President Donald Trump’s recent decision to deploy the National Guard to Los Angeles in response to protests against his immigration policies recalls similar actions by U.S. leaders in the past to address civil unrest. Typically, the deployment of National Guard troops in states occurs with gubernatorial consent, especially in cases involving emergencies or natural disasters. In this instance, Trump, a Republican, authorized the deployment of approximately 1,000 California National Guard troops. This action was taken against the strong objections of California Governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, both Democrats.
Tensions first escalated on a Friday when numerous protestors gathered outside a federal detention facility, demanding the release of over 40 individuals apprehended by federal immigration authorities in Los Angeles. This action was part of Trump’s broader immigration crackdown. Trump defended his decision to federalize these troops, stating it was necessary to address what he called “lawlessness” in California. Conversely, Governor Newsom described Trump’s move as a “complete overreaction,” asserting that it was an “inflammatory” decision likely to intensify existing tensions.
The role of the National Guard in curbing unrest is not new. In previous instances, troop deployments have sometimes calmed situations after violence by local law enforcement or vigilante groups. However, there have also been cases where their presence has heightened tensions, especially during civil rights or racial equality protests. In a statement released by eight prominent civil rights organizations, including the NAACP and the Legal Defense Fund, leaders underscored the need to protect the constitutional right of people to peacefully protest against what they term as the administration’s discriminatory policies targeting Black and Brown communities.
Concerns were raised by Amara Enyia, a representative from the Movement for Black Lives, over the potential consequences of federal troop deployments. She warned that such deployments could lead to disproportionate arrests and harsher penalties for Black protestors, reminiscent of the aftermath of the George Floyd protests in 2020. Enyia emphasized that both military and police personnel might adopt an “everything is a target” mindset, posing a threat to citizens’ rights.
Historically, presidents have sometimes invoked the Insurrection Act, an 18th-century statute, as a legal basis to activate military or National Guard interventions amidst significant unrest or rebellion. Alternatively, they have utilized federal laws allowing them to federalize National Guard troops, choices Trump employed in this contemporary scenario. Nonetheless, some legal experts argue that the situation in Los Angeles under Trump’s directive diverges legally from past precedents. Bernadette Meyler, a constitutional law professor at Stanford University, described Trump’s legal maneuver as an exception to conventional practices.
Reflecting on notable past deployments, during the George Floyd protests in 2020, Governor Newsom activated around 8,000 National Guard troops to support law enforcement during widespread racial injustice demonstrations nationwide, with a significant number deployed to Los Angeles County. At the time, the decision was backed by city officials. Yale historian Elizabeth Hinton, an expert on race-related unrest, contends that although the 2020 events were often portrayed as violent, they predominantly were not, a point she believes holds even truer currently, questioning the necessity of a militarized troop presence.
The current troop deployment has drawn parallels to the Los Angeles uprisings in 1992 following the acquittal of police officers involved in the beating of Rodney King, where federal intervention was invoked to address one of the deadliest civil disturbances in U.S. history. A local resident from South Central Los Angeles recalled those times, indicating a deeper fear of the police than of the National Guard troops back then, stating that the local police returned once the National Guard left.
Additionally, three decades back during the Watts protests in 1965, community discontent boiled over into deadly protests marked by aggressive police interventions and National Guard deployments, with long-lasting repercussions as some say the neighborhood still bears the marks of destruction.
Integration efforts throughout the 1950s and 60s saw similar deployments; in Tennessee, for example, troops were used to enforce school integration despite white resistance, and federal troops were mobilized in Arkansas to escort Black students into previously segregated schools. The National Guard also played a pivotal role during the Selma voting rights marches in 1965, an event widely recognized for its influence on the Voting Rights Act.
From Eisenhower’s intervention in Arkansas to Johnson’s directive during the Selma marches, these historic moments exemplify the varied utilization of military force for civil protection versus control, underscoring the complexity surrounding the engagement of armed forces in civil rights matters. The debate surrounding Trump’s recent decision highlights the ongoing tensions between federal authority and states’ rights.