LA riots: Can President Trump deploy the National Guard? All about the Insurrection Act
Tom Homan, President Donald Trump's border czar, announced plans to deploy the National Guard to Los Angeles in response to protests against ICE following immigration raids in the city.
In a Fox News interview, Homan said, 'We are making Los Angeles safer. Mayor Bass should be thanking us. She says they are going to mobilize—guess what? We are already mobilizing. We are going to bring the National Guard in tonight.'
California Governor Gavin Newsom quickly pushed back, calling Homan's remarks 'purposefully inflammatory.'
'The federal government is moving to take over the California National Guard and deploy 2,000 soldiers. That move is purposefully inflammatory and will only escalate tensions,' Newsom wrote on X.
'LA authorities are able to access law enforcement assistance at a moment's notice. We are in close coordination with the city and county, and there is currently no unmet need,' he added. 'The Guard has been admirably serving LA throughout recovery. This is the wrong mission and will erode public trust.'
The authority to deploy the National Guard depends on whether the situation is a state or federal matter.
State Authority: As the commander-in-chief of the California National Guard, Governor Gavin Newsom has the primary authority to deploy the Guard for state-level emergencies, such as natural disasters, riots, or other public safety needs.
This is done under state active duty or Title 32 status, where the state retains control and typically covers the costs.
For example, during the 1992 Los Angeles riots, Governor Pete Wilson deployed the California National Guard to restore order.
Federal Authority: The President or the Secretary of Defense can federalize the National Guard under Title 10 status for national emergencies, homeland defense, or federal missions. This shifts control to the federal government, which then funds the deployment.
The President can also invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 to deploy federalized National Guard units or federal troops. This is done when state authorities are unable to manage civil unrest or if federal laws are violated. This happened in 1992 when President George H.W. Bush invoked the Insurrection Act to send federal troops to assist in Los Angeles during the riots.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
No Kings protest takes toll: Trump's approval rating hits -6, marking sharpest drop in months
Donald Trump's approval ratings have declined following the widespread "No Kings" protests across the United States. A Newsweek tracker indicates his net approval fell to -6 points, with disapproval outweighing approval. Millions participated in demonstrations sparked by the deployment of National Guard soldiers and Marines in Los Angeles. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Donald Trump's Approval Rating Dips After 'No Kings' Protests Protests Shake Public Sentiment Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Trump's Approval Ratings Falls Across Other Polls FAQs US president Donald Trump's approval ratings have taken a hit after the countrywide "No Kings" protests in the United States, revealed the latest poll data, according to a report.A Newsweek tracker indicates that the US president's net approval fell to –6 points, with 46% of Americans expressing that they approve of his performance and 52% indicating that they disapprove, which is now his lowest net approval rating since early May, reported strategist, Christy Setzer explained that, "Trump won on two issues: the economy and immigration. Now that voters are seeing what that means — higher prices, global economic instability, and a politics of cruelty that kidnaps law-abiding people off the street— it's no surprise that they're not liking what they're seeing," quoted READ: Trump threatens strikes, Xi watches silently the Israel-Iran war — is China secretly arming Tehran? Millions of protesters marched last weekend in demonstrations staged in hundreds of cities around the United States, including Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Austin, Portland, and New York, as per the report. Between 4 and 6 million people attended, estimated pollster G. Elliott Morris, reported Newsweek. The rallies were prompted by the move by Trump to deploy 4,000 National Guard soldiers and 700 Marines into LA following fears of ICE deportation raids and attacks on police, according to the have pointed out that even though Trump's approval rating fell after the "No Kings" rally, it will not have an impact on how he governs the country. Director of the Centre on U.S. Politics at University College London, Thomas Gift said, "The great luxury of being a second term president is that there's a certain immunization from polls," adding, "While Trump still needs to think about how his national popularity shapes his mandate, and the amount of room his fellow Republicans in Congress give him to maneuver, the usual reelection pressures no longer apply," quoted recent surveys reveal a like downward movement in the president's popularity, as per the report. A YouGov/Economist poll (June 13–16) revealed that he got 41% approval and 54% disapproval rating, according to Newsweek report. Morning Consult (June 13–15) recorded a 46% approval rating and 52% Americans disapproved, as per the estimated 4 to 6 million people participated in demonstrations across many cities in the United States, as per the Newsweek Polls from YouGov, Morning Consult, and others all reflect a similar dip in Trump's support, as per Newsweek report.
Hindustan Times
4 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
New enemy in the West is the illegal migrant
In 1992, the American political strategist James Carville coined the catchphrase, 'It's the economy, stupid'. It conveyed that the singular issue which mattered the most to voters in the US was the condition of the economy and how it impacted on their personal finances. Today, economic considerations continue to remain crucial determinants of voter choice, but the other issue which has risen to the fore is immigration. Record numbers of people moving past national borders are also ensuring that the word migrant has an edgy and controversial connotation. (AFP) During the 2024 US presidential election, concerns about high levels of inflation (a proxy for the economy) and fears of humongous inflows of migrants from the southern border with Mexico combined to ensure the stunning return to power of President Donald Trump for a second term. Trump's bare-knuckles election campaign rhetoric against migrants galvanised a large segment of Americans to rally around him as the last saviour who can regain control over their country and harden what they perceived to be dangerously loose borders. Although Trump's allegation that his predecessor President Joe Biden had 'allowed 21 million illegals to pour in from all over the world' may not be accurate, the message of keeping America safe from unwanted hordes echoed deeply among conservatives and boosted the appeal of his Right-wing populism, which combines economic anxieties over losing out to other countries through foreign trade and globalisation with cultural insecurities about erosion of the social fabric and core racial identity due to opening the floodgates to migrants by liberals. The recent disturbances in California involving a crackdown by the Trump administration to conduct mass arrests and deportations of immigrants, and street protests and running battles of targeted Latino communities with law enforcement officials, were a reiteration of the same electoral political wedge between the Right-wing and Left-wing on the fundamental questions of who is an American and what an ideal American society should look like. Trump's historic move to deploy US military troops and the National Guard to quell 'a form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the US', and vehement opposition to this step as an authoritarian violation of State sovereignty and fundamental human rights of innocent Americans by the liberal Governor of California, Gavin Newsom, was a demonstration of the deep divide which has polarised the US into two hostile ideological tribes that are at each other's throats. Such extreme confrontational theatre is not limited to the US. Over the past decade, immigration has emerged as a red-meat issue across Europe following the massive influx of refugees fleeing wars in Syria and Iraq and economic collapse in Africa. Trump-like politicians in Europe have been declaring do-or-die wars and calling for national emergencies to tackle illegal immigration. While the far-Right has not managed to sweep all elections and win office throughout Europe, it has succeeded in mainstreaming radical anti-immigrant attitudes and values, compelling traditional incumbent parties to co-opt them. In most western democracies which are struggling to sustain their liberal multicultural models from being overrun, the very concept of national security threat has been reformulated to refer to illegal immigration rather than to any revisionist foreign enemy like Russia or China. Defence and foreign ministries still worry and plan about how to prevent World War III with Russia backed by China, but the political mood on the streets is to defend borders against refugees and migrants. In the present zeitgeist, the rejection of open borders and mass mobilisation to block undesirable people is not limited to the West. Anti-immigrant threat perceptions have grown in large developing countries like Brazil, Turkey, South Africa, Indonesia and India too. In parts of the Global South, animosity against immigrants and asylum seekers has an economic logic, with local citizens fretting that the already limited resources and jobs they have will be stolen by foreigners who slip across their borders. In India, where over 20 million illegal Bangladeshi immigrants are estimated to have entered through the eastern border, there is widespread unease about demographic alteration and exclusive enclaves that could become hotbeds of Islamist extremism and terrorism. Even though anti-immigrant feelings may not determine the overall national electoral calculus in India, the lines are clearly drawn between 'secular' political parties, which sound similar to liberals in the West, and Right-wing parties which present a Trump-style doomsday scenario of losing the country to a silent invasion. Even as migrants are in the eye of the storm globally in terms of politics, they do perform economically useful functions in recipient countries. The demographic decline in rich nations and consequent labour shortages pose existential challenges to the long-term viability of their economies. Numerous studies by economists show that allowing in more migrants through legal and institutional channels will benefit host nations and enhance their economic growth prospects. Still, with political emotions running high, the distinctions between authorised and unauthorised migrants, as well as between refugees who flee war and political persecution and economic migrants who chase dollar dreams, are blurring. Record numbers of people moving past national borders are also ensuring that the word migrant has an edgy and controversial connotation. According to the International Organization for Migration (IOM), there were over 281 million international migrants in 2020, which was 128 million more than in 1990 and over three times greater than in 1970. The pressure of these numbers, which get further exaggerated by politicians, means that this ballooning global crisis will worsen. Solutions for orderly and legitimate migration, wherein supply of labour is matched with demand, do exist on paper. But politics will likely override economics on this issue, which means the struggle over immigration is going to be prolonged, irrational and violent. Sreeram Chaulia is Dean, Jindal School of International Affairs. The views expressed are personal.
Time of India
7 hours ago
- Time of India
Under attack from Israel, Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei faces a stark choice
Iran 's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei , who crushed internal threats repeatedly during more than three decades in power, now faces his greatest challenge yet. His archenemy, Israel, has secured free rein over Iran's skies and is decimating the country's military leadership and nuclear program with its punishing air campaign. It is also threatening his life: Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said Khamenei "cannot continue to exist." The 86-year-old leader faces a choice. He could escalate Iran's retaliation against Israel and risk even heavier damage from Israeli bombardment. Or he could seek a diplomatic solution that keeps the U.S. out of the conflict, and risk having to give up the nuclear program he has put at the center of Iranian policy for years. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Direct Shopping From Adidas Franchise Store, Up To 50% Off Original Adidas Get Offer Undo In a video address Wednesday he sounded defiant, vowing "the Iranian nation is not one to surrender" and warning that if the U.S. steps in, it will bring "irreparable damage to them." Here's what to know about Khamenei: Live Events He transformed the Islamic Republic When he rose to power in 1989, Khamenei had to overcome deep doubts about his authority as he succeeded the leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. A low-level cleric at the time, Khamenei didn't have his predecessor's religious credentials. With his thick glasses and plodding style, he didn't have his fiery charisma either. But Khamenei has ruled three times longer than the late Khomeini and has shaped Iran's Islamic Republic perhaps even more dramatically. He entrenched the system of rule by the "mullahs," or Shiite Muslim clerics. That secured his place in the eyes of hard-liners as the unquestionable authority - below only that of God. At the same time, Khamenei built the paramilitary Revolutionary Guard into the dominant force in Iran's military and internal politics. The Guard boasts Iran's most elite military and oversees its ballistic missile program. Its international arm, the Quds Force, pieced together the " Axis of Resistance ," the collection of pro-Iranian proxies stretching from Yemen to Lebanon that for years gave Iran considerable power across the region. Khamenei also gave the Guard a free hand to build a network of businesses allowing it to dominate Iran's economy. In return, the Guard became his loyal shock force. He fended off domestic challenges The first major threat to Khamenei's grip was the reform movement that swept into a parliament majority and the presidency soon after he became supreme leader. The movement advocated for giving greater power to elected officials - something Khamenei's hard-line supporters feared would lead to dismantling the Islamic Republic system. Khamenei stymied the reformists by rallying the clerical establishment. Unelected bodies run by the mullahs succeeded in shutting down major reforms and barring reform candidates from running in elections. The Revolutionary Guard and Iran's other security agencies crushed waves of protests that followed the failure of the reform movement. Huge nationwide protests erupted in 2009 over allegations of vote-rigging. Under the weight of sanctions, economic protests broke out in 2017 and 2019. More nationwide protests broke out in 2022 over the death of Mahsa Amini after police detained her for not wearing her mandatory headscarf properly. Hundreds were killed in crackdowns on the protests, and hundreds more arrested amid reports of detainees tortured to death or raped in prison. Still, the successive protests showed the strains in Iran's theocratic system and lay bare widespread resentment of clerical rule, corruption and economic troubles. Trying to defuse anger, authorities often eased enforcement of some of the Islamic Republic's social restrictions. He built Iran into a regional power When Khamenei took power, Iran was just emerging from its long war with Iraq that left the country battered and isolated. Over the next three decades, Khamenei turned Iran around into as assertive power wielding influence across the Middle East . One major boost was the U.S.'s 2003 ouster of Saddam Hussein, which eventually brought Iranian-allied Shiite politicians and militias to power in Iraq. Iraq provided a linchpin in Iran's Axis of Resistance, grouping Bashar Assad's Syria, Lebanon's Hezbollah , the Palestinian militant group Hamas and the Houthi rebels in Yemen. By 2015, the alliance was at its height, putting Iran on Israel's doorstep. The past two years brought a dramatic reversal Hamas' Oct. 7, 2023, attack on southern Israel brought massive Israeli retaliation on the Gaza Strip. It also brought a turnaround in Israeli policy. After years of trying to fend off and tamp down Iran's allies, Israel made crushing them its goal. Hamas has been crippled, though not eliminated, even at the cost of the decimation of Gaza. Israel has similarly sidelined Hezbollah - at least for the moment - with weeks of bombardment in Lebanon last year, along with a dramatic attack with booby-trapped pagers and walkie-talkies that stunned the group. An even heavier blow to Hezbollah was the fall in December of Assad when Sunni rebels marched on the capital and removed him from power. Now, a government hostile to Iran and Hezbollah rules from Damascus. Iran's Axis of Resistance is at its lowest ebb ever.
