President Trump’s decision to deploy the National Guard to address protests in California has sparked debate about his approach to immigration policy and whether he might invoke the Rebellion Act.
Typically, it’s the state governor who negotiates such deployments, but Trump bypassed California’s Governor Gavin Newsom by sending troops to Los Angeles himself.
Protests broke out over the weekend after U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) conducted workplace raids aimed at those suspected of illegal immigration.
Neither state nor local leaders sought federal assistance, and they haven’t publicly criticized Trump’s order signed on Saturday allowing for up to 2,000 National Guard troops, although only about 300 have actually shown up in the city.
National security law expert Elizabeth Goitein from the Brennan Center for Justice described Trump’s actions as “a giant red flag for democracy.”
She pointed out, “There are serious issues with Trump’s directives. He’s deploying security forces but his memorandum doesn’t even specify Los Angeles. The function is unclear at best.” In her view, this represents a blatant misuse of federal power.
Trump has yet to formally invoke the Rebellion Act, which has rarely been used in U.S. history to send in the military during domestic unrest, but he has hinted at the possibility. When asked about it, he said, “It depends on whether there’s a rebellion or not,” indicating a potential willingness to escalate the situation.
Moreover, when queried about the criteria for military deployment, he hesitated, saying, “I think the bar is…” leaving room for interpretation.
Sarah Mehta, the ACLU’s deputy director for government affairs, criticized Trump’s broad authority, suggesting it equates to granting a “blank check” for military intervention against dissent. She contrasted this with President Johnson’s actions in 1965, which were aimed at protecting civil rights activists.
According to Mehta, “We’re witnessing the opposite now. The president is using the National Guard as a civilian force to intimidate those opposing his policies.”
Trump’s history of invoking such powers is notable, particularly during his first term following protests over George Floyd’s death. He has ominously suggested he might use force against protests against his potential re-election.
Mehta characterized the current scene as a bit of a “run-up to rebellion,” highlighting Trump’s tendency to use military presence as a means of enforcement against dissenters.
Georgetown University law professor Steve Vladeck noted that Trump’s orders come with limitations. He emphasized that the military’s role on the ground doesn’t include enforcing immigration laws, but rather protecting federal properties.
Still, clashes between protesters and law enforcement have occurred, including the use of rubber bullets and tear gas, which Vladeck believes could worsen tensions. He mentioned that this deployment is an “unnecessary escalation” especially since local authorities did not call for such measures.
Governor Newsom accused Trump of exaggerating the situation on the streets of Los Angeles through his military presence, suggesting that Trump is “manufacturing a crisis,” which heightens tensions.
California’s leadership plans to legally challenge Trump, arguing that his actions infringe upon state rights regarding National Guard utilization without state consent.
Newsom stated, “He’s fueling the fire. It has been illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional since he decided to take command of the National Guard.” He has expressed intentions to test this in court.
Former officials in Trump’s administration have also critiqued his handling of the National Guard. For instance, Kristi Noem, former South Dakota governor, remarked that if Biden were to federalize the National Guard, it would infringe on states’ rights.
On Sunday, Trump defended his actions, telling Newsom, “Please take care of this; otherwise, I’m sending the troops.” He expressed a need for order, stating, “We are not going to let this happen to our country.”
