What exactly is the US National Guard?

After protests against immigration raids in Los Angeles, President Donald Trump took the contentious step of mobilizing thousands of National Guard troops and hundreds of US Marines in response.
While the use of the National Guard against the California governor's wishes is significant, in general these military personnel are trained for rapid response to emergencies within the United States.
- Military reserve force -
The National Guard is a military reserve force within the United States Armed Forces, meaning that most of its members serve part-time while holding civilian jobs or conducting other activities.
As a response force, the National Guard can be mobilized rapidly to address emergency situations on US soil, typically natural disasters.
When needed, National Guard units can also be activated for deployments into combat zones, especially if the United States is at war.
Unlike branches of the US military, the National Guard performs both state- and federal-level functions, and is organized into groupings based in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the US territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the US Virgin Islands.
As a state-based force, generally it is the governor of a state or territory who activates and commands the National Guard when needed.
However, in some situations the National Guard can be "federalized" by the president, bringing it under the president's control until the specific federal mission has ended -- as is the case in Los Angeles currently.
The latest budget from the Department of Defense authorizes 433,000 National Guard personnel in total, split across the Air National Guard and Army National Guard.
This means that compared to other components of the US military, the National Guard is second only to the US Army in terms of size.
- Emergency response -
National Guard members are typically deployed during emergencies such as natural disasters at the request of governors and based on specific provisions in each state's laws.
In the aftermath of events like hurricanes, wildfires, and floods, state National Guards are often called on to help evacuate dangerous areas, deliver supplies to places that would otherwise be cut off, or provide specialist equipment needed to clear hazardous debris.
The largest National Guard deployment in recent years was during the COVID-19 pandemic, where troops helped construct and staff emergency care facilities, transport health supplies around the country, and coordinate other logistics.
Outside of a natural disaster, deployment of the guard can be ordered in emergencies created by the breakdown of public order -- the provision that Trump controversially invoked when sending troops to California.
- History with protest -
The use of the National Guard to manage public unrest is not unique to Trump, even if the current deployment is unusual.
During the widespread Black Lives Matter protests in 2020, more than half of US states activated National Guard troops to maintain order and help enforce curfews.
Before that, they were also deployed to LA in 1992 to respond to riots that occurred after police officers who had beaten motorist Rodney King were acquitted at trial.
At that time, riots, looting and arson attacks had spread across the city, with dozens of people killed and thousands injured.
The National Guard was deployed during the 1950s and 60s Civil Rights era to help enforce school desegregation, following the Supreme Court's landmark Brown v. Board of Education ruling.
In one of the force's darkest moments, in May 1970, members of the Ohio National Guard clashed with anti-war protesters at Kent State University. As unrest swelled, the troops opened fire, killing four unarmed students.
The shootings sparked outrage, but also led to reform of the guard's use-of-force guidelines.
cf/ksb/mlm

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

San Francisco Chronicle​

6 minutes ago

• San Francisco Chronicle​

Wartime NATO summits have focused on Ukraine. With Trump, this one will be different

BRUSSELS (AP) — At its first summits after Russia began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, NATO gave President Volodymyr Zelenskyy pride of place at its table. It won't be the same this time. Europe's biggest land conflict since World War II is now in its fourth year and still poses an existential threat to the continent. Ukraine continues to fight a war so that Europeans don't have to. Just last week, Russia launched one of the biggest drone attacks of the invasion on Kyiv. But things have changed. The Trump administration insists that it must preserve maneuvering space to entice Russian President Vladimir Putin to the negotiating table, so Ukraine must not be allowed steal the limelight. In Washington last year, the military alliance's weighty summit communique included a vow to supply long-term security assistance to Ukraine, and a commitment to back the country 'on its irreversible path" to NATO membership. The year before, a statement more than twice as long was published in the Lithuanian capital Vilnius. A new NATO-Ukraine Council was set up, and Kyiv's membership path fast-tracked. Zelenskyy received a hero's welcome at a concert downtown. It will be very different at a two-day summit in the Netherlands that starts Tuesday. NATO's most powerful member, the United States, is vetoing Ukraine's membership. It's unclear how long for. Zelenskyy is invited again, but will not be seated at NATO's table. The summit statement is likely to run to around five paragraphs, on a single page, NATO diplomats and experts say. Ukraine will only get a passing mention. If the G7 summit is anything to go by ... Recent developments do not augur well for Ukraine. Earlier this month, frustrated by the lack of a ceasefire agreement, U.S. President Donald Trump said it might be best to let Ukraine and Russia 'fight for a while' before pulling them apart and pursuing peace. Last weekend, he and Putin spoke by phone, mostly about Israel and Iran, but a little about Ukraine, too, Trump said. America has warned its allies that it has other security priorities, including in the Indo-Pacific and on its own borders. Then at the Group of Seven summit in Canada, Trump called for Russia to be allowed back into the group; a move that would rehabilitate Putin on the global stage. The next day, Russia launched its mass drone attack on Kyiv. Putin 'is doing this simply because he can afford to continue the war. He wants the war to go on. It is troubling when the powerful of this world turn a blind eye to it,' Zelenskyy said. Trump left the G7 gathering early to focus on the conflict between Israel and Iran. Zelenskyy had traveled to Canada to meet with him. No meeting happened, and no statement on Russia or the war was agreed. Lacking unanimity, other leaders met with Zelenskyy to reassure him of their support. Questions about US support for Ukraine Trump wants to broker a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine. He said he could do it within 100 days, but that target has come and gone. Things are not going well, as a very public bust up with Zelenskyy at the White House demonstrated. Trump froze military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine's armed forces for a week. The U.S. has stepped back from the Ukraine Defense Contact Group that was set up under the Biden administration and helped to drum up weapons and ammunition. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth skipped its last meeting; the first time a Pentagon chief has been absent since Russian forces invaded in February 2022. Addressing Congress on June 10, Hegseth also acknowledged that funding for Ukraine military assistance, which has been robust for the past two years, will be reduced in the upcoming defense budget. It means Kyiv will receive fewer of the weapons systems that have been key to countering Russia's attack. Indeed, no new aid packages have been approved for Ukraine since Trump took office again in January. 'The message from the administration is clear: Far from guaranteed, future U.S. support for Ukraine may be in jeopardy,' said Riley McCabe, Associate Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a U.S.-based policy research organization. Cutting aid, McCabe warned, could make the Kremlin believe 'that U.S. resolve is fleeting, and that time is on Russia's side.' 'Putin has less incentive to negotiate if he believes that U.S. disengagement is inevitable and that Russia will soon gain an advantage on the battlefield,' he said. What the summit might mean for Kyiv Trump wants the summit to focus on defense spending. The 32 allies are expected to agree on an investment pledge that should meet his demands. Still, the Europeans and Canada are determined to keep a spotlight on the war, wary that Russia could set its sights on one of them next. They back Trump's ceasefire efforts with Putin but also worry that the two men are cozying up. Also, some governments may struggle to convince their citizens of the need to boost defense spending at the expense of other budget demands without a strong show of support for Ukraine — and acknowledgement that Russia remains NATO's biggest security threat. The summit is highly symbolic for Ukraine in other ways. Zelenskyy wants to prevent his country from being sidelined from international diplomacy, but both he and his allies rely on Trump for U.S. military backup against Russia. Concretely, Trump and his counterparts will dine with the Dutch King on Tuesday evening. Zelenskyy could take part. Elsewhere, foreign ministers will hold a NATO-Ukraine Council, the forum where Kyiv sits among the 32 allies as an equal to discuss its security concerns and needs. What is clear is that the summit will be short. One working session on Wednesday. It was set up that way to prevent the meeting from derailing. If the G7 is anything to go by, Trump's focus on his new security priorities — right now, the conflict between Israel and Iran — might make it even shorter.

Yahoo

13 minutes ago

• Yahoo

For Trump the performative presidency just got real - in this war the 'in' may be easier than the 'out'

Make no mistake, this is a big moment. Donald Trump has done what he said he wouldn't do - he's gone to war in the Middle East. He will be hoping that this will be a short, sharp, clinical war for America. An "in and out" war, fought from 35,000 feet with B2 aircraft and bunker busting bombs that will send a shudder through an Iranian leadership already brought to its knees by Israel. But when it comes to this type of war, the "in" is much easier than the "out". Of course, Iran may just accept defeat and roll over. They could decide the game is up and negotiate a way out. But what if, as they are threatening, they don't? Follow latest: What if the retaliation is protracted and intense and includes increasing attacks on US interests? What if US troops are killed and injured at their now well-fortified bases in the region? What if Iran closes the Straits of Hormuz, or launches terror attacks against US targets, killing citizens and causing mayhem? It is entirely possible, then, that Trump gets drawn in further. What if the Iranians take what remains of their nuclear project yet further underground and go all out for a bomb? It does not require a huge leap of imagination to see that it could mean the Trump administration feeling compelled to put troops on the ground to finish the job, and possibly the regime itself. Then it is starting to look like Iraq all over again... only worse. If regime change becomes the plan, we have been here before. I saw it firsthand in 2003 in Iraq, and it was not pretty. In 2002, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, there were loud voices calling for the toppling of Saddam Hussein and the wiping away of his murderous regime and its supposed weapons of mass destruction Neo-conservative figures in the United States saw the opportunity to "revolutionise the power dynamic across the Middle East". It was widely thought that the people of Syria, and Iran - yes Iran - would simply not tolerate tyranny in their own country once "freedom" had come to Iraq. In September 2002, a shaken President George Bush said as much himself: "The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. "They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world." How hollow those words look today. In March 2003, US and British forces invaded, and I was among many journalists who either went with them or who followed them in. With my camera team, we crossed the desert border from Kuwait and entered the battlefield of southern Iraq. Very quickly, it was obvious to me and everyone else that the Iraqi military had neither fought nor surrendered, but rather, they had simply melted away. They had shed their uniforms, but not their weapons. They bided their time, formed their militias, laid mine after mine on ground they knew well, and launched insurgency attacks on the invading armies who were soon wondering what on earth they were doing there. The regime had collapsed, and Saddam Hussein was later found hiding in a spider hole near Tikrit. He was put on trial and executed. But what replaced him was violent chaos, and Iraq became a deadly hellhole where years of bloody violence claimed the lives of countless troops. Regime change is hard to calibrate. A transition to a stable democracy in Iran would be the outcome most desired by many in the West, but it is not one that can be at all guaranteed. Where is the political movement waiting to take over? Where is the leadership in waiting that will bring stability, security and democracy? It is not apparent in Iran. The worst-case scenario is a chaotic collapse. Rather than a peaceful transition to a new orderly government, more likely is a catastrophic degradation of state institutions and a plunge into wholesale disorder. Read more:Analysis: If Israel breaks Iran it will end up owning the chaos In Iraq, it caused years of violent insurgency, which ensured huge problems for British and US forces. In Iran, it has the potential to be so much worse. You could well have remnants of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) forming militias armed with stashes of weaponry, including missiles and drones. You could have criminal networks or the much-hated public security police, or both, deciding to make a stand. Every war is different, but equally, it is folly to ignore history. When American bombs are dropped in the Middle East, the consequences are unpredictable and perhaps uncontrollable. Trump knows that. It is partly why he pledged to keep America out of endless conflicts. But his determination to put paid to what he believes are Iran's dangerous nuclear ambitions has proved the greater impulse. He will hope America's involvement ends here. He will be fortunate if it does. But the danger is it won't. For Trump, this performative presidency just got real.

Newsweek

17 minutes ago

• Newsweek

Donald Trump Warns Iran Against 'Any Retaliation' After US Strikes: Live Updates

President Donald Trump confirmed that U.S. B-2 bombers hit Iran's Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan nuclear complexes overnight, drawing Washington into Israel's widening war with Tehran. In a brief address, Trump said the sites were "fully obliterated," calling the raids essential to halt Iran's push for a nuclear bomb. Iran condemned what it called a "criminal" act and said the U.S. had "launched a dangerous war against Iran." The U.N. nuclear watchdog reported no radiation leaks. On Capitol Hill, the assault split the right: Senator Lindsey Graham called it "the right call" while Representative Thomas Massie labelled the strikes unconstitutional. The progressive left is equally alarmed; Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said the attack offers clear "grounds for impeachment," accusing Trump of bypassing Congress and endangering civilians. Israel, which spent two weeks degrading Iranian air defenses, praised U.S. involvement as decisive. Embassies and energy markets across the region are now on high alert amid fears of missile reprisals by Iran and its proxies. Trump warned of more military action "if peace does not come quickly," while Iran's foreign minister said Tehran reserves "all options to defend its sovereignty, interest, and people." Follow Newsweek's live blog for the latest updates