President Trump is facing a precarious situation regarding the legal aspects of using military forces in American cities.
Back in 1992, during the turmoil in Los Angeles, President HW Bush federalized the National Guard and sent in active Marines to assist California’s Governor, Pete Wilson, in controlling the chaos from the Rodney King riots. This action, done at the governor’s request, shows a clear precedent for federal involvement.
However, the current circumstances in Los Angeles are markedly different. Trump has claimed that a “violent mob” is present, yet he has decided to federalize the National Guard, sending around 4,000 troops without invoking any rebellion laws. Unlike Bush in ’92, Trump hasn’t provided these forces with the necessary military directives for law enforcement; they appear to be there mainly to protect federal assets.
This situation hints at a broader issue: federal troops deployed in the second-largest city in the U.S. to maintain order without proper legal authority and without support from the governor. If the National Guard had stayed under California’s command, they would have had the legal power to enforce the law, but now, as federal troops, this authority is unclear.
What’s particularly troubling is the fear that President Trump might exploit this authority to infringe on civil liberties and target political adversaries. Historically, an active military presence in civilian areas has been perceived as a threat, echoing sentiments from the nation’s founding. The use of military forces for policing has long been viewed with skepticism, especially since the Posse Comitatus Act prohibits federal military involvement in local law enforcement.
Of course, there are legal exceptions for such bans, particularly during times of invasion or insurrection. The Insurrection Act, utilized in past crises like the ’92 riots, granted federal forces legal backing to assist local enforcement during civil disturbances. But that hasn’t been invoked here, raising questions about the necessity of military deployment amid mostly peaceful demonstrations.
This places troops in a precarious position. The sophisticated command structures that local law enforcement agencies have in Los Angeles are necessary for such situations. Without clear rules of engagement or proper training for law enforcement scenarios, it’s unclear how effective these federal forces can truly be.
Moreover, there’s uncertainty about how these troops will interact with local law enforcement and what they can actually do to safeguard federal property. Case law indicates that military forces cannot engage in law enforcement activities, like arrests or searches, which poses additional complications. Observing the protests, I didn’t witness the violent mobs being described, which raises further questions about the necessity for military action.
Overall, it seems that deploying the military may not only be unnecessary but could complicate matters for local authorities. It diverts resources and adds layers of confusion to an already tense situation. Perhaps there’s a motivation here for Trump to establish a stronger grip on the situation, potentially leading towards more drastic measures like martial law, all under the guise of maintaining order in a time of unrest.
Rachel E. Van Randinham, a retired USAF Lieutenant Colonel and law professor, offers crucial insights on these issues.
