President Donald Trump says 2,000 National Guard members have been sent to Los Angeles to maintain “very strong law and order”.
Trump’s action followed the violent demonstrations over immigration raids that broke out in the country’s second-largest metropolis.
Disregarding California Governor Gavin Newsom’s authority, Trump branded the action “purposefully inflammatory” and instead drafted the National Guard to LA.
Over the past week, at least 118 immigrants have been arrested in operations throughout the city, resulting in conflicts as protesters gathered outside alleged raided companies.
Police used tear gas and stun grenades when crowds “became increasingly agitated, throwing objects and exhibiting violent behavior,” according to the LA County Sheriff’s Department.
According to local officials, 29 people were arrested.
Governor Newsom, along with the LA mayor and a California congresswoman, said in separate comments they believed local police could handle the protests.
The decision by Trump has been largely criticized for the law generally prohibits domestic use of federal troops for civilian law enforcement.
According to experts, this is the first time the National Guard has been activated without request of the state’s governor since 1965.
See the video and reactions
US Code of Armed Services titled 10 U.S.C. 12406 which lists three circumstances under which the president can federalise the National Guard.
If the US “is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation”; “there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion” against the government; or “the president is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States”.
Trump however, said in his memorandum requesting the National Guard that the protests in Los Angeles “constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States”.
This situation seems incredibly tense and raises serious questions about the balance of power between federal and state authorities. It’s concerning to see the National Guard deployed without the governor’s request, especially given the historical context of such actions. The characterization of the protests as a “rebellion” feels like an overreach and could escalate tensions further. It’s hard not to wonder if this decision was more politically motivated than necessary for public safety. The use of tear gas and stun grenades against protesters is alarming and raises ethical concerns about how dissent is handled. What do you think about the long-term implications of this move on federal-state relations? Do you believe this sets a dangerous precedent for future protests?