Trump threatens new measures Trump mobilizes the military - is the situation escalating now?
Trump has taken control of California's National Guard - without the governor's consent. Regular soldiers have also been deployed. Is the US president allowed to do this?
10.06.2025, 06:14
10.06.2025, 07:51
dpa
No time? blue News summarizes for you
- For the first time in decades, a US president has taken control of a state's National Guard without the consent of its governor.
- Donald Trump is also sending the regular military to Los Angeles because of the ongoing protests against his migration policy.
- His action is not only highly unusual - it is also a legally controversial breach of taboo and goes against the wishes of the Governor of California, Gavin Newsom.
- Newsom considers the deployment of the National Guard against demonstrators in his state at Trump's behest to be illegal.
- What is the legal basis - and what could happen next? Below is an overview of the questions and answers.
For the first time in decades, a US president has taken control of a state's National Guard without the consent of the state governor. Donald Trump has now also sent the regular military to Los Angeles due to the ongoing protests against his migration policy. His actions in the US state of California are not only highly unusual - they are also a legally controversial breach of taboo. What are the legal bases - and what could happen next? Questions and answers at a glance:
What is the legal basis for Trump's actions?
Trump has taken command of the National Guard in California by invoking Title 10 of the United States Code. In the USA, the states normally have control over the National Guard. It is a military reserve unit and part of the US armed forces. Each state has its own National Guard, which can be deployed in the event of natural disasters, civil unrest or domestic emergencies.
Trump is basing his takeover of command of the National Guard in California in part on a Title 10 provision that allows the president to seize control of the National Guard in the event of "rebellion or threat of rebellion against the authority of the United States government". He argues that the protests against immigration officials are a rebellion against the federal government.
Trump's move is highly unusual. It is the first time since 1965 that the president has seized a state's National Guard without the consent of a governor. Back then, President Lyndon B. Johnson also deployed regular soldiers in addition to the National Guard to protect the almost exclusively black demonstrators during the civil rights movement in the southern state of Alabama.
What are the powers of the National Guard and the Marines?
Trump also had 700 marines from the regular military sent to Los Angeles on Monday. Unlike the National Guard, the regular military is always under the authority of the federal government. Unlike the National Guard, it is more responsible for warfare and national security.
It is unclear what legal basis the US government is relying on for the move. However, the regional command responsible made it very clear what the Marines' task is supposed to be: The soldiers are to support the already mobilized National Guard forces in protecting federal employees and property. This is in line with experts' assessments of the National Guard's powers - which are currently limited.
According to the lawyers, the National Guard can protect immigration officials or buildings. However, they are not allowed to take over normal law enforcement measures such as arrests or raids, writes lawyer Stephen Vladeck from Georgetown University in the US capital Washington. Trump's actions in California nevertheless raise many legal questions - and are likely to keep the courts busy for some time to come.
What would be the next stage of escalation?
In order for the National Guard and probably also the Marines to have more far-reaching powers, Trump would have to impose a kind of emergency law and apply a law known as the "Insurrection Act", Vladeck continued. This law from 1807 allows the president to deploy the military domestically in exceptional situations and engage in law enforcement measures to restore public order. Under normal circumstances, this is not permitted in the USA. President Johnson, for example, also took this step in 1965.
The last time the Insurrection Act was used was in 1992. At that time, there were massive riots in Los Angeles when police officers brutally beat up Rodney King, a black man, who was subsequently acquitted. Unlike today, however, the Governor of California and the Mayor of Los Angeles had asked then President George H.W. Bush for federal support.
Trump threatened to activate the Insurrection Act during the protests against racism and police violence following the death of African-American George Floyd during his first term in office. During the election campaign, he repeatedly spoke of wanting to apply the law and has not ruled it out now either. He referred to the demonstrators in California as "insurrectionists". On Monday, the Republican said that an uprising had been prevented by the National Guard.
What does the activation of the "Insurrection Act" mean?
In practical terms, the application of the Emergency Powers Act is likely to mean that the US military could also be used for law enforcement in California. The soldiers could then arrest demonstrators or carry out raids. The activation of the Insurrection Act would probably lead to further political and social division in the country and the situation is likely to escalate further - nationwide protests could be expected.
"If the president uses the Insurrection Act, we will see major legal battles in the coming hours, days and weeks over whether or not these sweeping powers can be used under the circumstances," the Los Angeles Times quotes lawyer Jessica Levinson from Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. "Everyone should pause when the president uses emergency powers and the governor and the mayor say, please don't, we don't need this."
