President Donald Trump is showing a willingness to deploy federal forces more aggressively, particularly in response to civil unrest. A notable instance occurred in the summer of 2020, following the death of George Floyd, when protests erupted across the nation. Trump later expressed regret for not deploying the military sooner. He told authors Carol Leonnig and Philip Rucker, “I think if I had to do it again, I would have brought in the military immediatly.” Leading up to the 2024 election, Trump voiced similar sentiments about being too restrained in cities like Chicago and New York, stating, “You just have to be asked by the governor or the mayor to come in. The next time,I’m not waiting.”

Recently, protests in Los Angeles concerning immigration enforcement actions have presented trump with a new possibility to act. “We’re going to have troops everywhere,” he announced on June 8th.The previous day, he bypassed CaliforniaS Governor, Gavin Newsom, to federalize the California National Guard, initially sending two thousand troops to L.A., a number that later increased to over four thousand.this marks the first instance since 1965,when President Lyndon Johnson federalized the Alabama National Guard against the wishes of Governor George Wallace to protect civil-rights marchers from Selma to Montgomery,that a president has mobilized the Guard without a governor’s consent. Trump’s order, justified under a 1903 law allowing the President to call out the Guard in cases of “rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States,” extended beyond California, authorizing deployments to locations where protests “are occurring or are likely to occur.”

On June 9th,Trump ordered seven hundred marines to reinforce the California Guard. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stated on X,”We have an obligation to defend federal law-enforcement officers-even if Gavin Newsom will not,” openly stating the political motivations. California swiftly filed a lawsuit to block the federal takeover. Attorney General Rob Bonta argued,”There is no invasion. there is no rebellion,” accusing Trump of trying to “manufacture chaos and crisis on the ground for his own political ends.” Trump countered,asserting,”If we didn’t do the job,that place would be burning down.”

The legality of trump’s actions is now under legal scrutiny. California contends that the takeover violates the law governing the federalization of the Guard and infringes upon state sovereignty. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer sided with California, stating that Trump’s decision “threatens serious injury to the constitutional balance of power between the federal and state governments, and it sets a risky precedent for future domestic military activity.” Though, an appeals court panel temporarily suspended that ruling.

Potential Invocation of the Insurrection Act

“The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.”

Beyond legal technicalities, Trump’s actions raise critical questions about the risks of involving the military in domestic law enforcement and whether Trump is increasingly inclined to misuse the military for political gain. As the Guard arrived in L.A., heavy artillery was being prepared in the capital for Trump’s military parade on June 14th, celebrating the Army’s two-hundred-and-fiftieth anniversary and his seventy-ninth birthday. The hardware included twenty-eight M1A1 Abrams tanks, twenty-eight M2 Bradley fighting vehicles, four Paladin howitzers, eight CH-47 Chinook helicopters, sixteen AH-64 Apache helicopters, and sixteen UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters.

While the legal battle continues, there is a notable risk that Trump might invoke the Insurrection Act. The Posse Comitatus Act currently limits the guard and Marines,preventing the military from engaging in domestic law enforcement. Invoking the insurrection Act would grant the Governance greater authority to use the military for raids, arrests, and other law-enforcement activities against civilians. Trump has reportedly been eager to use the Insurrection Act for years but was previously dissuaded. However, recent statements from Hegseth and Attorney General Pam Bondi suggest he may now be considering it.The law allows the President to determine when conditions of “rebellion” justify military intervention and to decide how long that power should last.

The Insurrection Act was last used in 1992 by president George H. W. Bush in response to the L.A.riots following the acquittal of officers in the Rodney King case. Though, in that instance, both the state’s Republican governor and the city’s Democratic mayor requested federal assistance. According to former Defense Secretary Mark Esper, Trump inquired about shooting Black Lives Matter protesters in Lafayette Square in 2020, asking, “Can’t you just shoot them? Just shoot them in the legs or something?” The prospect of the Insurrection Act in his hands raises significant concerns.

The nation’s founders, recalling the abuses of George III, recognized the dangers of an unchecked executive and a standing military. The Declaration of Independence criticized the King for keeping “Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures” and for making the “Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.” During the Constitutional Convention, James Madison warned that “the means of defense against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.” The current situation in Los Angeles may be just the beginning.