests could lead to arrest, the mere act of wearing a mask should not constitute an offense.

In an overall critical statement, Hina Shamsi from the ACLU highlighted that Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops appears unnecessary and is an abuse of presidential power. This sentiment resonates among various stakeholders who fear that such actions threaten civil liberties and escalate rather than resolve tensions.

President Trump’s unprecedented decision to federalize the California National Guard has raised significant concerns about state sovereignty and the legality of such actions. As Trump’s administration maintains that this deployment is a necessary response to protect federal law enforcement, critics, including Governor Newsom and legal experts, argue that it is an inflammatory and unnecessary measure devoid of local support. With potential legal challenges on the horizon and fears surrounding civil liberties, the implications of Trump’s actions will require careful consideration moving forward.

Original Source: calmatters.org