Latest news with #USCode
Boston Globe
14-06-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Trump's military deployment in California is a radical departure from history
For now, the Trump administration's military deployment is authorized under a section within Title 10 of the US Code that allows the president to federalize the National Guard to help execute federal law in specified instances — namely, to repel invasion or suppress rebellion. However the text of the statute states that any orders for such federalized troops are to be issued through a state's governor. Newsom's objection to Trump's move, then, is grounded in principle — rebuffing Trump's challenge to his authority by reasserting state sovereignty and the division of power between state and federal government. Advertisement Going forward, however, the Trump administration is Advertisement Bush invoked the Insurrection Act in 1992, but again, he did so upon the request of the California governor. While the Insurrection Act has been sparingly invoked, Bush's move was consistent with prior applications in similar contexts. When state governors have requested federal military intervention under the act, they have consistently done so amid inflamed racial tensions that erupted into violent civil unrest. Such instances include the clash in the 1850s between pro- and anti-slavery forces known as Bleeding Kansas, Chinese expulsion campaigns by white mobs in Washington in the 1880s, the Detroit riots of 1943 and 1967, and the riots in Baltimore, Chicago, and Washington, D.C., following Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination. If Trump invokes the act now, he would probably do so unilaterally — in a move that, at least since the turn of the 20th century, would depart from unilateral invocations by past US presidents. In the limited instances when past presidents have invoked the act unilaterally and deployed federal troops over the objection of the state governor, they have done so to enforce the constitutional rights of citizens that were being violated by the state governors themselves — all of whom weaponized states' rights to preserve the Southern 'way of life,' a euphemism for resisting federally mandated desegregation. Advertisement Not incidentally, examples of the use of the Insurrection Act involve federal military enforcement of the civil rights of Black Americans, such as the First Amendment right of civil rights protesters to march from Selma to Montgomery following the brutal assault by Alabama state troopers on marchers known as Bloody Sunday. The Insurrection Act was also applied to enforce the desegregation of public schools in Arkansas, Mississippi, and Alabama — highlighted, respectively, by the military escort of the Little Rock Nine into Central High School, the showdown between federal troops and white segregationists at the University of Mississippi, and the National Guard's deployment in response to Governor George Wallace's stand in the University of Alabama's schoolhouse door, where he was physically blocking two Black students from enrolling. When past presidents took such unilateral action, they did so hesitantly, as they were sensitive to the public perception of overstepping federal power and encroaching upon state authority. Before eventually deploying Advertisement In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson had communicated his strong preference for Wallace to assume his own authority over the Alabama state National Guard to protect protesters marching from Selma to Montgomery, but Wallace refused. When Johnson ultimately invoked the Insurrection Act, By contrast, the Trump administration is displaying a propensity to flout state authority and boost federal military power — a situation that is especially remarkable given that belief in minimal federal interference in state affairs is supposed to be one of the hallmarks of conservative politics. In January 2017, during his first administration, Trump threatened to Although Trump eventually stood down from his threatened invocation of the act in 2020, the administration's recent threats, together with ICE raids, are ushering in a new era of conflict with states' rights. Democratic state governors now seek to protect the civil rights of citizens and noncitizens alike from Trump's exercise of federal power to 'Make America Great Again.' Advertisement Newsom, in his attempts to shield the
Chicago Tribune
12-06-2025
- Politics
- Chicago Tribune
Letters: Sending the military to a big city to police Americans is the wrong call
Sending National Guard troops into a municipality to quell disturbances is not a solution in a free society. National Guard troops are not trained in arrest, search and seizure. They do not know state or local laws; they most certainly are not familiar with Miranda rights. Back in 1968 as a Chicago cop, I observed firsthand National Guard and Army troops who were deployed to Chicago during the riots in reaction to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination and the Democratic National Convention. 'Confusion' is a mild word to describe the chaos. Sending 700 Marines to Los Angeles may or may not be legal, but I am a Marine veteran, and dealing with our own citizens in a free society was far from the training my fellow Marine warriors and I received. Demonstrators who cross the line from peaceful to violent no doubt need to be arrested and charged — but only by trained law enforcement officers to ensure due process, which is a right of every citizen in a free Tuesday's Tribune, multiple readers penned letters sharply criticizing President Donald Trump's response to the Los Angeles riots, decrying his deployment of the National Guard. 'Donald Trump is exceeding his authority,' Sally Munn writes. Kevin Coughlin asks: What about Jan. 6, 2021? The administration will lead us into 'a police state,' Harry Hofherr writes. The Tribune Editorial Board joined in on the hysterics ('MAGA morphs into Make America Cruel Again,' June 10), warning in its editorial that 'our children are watching.' Jeez, is what the president doing that unconstitutional? That awful? That wrong? The letter writers' charged language sure would make you think so. But, absent from their arguments is any semblance of law. First, the president does not appear to be exceeding his authority. Section 12406 of Title 10 of the US Code, invoked by Trump, is clear: The president may deploy the guard if there is an invasion, rebellion (or threat of one) or, and most applicable here, when 'the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.' Seeing as the rioters have blocked federal agents from detaining and deporting immigrants in Los Angeles, it would appear the third condition has been met, and a good argument could be made for the second having been met. California has filed suit against the president for deploying the guard, so these issues will of course have to be litigated in court — as they should be. Second, propagating Jan. 6 'whataboutism' here is quite rich. The Democrat-led Jan. 6 select committee sharply criticized Trump for not having deployed the guard quickly enough to defend federal property and personnel on that dark day in our nation's history. Now, the president seems to have learned from his mistake and yet gets criticized for quickly deploying the guard to protect federal property and personnel. Lastly, to say we now live in a 'police state' is obvious hyperbole. The guard has been explicitly ordered to defend federal employees in response to, not in anticipation of, violent riots. National Guard troops are not marching through Los Angeles; they are posted at or near federal property to shield it and the agents inside. So, to those condemning the president's response to the LA riots, I ask: Is your criticism directed at the person or the policy? There's a big senseless waste of tax dollars. With no request from the governor of California, the leader of the world has sent the National Guard and Marines to control a situation that was created by his own government. I suppose he can't send in the Army because those soldiers are otherwise occupied participating in another waste of taxpayer dollars: the parade! Both of these situations have everything to do with the president's . Too bad he didn't think the insurrection on Jan. 6 was worthy of the National Guard, a situation that truly merited supporting the local police. But that was also another ego trip for him. is the madness going to stop?Chicago is the perfect location for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to strike next. Surely a Texas or Florida city won't be next. Chicago has a divided government as the mayor does not control the City Council, and the mayor is unpopular. The mayor should be calming the city now to alleviate some of the protesting. I would advise Illinois' governor to immediately call up the National Guard upon the first instance of escalated protests before President Donald Trump editorial 'MAGA morphs into Make America Cruel Again' ignores the serious consequences that unchecked, unlawful entry has on our country. While America has always welcomed legal immigrants, illegal immigration breaks federal law and burdens citizens who follow the rules. First and foremost, illegal immigration is illegal. By excusing or encouraging it, we undermine our legal system and send a message that laws are optional. This is unfair to the millions around the world who wait years and spend thousands to come here legally. Law-abiding immigrants and U.S. citizens deserve a system that honors order and fairness — not one that rewards disregard for the rules. Illegal immigration puts pressure on our public services. Schools are overcrowded, teachers are stretched thin and health systems face rising costs. Local emergency rooms and clinics must provide care, but the bill is passed on to the American taxpayer. It's not sustainable, and it's not right. Crime is another serious concern. Americans should not have to fear that their safety is secondary to political narratives. Don't ask law-abiding citizens to subsidize illegal entry and its consequences. We need an immigration system that is lawful, secure and fair. That means enforcing existing laws, securing our borders and streamlining legal immigration — not ignoring our laws in the name of misguided compassion. Americans are generous, but we also value order, accountability and the editorial about the events in Los Angeles, the Tribune Editorial Board 'wondered how on God's green earth this country can hold it together for three-and-a-half more years of this level of presidential overreach, this amount of hatred and division.' My response is: Does the board remember the 1960s? Consider just 1968. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated in April. The ensuing riots all over the country make what is happening in LA look minor. We can still see the effects of those riots in parts of Chicago today. Two months later, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated. Then came the Democratic National Convention. I assume the editorial board remembers that. That was just in the United States. In January 1968, North Korea seized the USS Pueblo and held its crew captive for 11 months. At the end of January, communist forces in Vietnam launched their Tet Offensive. While the offensive was a strategic defeat for the communists, its main casualty was President Lyndon Johnson. There were student protests and riots all over Europe. In August, the Soviet Union occupied Czechoslovakia because it dared to have thoughts of its own. And then there was the draft. In other words, while things seem crazy now, we have been through worse. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about what is happening, but we should keep things in perspective. Because we have been there before.I have to agree with all the immigration demonstrators across the country today. The immigrants deserve good jobs and schools and honest government and to live without fear. The problem is they are marching in the wrong place. The root cause of the problem lies in their home countries. They should be marching in the capital cities of their home countries. Let's focus on the root cause. If everyone who feels so strongly about immigration went to the capital cities where the immigrants are escaping from, it would do much to eliminate the problem. March in Mexico City, Quito, San Salvador or Guatemala City, where the problems originate. Let's fix the root cause.I would like to remind my fellow Americans that this country has faced many crises in its short history. There is always someone there to remind us of who and what we represent as a nation and to the world. Such a man was Edward R. Murrow, an American broadcast journalist who lived through the Sen. Joe McCarthy era and stood up against what he knew to be a gross injustice and a violation of our values. I would like to share one of his many memorable quotes to ponder and then for us to decide as a nation if we wish to stand together for what we know is right and then to act. 'We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men — not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular.' What will you do to meet this crossroad?I faithfully read Voice of the People each day. Letters that go straight to the truth are my favorites. Some letters, however, simply fuel the flames of divisiveness, without revealing a profound truth. I quickly identify those letters when a I see the words 'posse' and 'minions,' which appeared in two letters on June 6: 'Donald Trump and his posse' and 'Joe Biden and his minions.' Labeling huge swaths of the American electorate as thoughtless sycophants does nothing to help us achieve equitable solutions for today's issues. Certain words divide us. Let's drop them from the discussion.I'd like to take a moment to provide a different perspective to a June 6 letter ('Short memories') regarding Joe Biden as president '(throwing) money at anything that moved' during his administration. Let us remember that Biden inherited an economy that was in a tailspin. To save the U.S. economy and support citizens of our country, Biden used his presidency to benefit the economy, middle class and struggling lower class. Let us remember that his stimulus plan included individual stimulus checks, extended unemployment benefits, extended child care tax credits, increased funding for a national vaccine plan, and increased the budget for mortgage assistance as well as emergency assistance for those who were unhoused. Biden's administration invested billions of dollars in domestic semiconductor manufacturing and research to bring the U.S. manufacturing sector in line with worldwide development. Those were just a few of the positive benefits for U.S. citizens under the Biden presidency. Let us not forget what we once had. If anyone is going to be accused of throwing money, let that money at least be used to support the children and families of the United States. When Biden left office, he gave his successor one of the healthiest economies in the world, with low unemployment, plus a record high number of jobs created. It's a national shame that we can no longer say that about our Secretary Pete Hegseth wants to change the name of the USNS Harvey Milk because Milk's identity as a gay man would compromise the Navy's effort to establish a 'warrior ethos.' Poor Hegseth seems unaware that in classical Greece, gay men — including pairs of gay lovers — were seen as essential to military unit cohesion and effectiveness. According to neoconservative historian Victor Davis Hanson's 1994 study 'The Western Way of War,' pairs of gay lovers fought with ferocity. The Sacred Band of Thebes, made up of 150 pairs of gay lovers, shattered the Spartan army at the Battle of Leuctra in 371 B.C., establishing Thebes' independence from Sparta. Four years later, at the Battle of Tegyra, the Sacred Band vanquished another Spartan force three times its size. One recent account called the Sacred Band of Thebes 'the Special Forces of the classical era.' It is unsettling that the security of the United States is in the hands of a man with no military experience and no knowledge of military history.
Indian Express
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
In Los Angeles, Trump is escalating a crisis of his own making
Los Angeles, in America's largest blue state where over one-third of the population is born outside the country, is no stranger to protest. During the 2006 immigration reform demonstrations, more than 500,000 people marched in LA alone. In 1992, violent unrest erupted after a jury acquitted four LAPD officers charged with using excessive force against Rodney King, an African American man. The Watts Riots of 1965 were similarly rooted in longstanding racism and poverty faced by African Americans. The city's residents have once again taken to the streets — this time in response to a wave of brutal crackdowns on immigrant communities by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). In response to the protests, President Donald Trump initially deployed 2,000 California National Guard troops to the city. On Monday, he authorised an additional 2,000 troops, along with 700 Marines mobilised by Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth. Trump invoked Title 10 of the US Code, which permits the President to federalise National Guard units if the country is invaded, if there is a 'rebellion or danger of rebellion', or if the President is 'unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the US'. There is, however, little evidence of such an emergency. By bypassing California's Governor Gavin Newsom, Trump's move constitutes an unprecedented federal overreach. The friction between Trump and Newsom is well known — earlier this year, when California sought federal assistance during the devastating wildfires, the President turned it into a political standoff. Now, California has sued the Trump administration over what it calls the unlawful deployment of the National Guard. Trump's claims — LA 'has been invaded and occupied by illegal aliens and criminals', and is being overwhelmed by 'violent, insurrectionist mobs' — are not supported by facts. The US is currently seeing the lowest levels of undocumented border crossings in decades, and violent crime has declined nationwide, including in California and LA. To project himself as tough on immigration, Trump is escalating a crisis of his own making. ICE has reportedly been given a daily arrest quota of 3,000 — a figure with no clear justification. This is not the first time Trump has resorted to the National Guard: In 2020, he deployed troops against demonstrators during the George Floyd protests in Washington, DC. Now, Trump hasn't ruled out invoking the Insurrection Act, which would provide him unchecked emergency powers. The US President would do well to douse the fire instead of stoking it.
RTÉ News
10-06-2025
- Politics
- RTÉ News
How Trump's actions against LA protesters defy all precedents
Analysis: Trump's unilateral decision to take federal control over the National Guard pits the president against the state of California Violence has erupted on the streets of cities across southern California over the weekend, as protesters clashed with agents from the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency detaining people they suspected to be illegal immigrants. The US president, Donald Trump, took the unusual decision on Saturday to deploy 2,000 troops from California's National Guard, despite not being requested to by the state's governor, Gavin Newsom. Newsom has threatened to sue Trump over what he has called "an illegal act, an immoral act, an unconstitutional act". Other California officials have also denounced the move, with Senator Adam Schiff calling it a "dangerous precedent for unilateral misuse of the guard across the country". Raids by ICE agents have increased significantly since mid-May when the Trump administration threatened to fire senior ICE officials if they did not deliver on higher arrest quotas. Several high-profile wrongful arrests of US citizens have further inflamed tensions. Protests have escalated in California, a Democratic stronghold and a "sanctuary state" where local law enforcement does not cooperate with ICE to detain illegal immigrants. At around 24,000 troops, California's National Guard is the largest in the United States. Each state has its own National Guard unit, a reserve force under the control of the governor which can be called upon in times of crisis – often to help out during natural disasters or other emergencies. For example, in January, Newsom activated several thousand troops to aid relief work during the devastating fires that threatened Los Angeles. In 1992, the then president, George H.W. Bush, backed the call of the then governor of California, Pete Wilson, call to deploy National Guard members to quell the South Central LA riots. From RTÉ Radio 1's Today with Claire Byrne, Los Angeles-based reporter Sean Mandell reports on the ongoing LA protests Now troops are back on the streets of LA. But this time not at the behest of the governor. Trump's unilateral decision to take federal control over the National Guard pits the president against the state of California – and importantly, against a state that has constantly resisted his anti-immigrant agenda. Newsom is seen by many as a possible contender for the Democratic Party's nomination in the 2028 presidential election. Historical precedents Is there a precedent for this? Yes and no. The Insurrection Act (passed in 1807, but revised several times) authorises the president to call on the National Guard in times of crisis or war to supplement state and local forces. This has been codified in title 10 of the US Code, which details the laws of the land. In 1871, the law was revised to specifically allow for the National Guard to be used in the protection of civil rights for black Americans. Legal experts have long called for reform of the Insurrection Act, arguing that the language is too vague and open to misuse. From RTÉ News, Trump calls deployment of troops in Los Angeles a 'great decision' In the past, former US presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson all invoked different sections of the Act to protect civil rights, particularly against segregationist states. While the act implies consent between governor and president, it does not require it. Two examples stand out. On June 11 1963, Kennedy issued executive order 11111 mobilising the National Guard to protect desegregation of the University of Alabama, against the wishes of Alabama governor George Wallace. Wallace's determination to block the registration of two black students, Vivian Malone and James Hood, produced a produced a sensational media moment when Wallace physically blocked the entrance of the university. Local law enforcement stood by the governor. With the state of Alabama in defiance of federal law, Kennedy saw no alternative but to deploy the guard. Less than two years later, in March 1965 Lyndon B. Johnson again deployed the guard in Alabama, bypassing Governor Wallace. In February, a state trooper in the town of Marion killed a young voters-rights activist, Jimmie Lee Jackson. This shooting, along with several violent attacks by the local police on voter registration activists in Selma, inspired a series of marches in support of the 1965 voting rights bill. On the eve of the march from Selma to Montgomery, tensions between local police and civil rights protesters were at a high. In response, Johnson bypassed Wallace and called in the National Guard to ensure, as he put it, the rights of Americans "to walk peaceably and safely without injury or loss of life from Selma to Montgomery". Before last Saturday, this was the last time a president circumvented the authority of the state governor in deploying the guard. But even in this instance, there was an implied request from Wallace, who explicitly requested federal aid in the absence of state resources. The subtext here is that Wallace did not want to be seen to call up the National Guard himself, so he forced Johnson to make that decision, allowing him to claim that the president was trampling on state sovereignty. Insurrection Act But this is not the current situation in California. The LAPD is the third largest police force in the US, with over just under 9,000 sworn officers. While its ranks have shrunk in recent years, it has been responding to the recent protests and unrest. There is no reason to think that Newsom would hesitate to call in the National Guard if warranted. In reality, Trump has invoked the Insurrection Act to protect ICE agents. Indeed, the National Guard has a complicated history of responding to civil unrest. The current situation is in stark contrast with the past, and faces serious questions of legitimacy. It is difficult not to see this as the latest move by the Trump administration to subjugate California. In early January Trump threatened to withhold federal aid to rebuild after the wildfires. In past months he threatened to withdraw all of the state's federal funding to punish it for its stance on campus protests and the inclusion of transgender athletes in women's sports. Unlike his predecessors, Trump has not mobilised the National Guard to protect civil rights against a hostile police force. Instead, he appears to be using this as leverage to undermine a political opponent he views as blocking his agenda. Circumventing gubernatorial powers over the National Guard in this way has no precedent and heralds the next stage in an extended conflict between the president and the state of California.
Straits Times
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Straits Times
Explainer: Does US law allow Trump to send troops to quell protests?
California sued the Trump administration on June 9 to end the 'unlawful' deployment of troops in Los Angeles County. PHOTO: REUTERS Explainer: Does US law allow Trump to send troops to quell protests? President Donald Trump deployed National Guard troops to California after days of protests by hundreds of demonstrators against immigration raids, saying the protests interfered with federal law enforcement and framing them as a possible 'form of rebellion' against the authority of the US government. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth on June 9 mobilised 700 active duty Marines as part of the government's response to the protests. California sued the Trump administration on June 9 to end the 'unlawful' deployment of troops in Los Angeles County and return the state National Guard to California Governor Gavin Newsom's command. What laws did Trump cite to justify the deployment? Mr Trump cited Title 10 of the US Code, a federal law that outlines the role of the US Armed Forces, in his June 7 order to call members of the California National Guard into federal service. A provision of Title 10 - Section 12406 - allows the president to deploy National Guard units into federal service if the US is invaded, there is a 'rebellion or danger of rebellion' or the president is 'unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States'. What are national guard troops allowed to do under the law cited in Trump's order? An 1878 law, the Posse Comitatus Act, generally forbids the US military, including the National Guard, from taking part in civilian law enforcement. Section 12406 does not override that prohibition, but it allows troops to protect federal agents who are carrying out law enforcement activity and to protect federal property. For example, National Guard troops cannot arrest protesters, but they could protect US Immigration and Customs Enforcement who are carrying out arrests. What does California's lawsuit say? California National Guard troops and police officers stand guard as people attend a rally against federal immigration sweeps in Los Angeles on June 9. PHOTO: REUTERS California's lawsuit said the deployment of troops in the state without the governor's consent violates federal law and the US Constitution's 10th Amendment, which protects states' rights. The state argues the deployment does not meet any of the requirements in Title 10 because there was no 'rebellion', no 'invasion' and no situation that prevented the enforcement of US laws in the state. Mr Trump also did not consult with Newsom before deploying the National Guard, violating Section 12406's requirement that orders to deploy the National Guard 'shall be issued through the governors of the States', according to the lawsuit. What is the lawsuit asking for? The lawsuit seeks a declaration from the court Mr Trump's order is unlawful and an injunction blocking it from being enforced. How might a court view the dispute? There is little precedent for such a dispute. Section 12406 has only ever been invoked once before to deploy the National Guard, when President Richard Nixon called upon it to deliver the mail during the 1970 Postal Service Strike, according to Bonta. Five legal experts from both left- and right-leaning advocacy organisations cast doubt on Mr Trump's use of Title 10 in response to the immigration protests and called it inflammatory and reckless, especially without Governor Newsom's support. The protests in California do not rise to the level of 'rebellion' and do not prevent the federal government from executing the laws of the United States, experts said. Legal experts were split on whether a court would back Governor Newsom's interpretation of the governor's role under Section 12406. Courts have traditionally given great weight to the word 'shall' in interpreting other laws, which supports Governor Newsom's position that governors must be involved in calling in the National Guard. But other experts said the law was written to reflect the norms of how National Guard troops are typically deployed, rather than giving a governor the option to not comply with a president's decision to deploy troops. What other laws could Trump invoke to direct the National Guard or other US military troops? Mr Trump could take a more far-reaching step by invoking the Insurrection Act of 1792, which would allow troops to directly participate in civilian law enforcement, for which there is little recent precedent. Senior White House officials, including Vice President J.D. Vance and senior White House aide Stephen Miller, have used the term 'insurrection' when discussing the protests, but the administration has stopped short of invoking the act thus far. It has been used by past presidents to deploy troops within the US in response to crises like the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan in the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War. Protesters clash with law enforcement in the streets surrounding the federal building in Los Angeles on June 8. PHOTO: AFP The law was last invoked by President George H.W. Bush in 1992, when the governor of California requested military aid to suppress unrest in Los Angeles following the trial of Los Angeles police officers who beat black motorist Rodney King. But the last time a president deployed the National Guard in a state without a request from that state's governor was 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson sent troops to protect civil rights demonstrators in Montgomery, Alabama. What about the Marines? Mr Trump has more direct authority over the Marines than the National Guard, under Title 10 and in his constitutional role as commander in chief of the armed forces, legal experts said. But unless Mr Trump invokes the Insurrection Act, the Marines are subject to legal restrictions that prevent them from taking part in 'any search, seizure, arrest or other similar activity'. The Defence Department said on June 9 that the Marines were ready to support the National Guard's efforts to protect federal personnel and federal property in Los Angeles, emphasizing the relatively limited scope of their role at the moment. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
