Trump Orders National Guard Deployment Amid Unrest in Los Angeles

In response to escalating riots in Los Angeles, President Trump has ordered the deployment of National Guard units. Additionally, over 700 Marines have been mobilized from the Air Ground Combat Center in Twentynine Palms to help secure federal property in the city.

As is often the case, critics have voiced their disapproval, arguing that this move undermines American traditions, labeling it as unconstitutional and authoritarian. Detractors claim Trump is effectively transforming military forces into a domestic police force.

At this critical moment, the Republic must take measures to protect itself.

However, this argument seems not just misguided but somewhat absurd.

The historical record is quite clear. The US Army History Center showcases three comprehensive volumes noting the recurring legal employment of federal troops in domestic matters since the Republic’s inception. Whether in instances like whiskey rebellions or civil rights enforcement, it’s evident that federal forces have behaved in a constitutional manner when local governments have struggled to keep the peace.

Certainly, military deployment within US borders must be approached with careful consideration. Yet, the Constitution does explicitly advise this authority. For instance, Article 4 states: “The United States shall ensure a Republican form of government in all states of this Union and protect each from invasion.” This isn’t merely a suggestion—it’s a directive aimed at safeguarding life, liberty, and property.

The First Amendment guarantees the right to peacefully assemble and petition the government, but it doesn’t extend protection to violent actions like arson or looting. Thus, when mobs pose a threat, federal intervention isn’t just acceptable; it’s essential.

Article 2 compels decisive action against foreign nations, as well as domestic threats, including the suppression of uprisings when state leaders fail to maintain public order.

The National Guard, unlike the “militia” that the founders discussed, has a clear identity established by the Dick Act of 1903, which highlighted the dual federal and state authority under which National Guards operate. Once federalized, the National Guard acts as an extension of the US military.

Congress formalized this authority in 1807 with the Rebellion Act, allowing the president to employ military force if standard judicial processes falter. Historically, this provision has empowered presidents to deploy troops during times of domestic unrest. For instance, both Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy employed military forces in the 1950s and 60s to enforce desegregation in the South.

In 1992, President George H.W. Bush activated Army and Marine troops, alongside the California State Guard, in response to the LA riots following the Rodney King verdict—all without sparking accusations of dictatorship.

Some have criticized Trump for bypassing norms similar to actions taken in the past. A notable example is when Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus defied federal orders concerning school desegregation. In response, President Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard and deployed the 101st Airborne Division. The comparison to historical instances, especially inflammatory ones, shouldn’t be overlooked.

Many Americans understandably seek to restrict military involvement in civil affairs. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 was enacted to limit the federal enforcement of civil law without explicit authorization. Yet, the nuances of that law can be complex.

The term “Posse Comitatus” originates from English common law, referring to a sheriff’s power to call upon local citizens to restore order. Throughout American history, federal forces have often lent support to local officials. Important actions include enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act or intervening during “Bleeding Kansas” and in capturing John Brown during his raid at Harper’s Ferry.

After the Civil War, the military was involved in reconstruction and played a crucial role in curtailing activities of the Ku Klux Klan, although Southern Democrats largely opposed such federal action. Even Northern lawmakers expressed concern in the 1870s about soldiers being used to quash labor strikes under state guidance.

The military welcomed the principles of Posse Comitatus since being under local political control can compromise professionalism and risk partisan misuse. There has always been a fear that local law enforcement could corrupt military integrity.

I’ve often discussed the need for restraint regarding military use inside the US borders. However, unchecked lawlessness can threaten the foundations of a Republican government. If local leaders can’t take action—or, worse, choose to encourage disorder—the federal government has a duty to intervene.

President Trump possesses both constitutional and legal grounds to deploy military resources to address the violence in Los Angeles. Whether this is the right move is a question of prudence and necessity, but suggesting that such actions are unprecedented or illegal lacks historical and legal support.

In instances where mayors and governors neglect their responsibilities, the protection of law-abiding citizens shouldn’t hinge on the whims of political ideologies or ineffective local officials. Right now, the Republic needs to ensure its security.