Trump’s National Guard & ICE Protests: Legal Fallout

Protesters confront california National Guard soldiers and police outside a Los Angeles federal building on June 9, 2025, following three days of clashes over a series of immigration raids. Tensions in the city remained high after President Donald trump called in the National Guard over the objections of gov. Gavin Newsom and city leaders. (Photo by David McNew/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON – president Donald Trump federalized another 2,000 California National Guard troops Tuesday – doubling the number under his control over the governor’s objections.

That brings the total to 4,000 guardsmen plus 700 Marines the president has sent to Los Angeles to quell protests over immigration raids and his aggressive deportation effort.

As commander in chief, the president has wide latitude to deploy active duty forces.

Taking control of a state’s National Guard without a governor’s consent is exceedingly rare, though. The last time was in 1965 when President Lyndon Johnson called up the Alabama National guard, after segregationist Gov. George wallace refused to send troops to protect the civil rights march in Selma.

California Gov.Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, accused Trump of a “brazen abuse of power” under the guise of quelling protests. “He … chose escalation, he chose more force, he chose theatrics over public safety,” Newsom said.

With rare exception,federal troops are prohibited from directly engaging in domestic law enforcement. But presidents in both parties have sent troops to the U.S.-Mexico border to backstop federal agents, provide surveillance and install barriers.

The units sent to los Angeles “will not directly participate in civilian law enforcement activities… such as arrest and search and seizure,” the U.S. Northern Command said.

But Northcom,which is responsible for homeland defense,indicated that these units will engage in activities that Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen bass say are best left to state and local police: “The soldiers are completing training on de-escalation,crowd control,and use of the standing rules for the use of force in advance of joining the federal protection mission.”

Why did Trump send the military to Los Angeles?

The protests began on June 6 after Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents arrested over 100 people in a series of area raids.

The protesters have largely been peaceful. But some have thrown rocks and water bottles at local police and ICE officers and set fire to vehicles. Los Angeles police used rubber bullets and pepper spray to control the crowds.

on june 7, Trump issued an order federalizing the California National Guard, despite Newsom’s objections.

In federal court, California argued that Trump’s move was unconstitutional because it was executed without gubernatorial consent and was not the sort of uprising that would allow a president to sidestep that requirement.

A federal judge ordered Trump to return control of the guard to the governor but within hours, an appeals court overruled the lower court, leaving the guard in control of the president. At a hearing tuesday, appellate judges expressed skepticism of California’s constitutional claim.

Trump critics assert that the federal troops aren’t just unnecessary, their deployment is meant to inflame tensions in order to justify a heavy-handed federal response.

“The military’s simply not needed. But what he’s doing is trying to gin things up to create problems,” Newsom said on “The Daily” podcast.

When can the president deploy the military domestically?

Presidents of both parties have done so many times.

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 – adopted after the Civil War as a reaction to the Union military’s role during Reconstruction – generally prohibits federal troops from engaging in domestic law enforcement.

There are exceptions.

Under the Insurrection Act of 1807, the president can deploy the military in event of civil disorder, insurrection and armed rebellion against the federal government.

Presidents have invoked that law 30 times, according to the left-leaning Brennan Center for Justice.

The moast recent was President George W. Bush, who sent troops into Los Angeles in 1992 in response to rioting after a jury acquitted police officers in the beating death of motorist Rodney King.

Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act to justify the California deployments.

the administration has justified the deployment of the national Guard under a different statute, Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 12406.

That law gives the president authority to call the National Guard into federal service in case of “a rebellion or danger of a rebellion” against the U.S. government, or if he is “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”

According to legal scholars, presidents have almost never invoked that law without also invoking the Insurrection Act.

The only other time it has been used on its own, as trump is doing, was when president Richard Nixon deployed the National Guard to deliver the mail during a postal strike in 1970, Newsom said.

Title 10 gives the president authority to take control of the National Guard. the Insurrection act lets the president deploy the military domestically under certain situations.

That’s why the two laws are typically used together, said Joseph Nunn, counsel at the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program.

Invoking Title 10 to both mobilize and deploy the National Guard is an “entirely novel interpretation,” Nunn said. That is “entirely inconsistent with the long-standing understanding of what the statute means.”

What about Newsom’s objection to federalizing the National Guard?

The Insurrection Act does not require a governor’s consent to federalize the National Guard. But Trump didn’t invoke the Insurrection Act.

Title 10 states that “the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State” but all orders “shall be issued through the governors of the States.”

California asserts that Trump exceeded his authority. But whether a president needs a governor’s consent under Title 10 is “complicated” as the law is “worded poorly” and contradictory,Nunn said.

And this scenario – invoking Title 10 but not the Insurrection Act – has played out so rarely,it’s uncharted legal territory.

One sticking point that surfaced during Tuesday’s appellate argument is whether orders “issued through the governors” means consultation or consent.

What counts as rebellion or insurrection?

Under an 1827 Supreme Court ruling, the president alone has authority to decide when a situation warrants invoking the Insurrection Act.

Neither that law nor Title 10 provides a clear definition for the terms “rebellion” or “insurrection,” though.

“You will not find an established definition of what an insurrection or rebellion is anywhere, in any case or in any statute,” Nunn said.

Congress intended the Insurrection Act to be used “only when civilian authorities are truly overwhelmed” and the situation is “fully beyond their capacity to handle,” nunn said.

“That is obviously not the case in Los Angeles,” he said – echoing the governor and mayor.
Bernadette Meyler, a constitutional law professor at Stanford University who called Trump’s moves legally questionable, said Trump’s position would be stronger if the federal government had undertaken any “empirical investigation of whether they were overwhelmed.”
If a president wants to ignore the governor’s objections regarding the National Guard, she said, the burden is on him to prove that local authorities cannot handle the situation.

What about Jan. 6?

Trump has called the Los Angeles protesters “paid insurrectionists.”

Critics have accused him of hypocrisy, given his stance on the storming of the U.S.Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.Roughly 140 police officers were assaulted during the mob attack as congress certified Trump’s defeat in the 2020 election.

Trump pardoned over 1,500 people on charges related to the riot, describing them as patriots and victims of political persecution. Many of the rioters acknowledged that their goal was to overturn the election. The FBI labeled the attack an act of “domestic terrorism.”

Jan. 6 was the “most recent good example” of a rebellion, Nunn said.

Even though the president has the authority to say whether a situation amounts to a rebellion, the Brennan Center notes that in a 1932 case, the Supreme Court suggested that courts may step in if the president acts in bad faith, exceeds “a permitted range of honest judgment,” makes an obvious mistake, or acts in a way manifestly unauthorized by law.

What are the implications for future domestic deployments?

While Trump has only taken control of the National Guard in California, his June 7 order directs Defense Secretary pete Hegseth to “coordinate with the governors of the states” – plural.

The order had “no geographic scope,” Nunn said.

Meyler said Los Angeles could be a “test case” for Trump to see how far he can push the envelope in the use of military domestically.

Anti-ICE protests have erupted nationwide.

Trump told journalists June 10 in the Oval Office that Los Angeles is “the first, perhaps, of many” cities where he will send armed forces in response.

“You no, we didn’t attack this one very strongly. You’ll have them all over the country,” he said. “I can inform the rest of the country that when they do it,if they do it,they’re going to be met with equal or greater force than we met right here.”

Examining the Legal Gray Areas: Title 10 vs. the insurrection Act

The legal dispute over President Trump’s deployment of the national Guard in Los Angeles hinges on a rarely used and debated interpretation of federal law. The management is relying on Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 12406, a move legal experts are calling unprecedented.

What is Title 10? Title 10 gives the president the authority to call the National Guard into federal service. The Insurrection Act, on the other hand, permits the president to deploy active military forces domestically.The two are typically used together, but Trump has used Title 10 on its own, wich is considered novel.

Legal scholars are questioning the legality of the move because Title 10 typically requires orders to be issued “through the governors of the States,” raising the question of whether consultation is enough or consent is needed. The legal wording is vague enough for the courts to make a decision. The situation is uncharted legal territory.

Key Differences: Insurrection Act vs. Title 10

to understand the nuances of this legal battle, it’s crucial to compare the two primary statutes at play:

• Insurrection Act of 1807: Allows the president to deploy federal troops in response to insurrection, domestic violence, or rebellion when state authorities are overwhelmed. It does not require governor consent.
• Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 12406: Grants the president authority to federalize the National Guard in cases of rebellion or the inability to enforce federal laws. Orders are issued through the governor.

Critics of the Trump administration’s actions believe the use of Title 10 without invoking the Insurrection Act is a strategic effort to sidestep the typical checks and balances. Thay argue that it sets a dangerous precedent for future domestic deployments.

Deciphering “Rebellion” and “Insurrection”

A central point of contention is the lack of a precise definition for “rebellion” or “insurrection” within the relevant laws. This ambiguity gives the president considerable discretion in deciding when to deploy military forces within the United States. The lack of clear definitions adds to the legal murkiness surrounding the Los Angeles deployments.

The Supreme Court has given the exclusive power to the president to decide. The Brennan Center for Justice suggests the Insurrection Act should only come into play if civilian authorities are overwhelmed.

The Implications for Future Protests

The situation in Los Angeles is being watched closely, as it could be a pivotal moment in defining the extent of presidential power in domestic situations.If the courts uphold Trump’s actions, it could embolden future presidents to deploy the military in similar circumstances.

The order’s impact has “no geographic scope,” according to nunn. This means other cities could be affected.

Myths vs. Facts: Separating Truth from Misinformation

The deployment of the National Guard has spurred a great deal of debate and misinformation. Here’s a fact-check designed to debunk some common myths:

• Myth: The National Guard is being deployed to enforce local laws.
• Fact: The troops are not directly participating in civilian law enforcement activities such as arrests.
• Myth: Trump is acting in a way that is universally considered legal.
• fact: Both the use of Title 10 without the Insurrection Act and the lack of consultation with Governor Newsom raise serious legal questions.
• Myth: The administration’s actions in Los Angeles are unprecedented.
• Fact: Presidents have deployed military forces domestically before,but usually under the insurrection Act.

Is it constitutional for the President to deploy troops over a governor’s objections? The legality of the situation hinges on whether “orders issued through the governors” means consultation or consent, a question currently before the courts. The lack of clear definitions of “rebellion” or “insurrection” gives the president significant authority to determine when military intervention is necesary.