On June 8, President Donald Trump ordered roughly 4,000 members of the California National Guard to be deployed in the city of Los Angeles for a duration of 60 days. Under normal circumstances, their deployment would be within the authority of the governor of the state, Gavin Newsom. However, the President can, if conditions so warrant, federalise the National Guard. The conditions under which the President can undertake such an action are narrowly circumscribed. Specifically, an existing law outlines three conditions that could warrant such an action: If the United States has been invaded or faces the threat of an invasion, if it faces a rebellion, or if regular forces are incapable of maintaining law and order.

Decades ago, the third condition had led to the federal deployment of the National Guard. In 1957, three years after the Supreme Court in the famous case Brown versus the Board of Education had ruled against segregation in public schools, the Governor of Arkansas, Orval Faubus, had dragged his feet in allowing nine Black children to attend a public school in Little Rock. President Dwight Eisenhower, who was incensed with Faubus’s unwillingness to implement the law, federalised the Arkansas National Guard to ensure that the students could attend the school safely.

Advertisement

This episode, however, was a case when the federal government was convinced that local law enforcement authorities were either incapable or unwilling to guarantee the safety of the students. Furthermore, it involved an issue of implementing the civil rights of the students. On this occasion, Trump has chosen to deploy the National Guard against mostly peaceful protestors who were exercising their right of free speech which is guaranteed under the United States Constitution. Furthermore, it is far from clear that the local law enforcement authorities were unable to cope with any possible disorder that stemmed from the protests.

Several issues are at play here. The protests in Los Angeles, a mostly liberal city in the largely left-leaning state of California, started in the wake of a spate of raids and arrests that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents were making across the city. These actions are part of President Trump’s efforts to crack down on illegal immigrants across the country. The tactics have been harsh, unrelenting, and on occasion, have resulted in clashes with locals who believe that their communities are being unfairly targeted.

What prompted Trump to call in the National Guard? To begin with, California, for the most part, is easily the most progressive state in the nation. Consequently, it is in Trump’s political interest to take a particularly tough stance toward these demonstrators. In effect, he is throwing down the proverbial gauntlet and daring Newsom to stand up to him.

Advertisement

Also Read | Trump vs Newsom: What triggered the protests against immigration authorities

Furthermore, despite the conciliatory efforts of Governor Newsom, in recent days the two have been at odds. Among other matters, Newsom has publicly threatened that California would stop sending federal taxes to Washington DC if Trump withheld federal funds that are owed to California. It is highly unlikely that Newsom would take this step. However, his willingness to demonstrate some spine has, no doubt, piqued Trump.

This is also not the first time that Trump has sought to use the National Guard to quell demonstrations. In 2020, when there were widespread protests in Washington DC — another liberal city — Trump had asked the governors of several states to send in their National Guard troops to the nation’s capital. These protests were part of a nationwide movement following the police killing of George Floyd in the city of Minneapolis. Some governors had complied with his demand but others had refused to do so, infuriating Trump.

In the wake of Trump’s decision to federalise the National Guard and order them to Los Angeles, Governor Newsom has upped the ante. On June 9, he sued the Trump administration on the grounds that the deployment of the National Guard violates California’s sovereignty. How the court will decide is uncertain. It is of course possible that it will rule in favour of California as prima facie the deployment does not really meet the criteria spelled out in the current law. However, as this decision is awaited, the stationing of the National Guard in Los Angeles is likely to only worsen tensions across the city.

The writer is a Senior Fellow and directs the Huntington Program on Strengthening US-India Relations at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University