Can a President Deploy Troops to Cities Against a Governor’s Wishes? Unpacking Trump’s National Guard Move in Los Angeles

Category: Deep Dives | Sub-Category: Social Affairs and Politics | insightoutvision.com

In June 2025, President Donald Trump’s decision to deploy 2,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles—without the approval of Governor Gavin Newsom—sparked a firestorm of debate. The move, aimed at quelling protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids, raised a critical question: What powers does a U.S. president have to send troops to cities, even when local leaders object? This extraordinary action has ignited legal battles, polarized public opinion, and prompted scrutiny of presidential authority. Let’s dive into the legal, historical, and political dimensions of this controversial decision, exploring its implications for democracy and state sovereignty.

The Los Angeles Protests: A Flashpoint

The unrest in Los Angeles began in early June 2025, following ICE operations that arrested over 100 individuals, many during high-profile raids targeting migrant workers. Protesters, outraged by what they saw as aggressive immigration policies, took to the streets, clashing with police in downtown areas like Westlake and Paramount. Demonstrators faced nonlethal but dangerous crowd-control measures, including rubber bullets and pepper spray, with reports of injuries among protesters and journalists.

In response, President Trump deployed 2,000 California National Guard troops on June 7, 2025, followed by an additional 2,000 troops and 700 U.S. Marines. The stated purpose was to protect federal personnel and property, including ICE agents, amid what Trump called “violent, insurrectionist mobs.” Governor Newsom, however, called the deployment “illegal and immoral,” arguing it violated state sovereignty. California’s Attorney General, Rob Bonta, filed a lawsuit, citing an overreach of federal authority. The clash has become a test case for presidential power, with far-reaching consequences for federal-state relations.

Presidential Powers to Deploy Troops: The Legal Framework

The U.S. Constitution and federal laws grant presidents significant authority to deploy military forces domestically, but these powers are not unlimited. Here’s a breakdown of the key legal mechanisms Trump invoked:

1. Title 10, Section 12406 of the U.S. Code
   Trump’s deployment of the National Guard relied on Section 12406 of Title 10, which allows the president to federalize National Guard units when federal laws cannot be enforced with “regular forces” or in cases of rebellion or imminent threat. The administration argued that protests disrupting ICE operations justified this action, framing them as a challenge to federal authority. However, California’s lawsuit contends that no such rebellion or invasion existed, rendering the deployment unlawful.

2. The Insurrection Act of 1807
   Although Trump did not explicitly invoke the Insurrection Act, it’s a critical tool in the presidential toolkit. The Act permits the president to deploy federal troops or federalized National Guard units to suppress insurrections, domestic violence, or obstructions of federal law when requested by a state or when states cannot maintain order. Legal experts note the Act’s broad language gives presidents significant discretion, but its use without state consent is rare and controversial.

3. Executive Authority and Federal Property
   The president has inherent authority to protect federal personnel and property. Trump’s memorandum cited this duty, claiming National Guard troops were needed to safeguard ICE agents and federal facilities. A 1971 Justice Department opinion supports this, stating troops can be used to ensure federal employees can perform their duties, such as preventing traffic obstructions.

Despite these powers, California argues that Trump’s actions violate the 10th Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states. The state contends that policing and crime control are state functions, and federalizing the National Guard without gubernatorial consent is an “unprecedented usurpation” of state authority.

Historical Context: When Have Presidents Done This Before?

Trump’s move is rare but not unprecedented. Presidents have occasionally deployed troops against state wishes, often in times of significant unrest:

• 1965 Watts Riots: President Lyndon B. Johnson federalized the California National Guard to quell riots in Los Angeles without Governor Pat Brown’s consent, the last such instance before 2025. The riots, sparked by police brutality, resulted in 34 deaths and widespread destruction.

• 1992 Los Angeles Riots: President George H.W. Bush invoked the Insurrection Act to deploy federal troops and National Guard units after riots erupted following the Rodney King verdict. Unlike Trump’s case, California’s governor requested federal assistance.

• 1957 Little Rock Crisis: President Dwight D. Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard to enforce school desegregation, overriding Governor Orval Faubus’s opposition. This was framed as upholding federal law against state resistance.

These examples show that presidents can act unilaterally, but such moves are typically reserved for extreme circumstances. Trump’s deployment, critics argue, lacks the scale of unrest seen in past cases, with protests described as “mostly peaceful” by local officials.

The Controversy: Legal and Political Fallout

Legal Challenges
California’s lawsuit, filed on June 9, 2025, seeks to block the deployment and return control of the National Guard to Newsom. Attorney General Bonta argues that the protests had largely subsided by the time troops arrived, undermining claims of an emergency. Legal scholars are divided: some see Trump’s actions as within his Title 10 authority, while others view them as a dangerous precedent for federal overreach. The case could reach federal courts, potentially clarifying the boundaries of presidential power.

Political Tensions
The deployment has deepened the rift between Trump and California’s Democratic leadership. Newsom has called Trump “dictatorial,” while Trump labeled Newsom “incompetent” and endorsed suggestions to arrest him for obstructing immigration enforcement. House Speaker Mike Johnson backed Trump, claiming the president has “full authority” to maintain order. Meanwhile, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass accused the administration of “creating chaos” to suppress dissent.

The move has also galvanized California Democrats. Newsom, facing criticism for his handling of recent wildfires, has seized the moment to rally his base, framing himself as a defender of state rights. Conversely, Trump’s supporters see the deployment as a necessary stand against “lawless” protests, reinforcing his hardline immigration stance.

Public Reaction
Public sentiment is polarized. Posts on X reflect outrage from some, with users calling the deployment a “major shift in civil-military norms.” Others praise Trump for taking decisive action. The use of Marines, not seen domestically since the 1992 riots, has heightened fears among communities, with reports of “fear and terror” in Los Angeles.

Implications for Democracy and State Sovereignty

Trump’s decision raises profound questions about the balance of power in the U.S. federal system. If presidents can deploy troops without state consent, what checks exist to prevent abuse? The Insurrection Act’s vague language and Title 10’s broad provisions give presidents significant leeway, prompting calls for reform. Some legal experts advocate for requiring congressional approval or clearer criteria for domestic troop deployments.

The deployment also underscores the politicization of immigration. By framing protests as “insurrectionist,” Trump has escalated tensions, potentially alienating communities while energizing his base. For California, the lawsuit is a stand for state autonomy, but it risks further federal reprisals, given Trump’s history of targeting political opponents.

Looking Ahead: What’s Next?

As Los Angeles braces for more protests, the legal battle will shape the future of presidential authority. If courts uphold Trump’s actions, it could embolden future presidents to bypass governors, altering federal-state dynamics. If California prevails, it may strengthen state sovereignty but could complicate federal responses to national crises.

The human toll is equally significant. With over 3,000 arrests in Los Angeles County and reports of injuries, the protests highlight deep divisions over immigration policy. Both sides face pressure to de-escalate, but Trump’s rhetoric and Newsom’s defiance suggest the conflict may intensify.

Thought-Provoking Questions for Readers

1. Should presidents have the power to deploy troops to cities without state consent, or does this risk authoritarianism?

2. How should the U.S. balance federal authority with state sovereignty in times of unrest?

3. What reforms, if any, could prevent the misuse of laws like the Insurrection Act or Title 10?

4. Are Trump’s actions in Los Angeles a justified response to protests, or an overreach to suppress dissent?

Sources:

• The Guardian, “Trump again defends decision to ‘send in the troops’”

• The Independent, “LA protests live: Trump claims Los Angeles ‘would be burning’”

• Reuters, “Trump administration deploys Marines to Los Angeles”

• CBS News, “Trump invoked Title 10 to deploy the National Guard”

• Posts on X reflecting public sentiment