Trump’s use of the national guard against LA protesters defies all precedents

Violence has erupted on the streets of cities across southern California over the weekend, as protesters clashed with agents from the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency detaining people they suspected to be illegal immigrants. The US president, Donald Trump, took the unusual decision on Saturday to deploy 2,000 troops from California’s national guard, despite not being requested to by the state’s governor, Gavin Newsom.

Newsom has threatened to sue Trump over what he has called “an illegal act, an immoral act, an unconstitutional act”. Other California officials have also denounced the move, with Senator Adam Schiff calling it a “dangerous precedent for unilateral misuse of the guard across the country”.

Raids by ICE agents have increased significantly since mid-May when the Trump administration threatened to fire senior ICE officials if they did not deliver on higher arrest quotas. Several high-profile wrongful arrests of US citizens have further inflamed tensions.

Protests have escalated in California, a Democratic stronghold and a “sanctuary state” where local law enforcement does not cooperate with ICE to detain illegal immigrants.

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

At around 24,000 troops, California’s national guard is the largest in the United States. Each state has its own national guard unit, a reserve force under the control of the governor which can be called upon in times of crisis – often to help out during natural disasters or other emergencies. For example, in January, Newsom activated several thousand troops to aid relief work during the devastating fires that threatened Los Angeles.

In 1992, the then president, George H.W. Bush, backed the call of the then governor of California, Pete Wilson, call to deploy national guard members to quell the South Central LA riots.

Now troops are back on the streets of LA. But this time not at the behest of the governor. Trump’s unilateral decision to take federal control over the national guard pits the president against the state of California – and importantly, against a state that has constantly resisted his anti-immigrant agenda. Newsom is seen by many as a possible contender for the Democratic Party’s nomination in the 2028 presidential election.

Historical precedents

Is there a precedent for this? Yes and no. The Insurrection Act (passed in 1807, but revised several times) authorises the president to call on the national guard in times of crisis or war to supplement state and local forces. This has been codified in title 10 of the US Code, which details the laws of the land.

In 1871, the law was revised to specifically allow for the national guard to be used in the protection of civil rights for black Americans. Legal experts have long called for reform of the Insurrection Act, arguing that the language is too vague and open to misuse.

In the past, former US presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson all invoked different sections of the Act to protect civil rights, particularly against segregationist states. While the act implies consent between governor and president, it does not require it.

Two examples stand out. On June 11 1963, John F. Kennedy issued executive order 11111 mobilising the national guard to protect desegregation of the University of Alabama, against the wishes of Alabama governor George Wallace.

Wallace’s determination to block the registration of two black students, Vivian Malone and James Hood, produced a produced a sensational media moment when Wallace physically blocked the entrance of the university. Local law enforcement stood by the governor. With the state of Alabama in defiance of federal law, Kennedy saw no alternative but to deploy the guard.

Less than two years later, in March 1965 Lyndon B. Johnson again deployed the guard in Alabama, bypassing Governor Wallace. In February, a state trooper in the town of Marion killed a young voters-rights activist, Jimmie Lee Jackson.

This shooting, along with several violent attacks by the local police on voter registration activists in Selma, inspired a series of marches in support of the 1965 voting rights bill. On the eve of the march from Selma to Montgomery, tensions between local police and civil rights protesters were at a high.

In response, Johnson bypassed Wallace and called in the national guard to ensure, as he put it, the rights of Americans “to walk peaceably and safely without injury or loss of life from Selma to Montgomery”.

Before last Saturday, this was the last time a president circumvented the authority of the state governor in deploying the guard. But even in this instance, there was an implied request from Wallace, who explicitly requested federal aid in the absence of state resources.

The subtext here is that Wallace did not want to be seen to call up the national guard himself, so he forced Johnson to make that decision, allowing him to claim that the president was trampling on state sovereignty.

Insurrection Act

This is not the current situation in California. The LAPD is the third largest police force in the US, with over just under 9,000 sworn officers. While its ranks have shrunk in recent years, it has been responding to the recent protests and unrest. There is no reason to think that Newsom would hesitate to call in the national guard if warranted.

In reality, Trump has invoked the Insurrection Act to protect ICE agents. Indeed, the national guard has a complicated history of responding to civil unrest. The current situation is in stark contrast with the past, and faces serious questions of legitimacy.

It is difficult not to see this as the latest move by the Trump administration to subjugate California. In early January Trump threatened to withhold federal aid to rebuild after the wildfires. In past months he threatened to withdraw all of the state’s federal funding to punish it for its stance on campus protests and the inclusion of transgender athletes in women’s sports.

Unlike his predecessors, Trump has not mobilised the national guard to protect civil rights against a hostile police force. Instead, he appears to be using this as leverage to undermine a political opponent he views as blocking his agenda. Circumventing gubernatorial powers over the national guard in this way has no precedent and heralds the next stage in an extended conflict between the president and the state of California.

Sinead McEneaney does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.