Federal response to LA protests: Crisis Response or Constitutional Overstep?
This analysis is in response to breaking news and has been updated. Please contact pr@rstreet.org to speak with the authors.
Responding to protests over federal immigration enforcement, President Donald J. Trump has authorized another 2,000 National Guard troops following the initial 2,000 guards deployed as well as 700 active-duty Marines to protect the streets of Los Angeles. What makes this mobilization notable is that it occurred without the formal request or consent of California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell has even expressed concerns about potential “risks and confusion during critical incidents.” While the dangers of civil unrest and violent protests are real and should not be minimized, addressing these situations is fundamentally the responsibility of trained local law enforcement professionals. This decision has reignited a national conversation about the boundaries of executive authority, the importance of federalism, and the use of the military for domestic law enforcement.
Traditionally, the National Guard operates under the command of state governors, who can request federal assistance when local resources are overwhelmed. In this case, however, Gov. Newsom and local leaders stated that they had the situation under control, and did not require federal intervention. But in this situation the federal government bypassed state leadership. In doing so, the federal government sets a troubling precedent and risks eroding the balance of power between state and federal governments at the corner of our constitutional system.
Newsom condemned the move and announced that California would sue the federal government, calling the deployment “unconstitutional, escalatory, and politically motivated.” The lawsuit contends that the president “illegally acted to federalize the National Guard” and violated both the Insurrection Act and the Constitution by bypassing the state’s authority. Newsom argued that traditional protocols for mutual aid and emergency response were ignored, further asserting that the president’s actions misrepresented the facts on the ground and undermined state sovereignty.
Following Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s warning that active-duty Marines at Camp Pendleton were on “high alert,” those troops have now been mobilized and are expected to serve in a support capacity similar to that of the National Guard, rather than engaging directly in law enforcement activities. The Posse Comitatus Act generally prohibits the use of federal troops in domestic law enforcement roles unless specifically authorized by Congress or the Insurrection Act. Neither has happened in this case. The Department of Defense’s own directives (5525.5) reinforces these legal boundaries, underscoring that deploying the Marines against American citizens is only permissible in the most extreme circumstances.
It is important to recognize that law enforcement are uniquely trained and equipped to manage mass demonstrations and civil unrest. Their protocols emphasize de-escalation, communication, and the protection of constitutional rights. Officers are taught to distinguish between peaceful protesters and those who break the law, ensuring the responses are proportionate and measured. Police also work closely with community leaders and protest organizers, which helps to set expectations and minimize conflict. These are skills and strategies that the military, including the National Guard, simply does not possess in the same way. The presence of military personnel in these situations can easily be perceived as an escalation. To suggest that local law enforcement is not capable of fulfilling their responsibilities disregards their expertise and training, and can be seen as an affront to the professionals dedicated to maintaining public safety.
Of course, the National Guard has played a vital role during extraordinary events, but almost always at the request of state leaders or to enforce a valid court order. In 1957, during the battle over school desegregation, President Dwight Eisenhower took control of the Arkansas National Guard to enforce the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown vs. Board of Education, allowing nine Black students to attend an all-white high school. Since the civil rights era, the National Guard has only been deployed in cooperation with state leaders, such as after the Rodney King verdict in 1992. In 2020, more than 20 states battling civil unrest called up the National Guard to support local law enforcement, as did New York Gov. Kathy Hochul who deployed Guard members to patrol New York City’s subway system.
The National Guard is most effective when it provides support to local law enforcement in response to clearly defined emergencies. The legal framework for federalizing the National Guard is intentionally narrow, requiring an insurrection, rebellion, or breakdown of public order. Legal experts agree that none of these conditions existed in Los Angeles, where local officials maintained control and did not request outside intervention. Activating the National Guard on a whim undermines the principle of federalism and the constitutional order.
Federalism is not a partisan principle. It’s not something to be championed only when it limits liberal policies or advances conservative ones. The president’s use of the National Guard risks transforming the Guard into a police force used by the executive branch to silence dissent. Those who value state autonomy should stand up to government overreach.
What happens in Los Angeles today could happen in Austin, Denver, or Omaha tomorrow. The president’s decision to send troops without state consent is more than a policy disagreement—it is a test of the limits of executive power and the resilience of our federal system. If we are to preserve the balance between state and federal authority, we must insist that the National Guard be reserved for truly extraordinary circumstances, and always in partnership with the people on the ground.