The Trump administration has dangerously escalated its immigration enforcement tactics, targeting interior cities. Such escalations seem designed to provoke protest and to justify harsh responses, including the deployment of the military to respond to protests of the administration’s policies. For the first time in 60 years, a president has deployed the National Guard over the objections of a governor in the affected state. Such a deployment, unnecessary at the time given the facts on the ground in Los Angeles, has served only to grossly inflame the situation and drive thousands to the streets, leading to chaos and an increase—not a decrease—in violence.
The Los Angeles Police Department stated on Saturday that the protesters they encountered were mostly peaceful and that they remained “fully prepared to respond swiftly and appropriately.” The Trump administration’s deployment of the National Guard was not necessary for order at the time and seems likely to inflame tensions and spark even more response. As the former acting vice chief of the National Guard Bureau said, “The President’s deployment of the National Guard over the official wishes of the governor is bad for all Americans concerned about freedom of speech and states’ rights. … This is an inappropriate use of the National Guard and is not warranted.”
This escalation is not an isolated incident; it should be viewed against the backdrop of the administration’s actions to use the power of the federal government to target and punish people and institutions the Trump administration does not like. In recent months, the administration has been aggressively attacking perceived enemies and using executive actions to bring dissenting voices to heel—including attacks on judges, members of Congress, unions, law firms, universities, and nonprofit organizations.
The deployment of the National Guard over the objections of a state’s governor is a historical aberration—and dangerous. Trump’s Saturday night memorandum to deploy the National Guard is not specific to California: It is an unprecedented authorization to deploy the National Guard or active-duty forces anywhere in the nation to support immigration enforcement at the discretion of Trump’s secretary of defense. Federalizing and deploying the National Guard to Los Angeles, alarmingly over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), could run counter to long-established laws such as the Posse Comitatus Act, which prevent the military from being used for domestic law enforcement except under the most dire circumstances.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has further threatened to deploy active-duty marines to Los Angeles to address the demonstrations. The deployment of the National Guard and active-duty military to Los Angeles during the 1992 Rodney King riots was at the request of then-Gov. Pete Wilson (R). The last time a president deployed the National Guard against the objections of a governor was in 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson federalized the Alabama National Guard to protect protesters from the state. In that case, the sitting president used the power of the federal government to protect the civil rights of Americans against a state government using violence against them.
This time, the facts could not be more different. There was no request for assistance from Gov. Newsom, and both he and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass (D) have reiterated that they have the state and local resources they need to address the protests. To the contrary, Gov. Newsom’s office formally requested that the Trump administration rescind the “unlawful deployment of troops” in Los Angeles and return them to his command, calling it a “serious breach of state sovereignty.” Notably, neither the state of California nor the city of Los Angeles is acting to thwart federal law, and in fact, local police have been arresting protesters who have violated the law.
Trump’s action also puts troops in danger because they are simply not suited or trained for this kind of mission. There is a reason that former Defense Secretary Mark Esper opposed President Trump’s effort to use active duty troops in response to Black Lives Matter protests in 2020, saying that they “should only be used as a matter of last resort and only in the most urgent and dire of situations.” The National Guard is only used when state and local police are overwhelmed. They are not trained in de-escalation tactics or best practices of public-order policing, and this federal deployment will result in confusion on the ground as state and local law enforcement respond to protests.
Placing the military at the center of Trump’s politically charged immigration agenda will have serious impacts on U.S. national security and readiness, and it will harm civil-military relations. National Guard units regularly deploy overseas alongside active-duty forces, they mobilize to assist states with disaster response, and when not deployed, are important members of their communities. Putting servicemembers in the middle of Trump’s immigration enforcement could damage morale, recruitment, and retention of service members.
Trump and his advisors have a long history of seeking to use federal troops to put down domestic protests. John Kelly, who served as Trump’s chief of staff in his first administration, warned that Trump could order troops to do “something illegal.” The Washington Post reports that Trump “often sought to use military force in a bid to crack down on perceived problems.”
Similarly, during the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests, Trump asked Esper if protesters could be shot in the legs. Trump’s eagerness to deploy the National Guard is a stark contrast to January 6, 2021, when he was slow to deploy the National Guard to counter violent demonstrators who attacked the Capitol in support of Trump’s call to overturn the 2020 election results. Some of these demonstrators were later convicted for seditious conspiracy. President Trump then pardoned them.
The increasingly heavy-handed immigration enforcement tactics used by the administration are dangerous. Many of the individuals who are being detained and deported lack a criminal record, and some who have been deported were actually here legally. At the same time, the same escalated immigration enforcement activities against employers or their employees have not occurred to the same extent in Republican-led states or cities.
There have even been instances in which American citizens have been detained after presenting evidence of citizenship. Plain-clothed immigration enforcement agents have in some cases snatched lawful residents off the streets in what could be mistaken for a kidnapping. Others have deployed in armored vehicles, riot gear, and masks—refusing to share identification when requested. Last Friday, a prominent labor leader, SEIU California’s president David Huerta, was injured and detained while observing federal agents. And immigration agents are going to courthouses to apprehend people there, which will impede the nation’s system of justice by driving individuals underground.
Americans do not support Trump’s overreach and abuse of power. In recent months, Americans—including one-quarter of Republicans—have been signaling their concern that the president has “gone too far” in using presidential power to achieve his goals. Americans have also indicated that Congress has done too little to check these actions.
The Trump administration and its inappropriate deployment of the military to Los Angeles caused this chaos and threaten the safety of both the public and those serving in uniform. President Trump must immediately rescind his order federalizing the National Guard and allow state and local police to do their jobs.