President Donald Trump has built his presidency around stretching the bounds of presidential authority, and his response to protests over an immigration crackdown in Los Angeles is no exception. He invoked a rarely used law to federalize the National Guard over the objection of Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom and local officials, who did not want to bring in the military. Trump may have the authority to take over the National Guard, but the move highlights the two-track command structure of National Guard units, which are normally deployed by a state’s governor. Insurrection? Rebellion? Overwhelmed? The law cited by the White House to take control of the National Guard cites three reasons for that extraordinary step to be taken: “It sounds like all three to me,” said Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, when asked during congressional testimony which reason the White House was citing. Thus, to the White House, protests launched by job site and Home Depot deportation raids are the equivalent of invasion, rebellion and something the US government doesn’t feel like it can handle without the military. It’s a far cry from Trump’s first term, when his Defense Secretary Mark Esper said, “The option to use active-duty forces in a law enforcement role should only be used as a matter of last resort, and only in the most urgent and dire of situations,” when the administration considered using the military to address widespread protests related to the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis in 2020. The law also requires orders to be sent through state governors, but rather than cooperating, Newsom has complained the White House has illegally overstepped its authority and put troops on the street without adequate plans to feed or house them. Modern militias usually report to state governors The National Guard — the modern version of a state militia — has roots that predate the founding of the country. A series of laws beginning in the early 20th century gave the president and the federal government more power to standardize the National Guard, but they are still mostly supposed to be a state force. “There’s a tension,” said former Rep. Adam Kinzinger, a CNN political commentator who also served in the Illinois Air National Guard. “How is the National Guard actually a militia if the president, against the wishes of the governor, can activate that militia against its own state?” Unless Trump ultimately invokes the Insurrection Act, Kinzinger said, the use of the National Guard must be extremely limited to roles such as guarding federal buildings. The Insurrection Act is a rarely invoked law, passed in 1807 and updated during Reconstruction, that dictates the extreme situations in which US troops can be used on American streets. Trump did not cite the Insurrection Act when he federalized California’s National Guard. Hegseth said the military — Trump also called up Marines from Twentynine Palms, California — is required to protect ICE agents doing their jobs on the streets of Los Angeles. Protests in Los Angeles escalated on Sunday after President Donald Trump deployed 2,000 National Guard members to the area, a move that Democratic leaders called unnecessary and inflammatory. The protests against recent immigration raids began Friday, but picked up in scale and intensity over the weekend. CNN reporters on the ground witnessed officers striking and pushing protesters, and deploying tear gas into the crowd. Meanwhile, the protests caused major disruptions on the 101 Freeway, a main artery connecting major Californian cities. Photos and videos on the ground showed cars being set on fire and protesters throwing objects onto police vehicles. Mobilizing the military to act in US cities is not unprecedented in US history. President Dwight Eisenhower called up the 101st Airborne Division to protect Black students in Little Rock, Arkansas, during the integration of public schools in 1957. The most recent example of the National Guard being deployed in a state over the authority of its governor was in 1965, during the Civil Rights Movement, when President Lyndon B. Johnson cited the Insurrection Act to deploy the National Guard to protect marchers led by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. in Alabama. The most recent example of the Insurrection Act being cited to deploy the National Guard came in the early 1990s, when California Gov. Pete Wilson asked the federal government for help responding to riots after four Los Angeles Police Department officers were acquitted in the horrific beating of Rodney King. Those riots were widespread and deadly, in contrast with the smattering of skirmishes in Los Angeles this week. Each of those instances involved the Insurrection Act, a law passed in 1807. While Trump has called protesters and rioters “insurrectionists,” he has not technically invoked the Insurrection Act. People can legitimately debate whether the Los Angeles protests warrant federalizing the National Guard, but Trump cited no law in giving Hegseth authority to mobilize regular military to help in the response. Approximately 700 Marines were mobilized. Trump is ready for the military to play a larger role What may be alarming about Trump’s order, according to Elizabeth Goitein, an expert on presidential emergency powers at the Brennan Center for Justice, is that he did not specifically mention Los Angeles, which means he could have essentially OK’d the use of the military across the country for protests against ICE actions that have not yet occurred. “ICE activity is happening across the country, and will likely draw protests in many places,” Goitein wrote in a detailed thread on social media. “Trump is authorizing military deployment nationwide, regardless of whether protests involve violence or are even happening yet.” That means Americans should be prepared for the possibility of more deployments around the country, something that runs against the American tradition of separating military force from police force. Necessary move? Sending troops and Marines to Los Angeles was necessary, according to Rep. Zach Nunn, a Republican congressman from Iowa and a member of his state’s National Guard. “We have a sanctuary city in LA that refuses to stand with federal law enforcement. We have cops who are bleeding in the street,” he told CNN’s Kasie Hunt, referencing skirmishes between law enforcement and protesters. Trump said more service members could be on the way. “We have to make sure there’s going to be law and order,” the president told reporters at the White House on Monday. The US military is not usually aimed at Americans Even if the Marines aren’t directly involved in policing or interacting with protesters, their presence challenges what has been normal in the US. “An army turned inward can quickly become an instrument of tyranny,” Goitein wrote in her thread. “That’s why domestic deployment should be an absolute last resort.” California is suing the federal government for overstepping its authority, and Newsom invited Trump to arrest him, an idea the president embraced when taking questions from reporters at the White House, but which would be unprecedented since the Civil War. Posse Comitatus Act vs. Insurrection Act After some Trump supporters argued he should have invoked the Insurrection Act to delay certification of the 2020 election, Goitein was among the many scholars who argued that the laws concerning extreme uses of presidential power needed to be updated and clarified. There is one law, the Posse Comitatus Act, that largely bars the use of the military inside the US. But there is also the Insurrection Act, which has not changed much since the 1870s, when it was used by President Ulysses S. Grant in an attempt to smother the early Ku Klux Klan. That’s when Congress amended the Insurrection Act to give presidents more authority. But it did not define the term “insurrection” or lay out how presidential power should be curbed. Grant went as far as to suspend writ of habeas corpus, the legal principle by which people can’t be imprisoned without trial or appearance in court. Law enforcement should be able to handle this Critics of the Trump administration argue his actions to militarize the situation in Los Angeles are intended as a sort of theater but are making the situation worse. “We have domestic law enforcement agencies capable of handling these problems on almost every circumstance,” said Kori Schake, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, appearing on CNN on Monday. “The standard for invoking the Insurrection Act has historically been very high, and it would be an ominous sign for the Trump administration to invoke it in these circumstances,” Schake said.
Insurrection? Rebellion? Overwhelmed? Can Trump legally take control of California’s National Guard?
TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:
"Trump Federalizes California National Guard Amid Protests Over Immigration Raids"
TruthLens AI Summary
President Donald Trump has taken a controversial step by invoking a rarely used law to federalize California's National Guard amidst protests against immigration raids in Los Angeles. This decision has been met with strong opposition from California Governor Gavin Newsom and local officials, who argue that the military presence is unwarranted and exacerbates tensions. Trump's administration claims that the situation warrants federal intervention, citing reasons such as insurrection and rebellion, as articulated by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth during congressional testimony. The law allows the President to assume control of the National Guard, which is typically under the purview of state governors, raising concerns about the balance of power and the implications of using military force in domestic situations. Critics, including former officials and political commentators, express alarm over the potential for overreach and the historical precedent it sets for deploying military resources against civilians, especially since Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act, which dictates the conditions under which federal troops may be deployed domestically.
The protests in Los Angeles, which escalated significantly over the weekend, have led to major disruptions and violent confrontations between demonstrators and law enforcement. Reports indicate that police used tear gas and physical force against protesters, while Trump’s administration justifies the military's presence as necessary to protect federal agents amid escalating tensions. Historical context is provided by referencing past instances where military intervention was deemed necessary, such as during the Civil Rights Movement and in response to riots following the Rodney King verdict. However, many experts argue that the current situation does not meet the high threshold typically required for such actions. The deployment of troops, including Marines, raises critical questions about the appropriate use of military force within the United States and the implications for civil liberties. As California prepares to challenge the federal government's actions legally, the situation remains tense, with potential for further national implications as protests against ICE actions could arise across the country.
TruthLens AI Analysis
The article presents a complex situation regarding President Trump's decision to federalize California's National Guard amidst protests triggered by an immigration crackdown. This move, which faced opposition from California's Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, raises significant questions about presidential authority and the balance of power between state and federal governments.
Purpose Behind the Article
The article seeks to inform readers about the legal and political implications of Trump's actions. By highlighting the tension between state and federal authority, it aims to provoke discussions about governance and the limits of presidential power. The framing of the protests as potentially equivalent to "insurrection" or "rebellion" suggests an intention to elicit concern about civil unrest and government response.
Public Perception
The piece may foster a perception that the federal government is overreaching by deploying military resources in a state where local leaders oppose such measures. This framing could evoke anxiety among the public regarding the militarization of domestic issues, particularly in a politically charged environment.
Information Omission
While the article discusses Trump's invocation of a rarely used law, it may not delve deeply enough into the historical precedents for such actions or the broader context of immigration policies that led to the protests. This selective reporting could skew public understanding of the complexities involved.
Manipulative Elements
The language used in the article, such as equating protests with insurrection, could be seen as manipulative. By invoking strong terminology, it may provoke fear and urgency, impacting public sentiment and potentially rallying opposition to the federal government's approach.
Credibility Assessment
The article appears credible as it references specific statements from officials and legal frameworks. However, the choice of language and framing could affect its perceived objectivity. The underlying message seems to suggest that the government is escalating tensions rather than resolving them.
Comparative Analysis
When compared to other reports on similar issues, this article emphasizes the confrontation between Trump and Newsom, which may align with a broader narrative of partisan conflict. It could resonate particularly with audiences already inclined to view Trump skeptically, thereby reinforcing existing biases.
Impact on Society and Politics
The potential outcomes of this situation could vary. If public sentiment turns against federal intervention, it might embolden state-level resistance to federal policies. Conversely, if the military presence is normalized, it could set a precedent for future interventions in civil matters, leading to heightened tensions nationwide.
Target Audience
This article likely appeals more to progressive and liberal groups who may oppose Trump's policies. It addresses concerns about federal authority and civil liberties, resonating with those who advocate for state rights and local governance.
Market Implications
From a market perspective, news of federal intervention in state affairs could lead to increased volatility in sectors related to law enforcement, security, and immigration services. Companies operating in these fields might see fluctuations based on public sentiment and potential policy shifts.
Global Context
In terms of global power dynamics, the article reflects ongoing domestic challenges that could influence the U.S.'s international image. The handling of civil unrest and immigration policies impacts the country's foreign relations and its stance on human rights issues.
AI Influence
It’s plausible that AI tools were employed in crafting this article, especially in structuring arguments or summarizing legal aspects. However, without direct evidence, it’s difficult to pinpoint specific AI involvement. If AI was used, it might have aimed to ensure clarity in legal discussions while potentially guiding the narrative toward highlighting governmental authority.
In conclusion, this article serves as a lens through which readers can examine the contentious relationship between state and federal powers, particularly in the context of civil rights and government intervention. The language and framing choices may influence how readers perceive these events, suggesting a nuanced approach to understanding the implications of Trump's actions.