Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.
President Donald Trump federalized the California National Guard on June 7 and sent troops to Los Angeles to address what he has described as a city “under siege” by protesters opposed to his immigration policy.
The state’s governor, Gavin Newsom, has maintained that local authorities had the situation under control and Trump’s move was “purposefully inflammatory and will only escalate tensions.”
The disagreement is being debated in court.
We’ll explain how the situation developed and answer some common questions.
When and why did the protests start?
Does Trump have authority to send troops to LA?
What have the courts said so far?
How many National Guard and Marine troops are there? What can they do?
What has happened since the guard’s deployment? Since the Marines’ deployment?
When and why did the protests start?
In May, Stephen Miller — the White House deputy chief of staff for policy who has largely shaped Trump’s immigration policy — and Kristi Noem — the Homeland Security secretary — began pushing Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to increase arrests of people in the country illegally.
“We are looking to set a goal of a minimum of 3,000 arrests for ICE every day, and President Trump is going to keep pushing to get that number up higher each and every single day,” Miller said in a Fox News appearance on May 29.
As immigration arrests ramped up, small protests cropped up in cities across the country. In Los Angeles on the morning of Friday, June 6, ICE agents rounded up day laborers who were waiting in a Home Depot parking lot to find work. Word spread and some protesters took to the streets of LA.
Later that day, federal agents served a warrant for “employing illegal aliens” at the headquarters of a clothing company called Ambiance. By early afternoon, a few dozen protesters had gathered outside of the gates there. Protesters and agents contended on the sidewalk, and agents arrested David Huerta, a California labor union leader. They charged him with “conspiracy to impede an officer.”
Some officials, including LA Mayor Karen Bass and California Gov. Newsom, condemned the raids that afternoon. “These tactics sow terror in our communities and disrupt basic principles of safety in our city,” Bass said in a statement. “We will not stand for this.”
Miller responded on X, formerly Twitter, writing, “You have no say in this at all. Federal law is supreme and federal law will be enforced.”
That afternoon and through the evening, protesters gathered near a federal building in downtown LA, where agents had taken some of those who had been detained. Some protesters vandalized the building, according to video footage, and police reportedly used smoke grenades and less-lethal weapons to clear demonstrators. By 7 p.m. the Los Angeles Police Department had announced an unlawful assembly and, about an hour later, said that “a small group of violent individuals are throwing large pieces of concrete.” By about 11 p.m., police had cleared the area.
Demonstrations continued the next day, with some escalating to involve skirmishes with police and a car fire.
Shortly after 5 p.m., Newsom announced, “The federal government is moving to take over the California National Guard and deploy 2,000 soldiers. That move is purposefully inflammatory and will only escalate tensions.”
The president then signed a memo calling for at least 2,000 National Guard soldiers to deploy to Los Angeles.
Trump later posted on his social media platform, Truth Social: “If Governor Gavin Newscum, of California, and Mayor Karen Bass, of Los Angeles, can’t do their jobs, which everyone knows they can’t, then the Federal Government will step in and solve the problem, RIOTS & LOOTERS, the way it should be solved!!!”
Does Trump have authority to send troops to LA?
State National Guard units are controlled by governors, but they can be called into federal service.
Newsom filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration on Monday, June 9 alleging that the president lacked the authority to call in the National Guard and violated the Constitution in so doing.
Trump responded, maintaining that he has the power to “call the California National Guard into federal service when he considers it necessary either to quell a ‘rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States’ or when he determines that ‘regular forces’ are ‘unable’ to execute federal law.”
In his June 7 memo, Trump had cited a section of federal law — Title 10 of the U.S. Code, section 12406 — that describes three instances in which the president can federalize National Guard troops, the two that he referenced and also when the U.S. is being invaded.
The last time that section of law was used was in 1970, when then President Richard Nixon invoked it to use the National Guard during a mail strike, as explained in a recent article by William Banks, a professor at Syracuse University College of Law, and Mark P. Nevitt, an associate professor at Emory University School of Law.
This section of law wasn’t used in 2020, in response to protests in Washington, D.C., following the killing of George Floyd. “It was discussed,” Thomas Lee, a professor at Fordham Law who served as special counsel in the Department of Defense at the time, told us in an interview. Instead, the department used a different law — Title 32 of the U.S. Code, section 502(f) — to bring unfederalized National Guard troops from other states to D.C.
We asked the White House why the president chose to take a different route this time, but we didn’t receive a response.
“Section 12406 allows the president to call the national guard into federal service if needed to enforce federal law. I would think the question whether and how much assistance is needed from the guard is something to be determined by the president,” Michael Ramsey, a professor at the University of San Diego School of Law, told us in an email. “[I]t seems here that there’s a very plausible case that the efforts to enforce federal law by immigration authorities were being obstructed, and the safety of federal agents and federal facilities was threatened.”
“[T]he only hitch I see on the section 12406 matter is that it says the president shall issue orders through the governor and (I assume) the president hasn’t done that,” Ramsey said.
Indeed, Newsom’s lawsuit alleges that he was not notified or consulted, as required by the statute, in addition to arguing that the situation in LA did not rise to the level of a rebellion or curtail the enforcement of federal laws.
Ramsey also said that the intent of that provision may not be to give governors a veto on the use of the National Guard, which is the argument Trump’s lawyers made in their response.
The administration lawyers argued in their court filing that the statute says “the orders are issued by the President, and they are conveyed through State officials. Nothing in the statute entitles a Governor to veto or impede a valid presidential order” (emphasis is theirs).
What have the courts said so far?
The first judge to weigh in was U.S. District Court Senior Judge Charles Breyer of the Northern District of California, who granted the temporary restraining order sought by Newsom to stop the federal deployment of the National Guard. In that opinion on June 12, Breyer wrote that the president had not “followed the congressionally mandated procedure for his actions” and acted illegally by exceeding the scope of his authority and violating the 10th Amendment, which balances federal and state power.
The Trump administration moved to appeal, and later that evening, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay on the lower court’s ruling while the appeal progresses.
So, for now, the National Guard troops can stay in LA under federal control.
In Breyer’s 36-page opinion, he focused on the two provisions of the statute cited in Trump’s memo — that the president could use the National Guard to quell a rebellion and to assist when federal laws can’t be enforced.
On the first provision, Breyer said, “The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of ‘rebellion.'”
“[T]here can be no debate that most protesters demonstrated peacefully,” he said, and that those who were violent were not armed with weapons or organized to overthrow the government.
“Moreover,” Breyer wrote, “the Court is troubled by the implication inherent in Defendants’ argument that protest against the federal government, a core civil liberty protected by the First Amendment, can justify a finding of rebellion.”
On the second provision of the law cited in Trump’s memo — that the federal government was unable to enforce its laws — Breyer noted that Trump’s lawyers conceded that ICE had arrested 44 people on June 6, but that ICE would have arrested more if not for the protests. “[T]he statute does not allow for the federalizing of the National Guard when the President faces obstacles that cause him to underperform in executing the laws,” he wrote. “The statute requires that the President be ‘unable’ to execute the laws of the United States. That did not happen here.”
Breyer contrasted the situation in L.A. with the mail strike — the only other time that a president has relied on this statute, alone, to federalize the National Guard — which had caused the delivery of bills, tax returns and personal mail to grind to a halt.
On the question of whether or not the Trump administration complied with the law’s provision that orders must be issued “through the governor,” Breyer found that it had not complied.
The administration had argued that writing, “THROUGH: THE GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA,” at the top of the Defense Department memos was sufficient to comply with the statute.
“But an interpretation of § 12406 that permits the President to federalize a state’s National Guard by typing the phrase ‘Through the Governor of [insert state here]’ at the top of a document that the President never sends to the governor strains credibility, especially given that Congress specifically amended the statute to add the requirement that orders ‘shall be issued through the governors,'” Breyer wrote.
The 9th Circuit is scheduled to hear arguments about the temporary restraining order on June 17. It remains to be seen how it — and, very possibly, the U.S. Supreme Court — will interpret the case.
How many National Guard and Marine troops are there? What can they do?
Close to 5,000 California National Guard troops and U.S. Marines have been authorized for deployment to the Los Angeles area. As of June 10, about 2,100 members of the National Guard and 700 Marines had already arrived in the city or nearby, a spokesman for the U.S. Northern Command told us.
As we said, Trump first approved the federal deployment of about 2,000 of the state’s National Guard troops on June 7. Two days later, an additional 2,000 troops were mobilized for duty, as well as the 700 Marines.
In his June 7 memo activating the National Guard, the president said, “To carry out this mission, the deployed military personnel may perform those military protective activities that the Secretary of Defense determines are reasonably necessary to ensure the protection and safety of Federal personnel and property.”
Stephen Vladeck, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, wrote that the president’s June 7 order meant that the federalized guard soldiers would not be able “to conduct their own immigration raids; make their own immigration arrests; or otherwise do anything other than” the “protective activities” necessary for “protecting the relevant DHS personnel against attacks.”
In a June 9 statement, U.S Northern Command said that the 700 Marines who were deployed would “seamlessly integrate” with the National Guard troops “who are protecting federal personnel and federal property in the greater Los Angeles area.” The Command also has said that the troops “can and have accompanied ICE agents on missions,” but they are not allowed to assist in the raids or perform law enforcement functions. “They protect; they don’t participate.”
Troops, the Command said, are only authorized to “temporarily detain an individual in specific circumstances such as to stop an assault, to prevent harm to others, or to prevent interference with federal personnel performing their duties.”
At a June 10 congressional hearing, Bryn Woollacott MacDonnell, a Pentagon comptroller, told lawmakers that the deployment of the National Guard and Marines would cost the federal government an estimated $134 million.
What has happened since the guard’s deployment? Since the Marines’ deployment?
The first 300 National Guard members arrived in the city early on June 8. Later that day, some demonstrators blocked part of the 101 Freeway, causing a temporary shutdown. In addition, several self-driving cars, while parked, were vandalized and burned. The Associated Press reported that local law enforcement “used tear gas, rubber bullets, and flash bangs to control the crowd.”
In the afternoon, the LAPD issued a “tactical alert” for all officers to remain on duty in anticipation of more protests in the evening. At night, remaining protesters, some positioned on an overpass, threw rocks, fireworks and other objects at police officers, the AP said.
Some protests turned violent again the next day, when there were 1,700 guard troops in the city supporting federal agents. An Apple store and other downtown businesses were looted that night, leading to more than 100 arrests, mostly of people who didn’t leave the area when ordered by police. It was the third straight day that the number of arrests increased, according to the Los Angeles Times, which cited police department figures. There were no arrests on June 6, then 27 on June 7, another 40 on June 8 and 114 on June 9.
More violence, looting and vandalism on June 10 led the mayor to issue a curfew – from 8:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. – for a section of downtown that is about 1 square mile. A press release from Bass’ office said the curfew would be in place “going forward until lifted.” The LAPD said there were more than 200 arrests made by police that day, largely for failure to disperse.
June 10 was also the day when the 700 Marines traveled to the area, although they were stationed at an undisclosed location about 30 miles south of Los Angeles, waiting to be given their assignments, a U.S. official told reporters. Earlier that day, National Guard troops had accompanied ICE agents doing immigration enforcement, according to a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security.
The military-focused newspaper Stars and Stripes reported on June 11 that since arriving in the Los Angeles area on June 8, “troops have remained outside of the downtown Edward R. Roybal Federal building in a relatively stationary posture, occasionally moving with law enforcement to hold the line against protesters.”
Bass similarly said at a June 10 press conference that National Guard troops had been “stationary at the federal building,” but she said they had not been “doing crowd control or anything like that.” Responding to Trump, she said local law enforcement, not the soldiers, “saved the day.” In Oval Office remarks on June 10, Trump had said, “If we didn’t send out the National Guard … Los Angeles would be burning right now!”
“We don’t need the National Guard, and they’re not here to help us right now,” the police chief, Jim McDonnell, said in an interview with “CBS Morning News” that aired June 11. “They’re here to facilitate what the federal agencies are doing on the immigration front.”
That same day, the Command put out a statement saying that the Marines, who had been receiving training in “de-escalation, crowd-control, and understanding the Standing Rules for the Use of Force,” would within 48 hours be joining the guard members and “conducting the same missions.”
Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, P.O. Box 58100, Philadelphia, PA 19102.