.png)
2 hours ago
2
Residents of Los Angeles will need to get used to federally controlled National Guard troops operating on their streets. Due to a ruling from an appeals court on June 19, United States President Donald Trump now has broad authority to deploy military forces in American cities.
This is a troubling development. All presidents have held in their grasp extraordinary powers to deploy military troops domestically. But Trump stands apart with his apparent keen interest in manufacturing false emergencies to exploit extraordinary power.
An 1878 law called the Posse Comitatus Act restricts using the military for domestic law enforcement. The broader principle being challenged by Trump’s actions in L.A. is the norm of the military not being allowed to interfere in the affairs of civilian governance.
Injunctions and appeals
Five months into Trump’s presidency, L.A. has been targeted for aggressive immigration enforcement. In their pluralistic city where dozens of languages and nationalities peacefully co-exist, some Angelenos believe the city is experiencing an attack on its most essential social fabric.
On June 7, Trump acted under United States Code Title 10 provisions to take over command and control of California’s National Guard. Federalized military forces were deployed.
The objective was to counter what Trump argued was a form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States. In fact, these “rebellions” were largely peaceful protests in downtown L.A.
On June 9, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted an injunction restraining the president’s use of military force in L.A. The court order supported Gov. Gavin Newsom’s contention that Trump overstepped his authority.
On June 19, a decision from a panel of judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned the injunction.
What this means at the moment is that Trump does not have to return control of the troops to Newsom. California has options to continue litigation by asking the Federal Appeals Court to rehear the matter, or perhaps directly asking the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene.
Moving toward authoritarianism
Trump’s June 7 memorandum facilitating his move to overrule Newsom’s authority and seize control of 2,000 National Guard troops was based on the president defining his own so-called emergency.
He claimed incidents of violence and disorder following aggressive immigration enforcement amounted to a form of rebellion against the U.S.
As Trump flexes his emergency power might, his second term has been called the 911 presidency. He has used extraordinary emergency powers at a pace well beyond his predecessors, pressing the limits to address his administration’s supposed sense of serious perils overtaking the nation.
Issues arise when the level of actual danger locally is not at all representative of what the president suggests is a full-scale national emergency. For example, demonstrations over immigration raids occupied only a tiny parcel of real estate in L.A.’s huge metropolitan area. A Los Angeles-based rebellion against the U.S. was not occurring.
As dissent over aggressive immigration enforcement actions grew, localized clashes with law enforcement did occur. Mutual aid surged into Los Angeles, where neighbouring California law enforcement agencies acted to assist one another. The law enforcement challenges never rose to the level of the governor of California requesting additional federal support.
Shortly after the federal government took over the California National Guard, Newsom said the move was purposefully inflammatory.
In addition to declaring dubious emergencies to amass power, stoking violence is a characteristic of authoritarian rulers. Creating fear, division and feelings of insecurity can lead to community crises. Trump did not need to wait for a crisis; it seems he simply invented one.
No guardrails
The expression “out of kilter” comes to mind as Trump inches closer to invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807. If so, the situation will look quite similar in practice to what is happening now in Los Angeles.
Five years ago, Trump flirted with invoking the Insurrection Act during Black Lives Matter unrest in Washington, D.C., in and around Lafayette Park.
As recent L.A. protests intensified, Trump stated: “We’re going to have troops everywhere.”
Currently, there are few guardrails in place to prevent a rogue president from misusing the military in domestic civilian affairs. Trump has been coy about whether he would tap into the greater powers available to him under the Insurrection Act.
Real emergencies presenting existential threats to America do persist. Nuclear proliferation, climate change and pandemics need serious leaders. But politically exploiting last-resort emergency laws designed to provide options to deal with genuine existential threats — not to weaponize them against protesters demonstrating against public policy — is absurd.
