Lawmakers divided along party lines in their views of whether U.S. military forces should deploy to quell protests even over the objections of a governor.
On Saturday, President Donald Trump placed under federal control some 2,000 National Guard troops in California in response to occasionally violent protests there against Trump’s crackdown on immigrants. Roughly 300 of the 2,000 National Guard members arrived in Los Angeles over the weekend.
Trump deployed the troops under Title 10 of the U.S. code, which allows the president to place National Guard troops under federal command under certain circumstances, including a threat of rebellion. The order does not limit the deployment’s potential location to California. Army Secretary Dan Driscoll confirmed in testimony last week that the service was weighing a request from the Department of Homeland Security to make 20,000 Guardsmen available for immigration enforcement.
On Monday, the administration upped the ante and announced that 700 active-duty Marines would be added to the force moving into Los Angeles. Later in the day, another 2,000 California National Guard troops were placed under federal control, according to a post on the social media platform X by Sean Parnell, the Pentagon’s chief spokesman.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth justified the deployment of 700 Marines in a post on X as necessary due to “increased threats to federal law enforcement officers and federal buildings.”
The statute Trump invoked in federalizing the 2,000 Guard troops does not permit them to perform most law enforcement actions, such as make arrests. Such actions are barred under the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.
That law can be waived if the president invokes the Insurrection Act to suppress a rebellious uprising against federal authority or enforce federal law, which is rarely done. The Insurrection Act was last invoked in 1992 at the request of the governor of California in response to widespread unrest after the four police officers charged with beating Rodney King were acquitted.
Unrest
The protests in Los Angeles had been mostly peaceful, according to reports from the scene, but late Sunday and early Monday saw isolated instances of vandalism and burglaries at downtown businesses. Numerous vehicles were burned or otherwise destroyed. Most of the destruction occurred within several city blocks, the Los Angeles Times reported. Some protesters also blocked a highway.
According to multiple reports, certain clashes between protesters and police occurred only after flash-bang grenades and tear gas had been used against demonstrators.
Los Angeles police said at least 50 people were arrested over the weekend, mostly for failure to disperse.
Despite the limited infractions, Trump likened the unrest to an invasion that warranted an unusual, if not unprecedented, insertion of troops into a law enforcement role.
Democrats dissent
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, for his part, opposes the military deployments. Rob Bonta, California’s attorney general, said the state intends to file suit to stop them on the grounds that they are illegal and unconstitutional.
On Capitol Hill, meanwhile, defense-minded Democrats condemned the use of reservists and active-duty troops to suppress violence, while senior Republicans defended Trump’s moves.
Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo., a former Army Ranger, said Monday evening that the use of the military to support law enforcement should only occur in extreme circumstances, and he suggested the protests in California do not qualify as such.
“Introducing military personnel into domestic law enforcement situations is an escalation and can put both the military personnel and civilians on the ground at additional risk,” Crow said in a statement. “Deploying troops inappropriately can also threaten the integrity and public trust of our military.”
Rep. Pat Ryan, D-N.Y., a former Army intelligence officer who serves on the Armed Services Committee, posted his views on X on Monday: “Every soldier knows it is wrong — AND FUNDAMENTALLY UNAMERICAN — to deploy active duty U.S. troops against U.S. citizens.”
Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a Sunday statement about the Guard deployment that it “risks escalating tensions rather than calming them. This move sets a troubling precedent for military intervention in local law enforcement.”
On Monday night, Reed issued another statement after news of the deployment of 700 Marines broke.
“Since our nation’s founding, the American people have been perfectly clear: we do not want the military conducting law enforcement on U.S. soil,” Reed said. “Every American, regardless of their politics, should reject the idea of a U.S. president deploying active-duty forces against the will of state and local leaders.”
Trump’s move “threatens to turn a tense situation into a national crisis,” Reed said.
Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., also a member of the Armed Services Committee, also weighed in Sunday.
“Civilian law enforcement — not the military — is responsible for enforcing the law and dealing with any violence in our streets,” Gallego said in a statement. “This is a waste of our troops’ time, a waste of taxpayer money, and an insult to the men and women who serve.”
GOP loyalty
On the Republican side, by contrast, members said Trump was acting wisely and within his proper authority.
Two of the most senior Senate Republicans backed Trump’s move in comments to reporters Monday afternoon.
Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming, the Senate’s No. 2 Republican, said it was appropriate to send National Guard troops to support police in California, and he said Americans feel safer today because of Trump’s crackdown on immigrants.
“People in the country want safe communities,” Barrasso said. “They want safe cities, not sanctuary cities.”
Sen. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the Senate’s longest-serving Republican, said Trump did the proper thing.
“After all, the safety of the American people is the responsibility of governors and presidents,” Grassley said. “And I guess the bottom line is that if a Democrat state or a Democrat mayor can’t have a peaceful demonstration, then it’s our responsibility to step in.”
Likewise, Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., a member of the Armed Services and Intelligence panels, defended the deployment during a Fox News interview Monday.
“We need to have our authorities ready if local police are not allowed or unable to restore basic law in order to protect innocent civilians’ property, and especially to enforce federal law,” he said.
Amid the tensions over the unsolicited deployment of U.S. troops to an American city, Trump and Newsom erupted into a pitched political scrap on Monday.
The governor called Trump a liar, and the president suggested Newsom should be arrested.
Caroline Coudriet and Caitlin Reilly contributed to this report.
The post Parties split on deploying troops against California protesters appeared first on Roll Call.
