Trump federalizing the California National Guard to put down protests

RuthRuth Shipmate
Trump is calling out the California National Guard in Los Angeles and environs to deal with protests of the immigration raids of workplaces Friday and Saturday. Usually it's the governor who calls out the guard as it's a state institution, but under Title 10 of the US Code the president can call out the guard without the governor's consent.

This isn't unprecedented, but in the current circumstances it's incendiary. The last time the National Guard was called out to deal with protestors was in Los Angeles in 1992, for the Rodney King uprising and riots; this was at the request of the state and came after there was widespread unrest, rioting, and looting for several days, and after a number of people had died. The last time a president federalized a state national guard was 60 years ago, when Johnson activated troops to protect civil rights protestors in Alabama.

Frankly, I think Trump is doing this because people talked him out of calling out the military during the George Floyd protests in 2020 and he wants a do-over, and because of California's image as a liberal state. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is talking about calling up the Marines from Camp Pendleton, a base in northern San Diego County 80-some miles south of LA.

Calling out the military to quell the protests of citizens -- protest leaders advise non-citizens to stay home and not risk arrest -- is fascist. I'm not surprised, to be honest. I just wanted to mark this step in the destruction of American democracy.

The Guardian has good coverage. It talks about Paramount, which won't be familiar to people here; it's a small city in LA County about 9 miles from me that is predominantly Latino and very working class.

Comments

  • This sounds as though it may turn out to be an egregiously false move, rebounding on Trump if (God/gods forbid) it escalates, causing further unrest and violence.

    Thanks for the Guardian link @Ruth - I keep an eye on that particular news outlet, and will look out for further coverage.

  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    I'll be surprised if it doesn't escalate.

    I didn't say this in the OP, but overnight someone said what I'm afraid of. In an article titled "For Trump, This Is a Dress Rehearsal" in The Atlantic (free link) David Frum writes,
    ... if the Trump-Hegseth threats have little purpose as law enforcement, they signify great purpose as political strategy. Since Trump’s reelection, close observers of his presidency have feared a specific sequence of events that could play out ahead of midterm voting in 2026:

    Step 1: Use federal powers in ways to provoke some kind of made-for-TV disturbance—flames, smoke, loud noises, waving of foreign flags.

    Step 2: Invoke the disturbance to declare a state of emergency and deploy federal troops.

    Step 3: Seize control of local operations of government—policing in June 2025; voting in November 2026.

    ...

    If Trump can incite disturbances in blue states before the midterm elections, he can assert emergency powers to impose federal control over the voting process, which is to say his control. Or he might suspend voting until, in his opinion, order has been restored. Either way, blue-state seats could be rendered vacant for some time.

    ...

    Since Trump’s return to the presidency in January, many political observers have puzzled over a seeming paradox. On the one hand, Trump keeps doing corrupt and illegal things. If and when his party loses its majorities in Congress—and thus the ability to protect Trump from investigation and accountability—he will likely face severe legal danger. On the other hand, Trump is doing extreme and unpopular things that seem certain to doom his party’s majorities in the 2026 elections. Doesn’t Trump know that the midterms are coming? Why isn’t he more worried?

    This weekend’s events suggest an answer. Trump knows full well that the midterms are coming. He is worried. But he might already be testing ways to protect himself that could end in subverting those elections’ integrity. So far, the results must be gratifying to him—and deeply ominous to anyone who hopes to preserve free and fair elections in the United States under this corrupt, authoritarian, and lawless presidency.

    I hope this is needless worry, but this is what I'm worried about.
  • Ruth wrote: »
    I'll be surprised if it doesn't escalate.

    I didn't say this in the OP, but overnight someone said what I'm afraid of. In an article titled "For Trump, This Is a Dress Rehearsal" in The Atlantic (free link) David Frum writes,
    ... if the Trump-Hegseth threats have little purpose as law enforcement, they signify great purpose as political strategy. Since Trump’s reelection, close observers of his presidency have feared a specific sequence of events that could play out ahead of midterm voting in 2026:

    Step 1: Use federal powers in ways to provoke some kind of made-for-TV disturbance—flames, smoke, loud noises, waving of foreign flags.

    Step 2: Invoke the disturbance to declare a state of emergency and deploy federal troops.

    Step 3: Seize control of local operations of government—policing in June 2025; voting in November 2026.

    ...

    If Trump can incite disturbances in blue states before the midterm elections, he can assert emergency powers to impose federal control over the voting process, which is to say his control. Or he might suspend voting until, in his opinion, order has been restored. Either way, blue-state seats could be rendered vacant for some time.

    ...

    Since Trump’s return to the presidency in January, many political observers have puzzled over a seeming paradox. On the one hand, Trump keeps doing corrupt and illegal things. If and when his party loses its majorities in Congress—and thus the ability to protect Trump from investigation and accountability—he will likely face severe legal danger. On the other hand, Trump is doing extreme and unpopular things that seem certain to doom his party’s majorities in the 2026 elections. Doesn’t Trump know that the midterms are coming? Why isn’t he more worried?

    This weekend’s events suggest an answer. Trump knows full well that the midterms are coming. He is worried. But he might already be testing ways to protect himself that could end in subverting those elections’ integrity. So far, the results must be gratifying to him—and deeply ominous to anyone who hopes to preserve free and fair elections in the United States under this corrupt, authoritarian, and lawless presidency.

    I hope this is needless worry, but this is what I'm worried about.

    Thanks @Ruth - worrying, indeed.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited June 8
    Ruth wrote: »
    I'll be surprised if it doesn't escalate.

    I didn't say this in the OP, but overnight someone said what I'm afraid of. In an article titled "For Trump, This Is a Dress Rehearsal" in The Atlantic (free link) David Frum writes,
    ... if the Trump-Hegseth threats have little purpose as law enforcement, they signify great purpose as political strategy. Since Trump’s reelection, close observers of his presidency have feared a specific sequence of events that could play out ahead of midterm voting in 2026:

    Step 1: Use federal powers in ways to provoke some kind of made-for-TV disturbance—flames, smoke, loud noises, waving of foreign flags.

    Step 2: Invoke the disturbance to declare a state of emergency and deploy federal troops.

    Step 3: Seize control of local operations of government—policing in June 2025; voting in November 2026.

    ...

    If Trump can incite disturbances in blue states before the midterm elections, he can assert emergency powers to impose federal control over the voting process, which is to say his control. Or he might suspend voting until, in his opinion, order has been restored. Either way, blue-state seats could be rendered vacant for some time.

    ...

    Since Trump’s return to the presidency in January, many political observers have puzzled over a seeming paradox. On the one hand, Trump keeps doing corrupt and illegal things. If and when his party loses its majorities in Congress—and thus the ability to protect Trump from investigation and accountability—he will likely face severe legal danger. On the other hand, Trump is doing extreme and unpopular things that seem certain to doom his party’s majorities in the 2026 elections. Doesn’t Trump know that the midterms are coming? Why isn’t he more worried?

    This weekend’s events suggest an answer. Trump knows full well that the midterms are coming. He is worried. But he might already be testing ways to protect himself that could end in subverting those elections’ integrity. So far, the results must be gratifying to him—and deeply ominous to anyone who hopes to preserve free and fair elections in the United States under this corrupt, authoritarian, and lawless presidency.

    I hope this is needless worry, but this is what I'm worried about.

    I think he's definitely trying to pick fights with blue states. Whether it is, as Frum suggests, a long-game strategy to take control of elections in those states, OR just to win the midterms more-or-less legitimately by making himself look like the champion of law-and-order, I couldn't say.
  • Whatever Trump's plans or motives may be, tyrants using troops against their own people rarely (if ever) ends well, whether for the country, or for the tyrant.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    If this escalates as it looks to, we will get a John Brown, and people will rally around them. Look for unrest -- not just peaceful protests but actual unrest -- to grow.
  • A comment by Robert Reich in today's UK Guardian:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jun/09/trump-police-state-robert-reich

    I don't know much about Mr Reich, but he often contributes to the Guardian, and I take it that he knows whereof he speaks.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    I believe Robert Reich was the Secretary of Labor under the Bill Clinton administration. He is well known for his schematics he uses in his talks. Quite liberal, but realistic.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    I believe Robert Reich was the Secretary of Labor under the Bill Clinton administration. He is well known for his schematics he uses in his talks. Quite liberal, but realistic.

    Thank you.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    I believe Robert Reich was the Secretary of Labor under the Bill Clinton administration. He is well known for his schematics he uses in his talks. Quite liberal, but realistic.

    In terms of economics, I think he was most closely identified as a neo-keynesian.
  • I don't think it controversial to point out that Trump's actions are illegal.

    The question is: what happens next?

  • I don't think it controversial to point out that Trump's actions are illegal.

    The question is: what happens next?

    Yet more National Guards, according to the Guardian, but ISWYM.

    There appears to be no stopping Trump in his desire to impose a dictatorship, though. How far will he go?
  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Kerygmania Host
    I think this is on the money. He is picking fights with other centres of power to establish his dominance - universities, big tech/money, states. He does not trouble much to conceal his aims.
  • GwaiGwai Epiphanies Host
    My feeling, which might be optimistic, is that the marines are professionals and expect to be risking their lives and working very hard to save others. To be sent as crowd control to help tear parents from their children? I think they will be insulted. I think that even if sending them is a short term success in that the crowd is intimidated, it will be a long term mistake. I hope.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    My hypothesis is that Trump sent in the Guard along with the Marines to distract from where he is actually losing. He is losing in the polls. His fight with Harvard is going nowhere. His big, beautiful bill may not pass. He has not brought Putin to the table with Zelinski. He has little influence in Europe or Asia, for that matter. By sending in the military for a relatively small riot, he focuses the cameras on something else than him tripping up the stairs as he was enplaning Air Force 1. (Actually happened this weekend.)
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    My hypothesis is that Trump sent in the Guard along with the Marines to distract from where he is actually losing. He is losing in the polls.
    His approval rating has actually risen in the last few weeks. Depending on what poll you look at it, he’s still treading water or underwater, but not as far underwater as he was a month ago.


  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    I believe Robert Reich was the Secretary of Labor under the Bill Clinton administration. He is well known for his schematics he uses in his talks. Quite liberal, but realistic.

    At the other end of the political scale, Bill Kristol* dubs Trump's memorandum authorizing the deployment of the National Guard the Usurpation Proclamation. He makes the important note that the memo does not have any geographic or temporal bounds.
    Note that neither Los Angeles nor the state of California is mentioned in the memorandum. Trump’s mobilization order is in no way limited as to time or place. It is an open-ended authorization for the secretary of defense to mobilize as many troops as he wishes for as long as he wishes, and to deploy them anywhere he wishes within the United States. And these military personnel can be deployed not just where protests have occurred, but anywhere protests “are likely to occur based on current threat assessments and planned operations.”

    The memorandum’s final paragraph states that, “To carry out this mission, the deployed military personnel may perform those military protective activities that the Secretary of Defense determines are reasonably necessary” and ensures that the secretary of defense consults with the attorney general and the secretary of homeland security “prior to withdrawing any personnel from any location to which they are sent.”

    Again: “Any personnel,” “any location,” and for any length of time.

    Trump understands the breadth of his order. When asked by a reporter yesterday if he planned to send troops to Los Angeles, he answered: “We’re gonna have troops everywhere.”

    Everywhere.

    It still feels vaguely wrong to be on the same side of any issue as Bill Kristol, but apparently here we are.


    *Bill Kristol is a conservative commentator best known for his whole-hearted support of the Iraq War. As far as I know the only job within government that he ever held was as Dan Quayle's chief of staff.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    Gwai wrote: »
    My feeling, which might be optimistic, is that the marines are professionals and expect to be risking their lives and working very hard to save others. To be sent as crowd control to help tear parents from their children? I think they will be insulted. I think that even if sending them is a short term success in that the crowd is intimidated, it will be a long term mistake. I hope.

    LAPD and LASD are also both insulted, but it hasn't stopped them from rioting.
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    The big question is will this help or hurt Trump in states (Senate) and House Districts which might actually be in play during the midterm elections?
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited June 10
    AIUI, there is something called the Insurrection Act which has to be invoked before the military (does that include the National Guard?) can take violent action against citizens.

    Is Trump about to invoke this Act? If he does, it's a slippery slope downwards, as Bill Kristol suggests.

    We Brits are finding it hard to keep up with events in the US, though the Guardian is doing its best, so I apologise if I'm asking stupid questions.
  • HarryCHHarryCH Shipmate
    Under the Posse Comitatus Act, it should be utterly illegal to deploy the Marines inside the US for law enforcement purposes.
  • GwaiGwai Epiphanies Host
    Ruth wrote: »
    Gwai wrote: »
    My feeling, which might be optimistic, is that the marines are professionals and expect to be risking their lives and working very hard to save others. To be sent as crowd control to help tear parents from their children? I think they will be insulted. I think that even if sending them is a short term success in that the crowd is intimidated, it will be a long term mistake. I hope.

    LAPD and LASD are also both insulted, but it hasn't stopped them from rioting.

    Chicago PD, is always on the side of fascism though. How's LA's generally? It's hard to see from a quick search whether LAPD is on that scale*, but generally I tend to assume most U.S. big city police are somewhat fascist. It's only a question of how much. The marines tend conservative and very obedient, but I don't know that they tend fascist?

    *So I will trust your opinion above others as someone closer to the situation
  • GwaiGwai Epiphanies Host
    AIUI, there is something called the Insurrection Act which has to be invoked before the military (does that include the National Guard?) can take violent action against citizens.

    Is Trump about to invoke this Act? If he does, it's a slippery slope downwards, as Bill Kristol suggests.
    Some of us worry that is exactly where Trump is going with this, yes.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited June 10
    Gwai wrote: »
    AIUI, there is something called the Insurrection Act which has to be invoked before the military (does that include the National Guard?) can take violent action against citizens.

    Is Trump about to invoke this Act? If he does, it's a slippery slope downwards, as Bill Kristol suggests.
    Some of us worry that is exactly where Trump is going with this, yes.

    From the UK Guardian, a few minutes ago:

    Trump on Insurrection Act: 'If there’s an insurrection I would certainly invoke it'
    Asked whether he would invoke the Insurrection Act in response to protests in LA, Trump has just told reporters in the Oval Office:

    If there’s an insurrection, I would certainly invoke it. We’ll see.

    He continued, calling the past two days in LA “terrible”.

    Asked how he would determine if there was an “insurrection”, Trump said he would “take a look at what’s happening”, adding that he believed there were certain areas of LA that seemed to experience where “you could’ve called it an insurrection”


    He seems to be spoiling for a fight, and looking for an excuse.

    Kyrie, eleison.

    Oddly enough, there was a video on YouTube earlier today, which described how various well-known dictators died...
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    My hypothesis is that Trump sent in the Guard along with the Marines to distract from where he is actually losing. He is losing in the polls. His fight with Harvard is going nowhere. His big, beautiful bill may not pass. He has not brought Putin to the table with Zelinski. He has little influence in Europe or Asia, for that matter. By sending in the military for a relatively small riot, he focuses the cameras on something else than him tripping up the stairs as he was enplaning Air Force 1. (Actually happened this weekend.)

    Not sure if it's a calculated distraction from other issues, as you hypothesize, but more that he wants to be seen as hard-assed on immigration(the only major issue on which he has positive approval ratings), while not disrupting the economies of red and especially purple states.

    Mind you, this assumes he's been pulling his punches on crackdowns on businesses that employ migrants in red and purple states. Which is something I've seen speculated about in the media, but no hard stats.
  • HarryCH wrote: »
    Under the Posse Comitatus Act, it should be utterly illegal to deploy the Marines inside the US for law enforcement purposes.

    In Trump's opinion, he's the president, and the law is whatever he says it is. He's not interested in the rule of law - he's interested in the rule of Trump. He's basically a mobster writ large - show him respect, and go along with what he wants, and he dispenses occasional largesse. Oppose him, and he'll decide that you aren't his friend, and he'll look for a way to screw you over.
  • Succinctly put, and with a ring of truth.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    I believe Robert Reich was the Secretary of Labor under the Bill Clinton administration. He is well known for his schematics he uses in his talks. Quite liberal, but realistic.

    At the other end of the political scale, Bill Kristol* dubs Trump's memorandum authorizing the deployment of the National Guard the Usurpation Proclamation. He makes the important note that the memo does not have any geographic or temporal bounds.
    Note that neither Los Angeles nor the state of California is mentioned in the memorandum. Trump’s mobilization order is in no way limited as to time or place. It is an open-ended authorization for the secretary of defense to mobilize as many troops as he wishes for as long as he wishes, and to deploy them anywhere he wishes within the United States. And these military personnel can be deployed not just where protests have occurred, but anywhere protests “are likely to occur based on current threat assessments and planned operations.”

    The memorandum’s final paragraph states that, “To carry out this mission, the deployed military personnel may perform those military protective activities that the Secretary of Defense determines are reasonably necessary” and ensures that the secretary of defense consults with the attorney general and the secretary of homeland security “prior to withdrawing any personnel from any location to which they are sent.”

    Again: “Any personnel,” “any location,” and for any length of time.

    Trump understands the breadth of his order. When asked by a reporter yesterday if he planned to send troops to Los Angeles, he answered: “We’re gonna have troops everywhere.”

    Everywhere.

    It still feels vaguely wrong to be on the same side of any issue as Bill Kristol, but apparently here we are.


    *Bill Kristol is a conservative commentator best known for his whole-hearted support of the Iraq War. As far as I know the only job within government that he ever held was as Dan Quayle's chief of staff.

    And then you've got David Frum, the neocon author of the Axis Of Evil Speech, who has been against Trump since well before the 2016 election.

    Though I suspect his initial hostility was based on Trump originally taking decidedly non-neocon positions on the Iraq War and the status of Jerusalem, and it just dovetailed nicely with Frum's later opposition to Trump's overall bonkerism.

    John Bolton is the neo-con guru I find the most interesting as a Trump critic. As with Frum, I think he probably has disreputable motivations, but he paints a pretty convincing picture of Trump's personal psychology, based on his own up-close observations.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Military.com, a news organization that follows the US military is reporting the 4,000 guard members that are deployed in LA have yet to receive order that authorize their duty. This means they are not going paid. Nor are they able to receive military services should they become injured during the action. This may even be the reason why the guardsmen are not properly billeted, having had to sleep on concrete floors when not on the line.
  • ChastMastrChastMastr Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    I believe Robert Reich was the Secretary of Labor under the Bill Clinton administration. He is well known for his schematics he uses in his talks. Quite liberal, but realistic.

    At the other end of the political scale, Bill Kristol* dubs Trump's memorandum authorizing the deployment of the National Guard the Usurpation Proclamation. He makes the important note that the memo does not have any geographic or temporal bounds.
    Note that neither Los Angeles nor the state of California is mentioned in the memorandum. Trump’s mobilization order is in no way limited as to time or place. It is an open-ended authorization for the secretary of defense to mobilize as many troops as he wishes for as long as he wishes, and to deploy them anywhere he wishes within the United States. And these military personnel can be deployed not just where protests have occurred, but anywhere protests “are likely to occur based on current threat assessments and planned operations.”

    The memorandum’s final paragraph states that, “To carry out this mission, the deployed military personnel may perform those military protective activities that the Secretary of Defense determines are reasonably necessary” and ensures that the secretary of defense consults with the attorney general and the secretary of homeland security “prior to withdrawing any personnel from any location to which they are sent.”

    Again: “Any personnel,” “any location,” and for any length of time.

    Trump understands the breadth of his order. When asked by a reporter yesterday if he planned to send troops to Los Angeles, he answered: “We’re gonna have troops everywhere.”

    Everywhere.

    It still feels vaguely wrong to be on the same side of any issue as Bill Kristol, but apparently here we are.


    *Bill Kristol is a conservative commentator best known for his whole-hearted support of the Iraq War. As far as I know the only job within government that he ever held was as Dan Quayle's chief of staff.

    And then you've got David Frum, the neocon author of the Axis Of Evil Speech, who has been against Trump since well before the 2016 election.

    Though I suspect his initial hostility was based on Trump originally taking decidedly non-neocon positions on the Iraq War and the status of Jerusalem, and it just dovetailed nicely with Frum's later opposition to Trump's overall bonkerism.

    John Bolton is the neo-con guru I find the most interesting as a Trump critic. As with Frum, I think he probably has disreputable motivations, but he paints a pretty convincing picture of Trump's personal psychology, based on his own up-close observations.

    I think that Trump has become a line in the sand for various far-right and other conservatives, and I’m glad to see that at least some of them have seen this and said “No, I can’t support this.”
Sign In or Register to comment.