As the ICE and immigration enforcement protests in Los Angeles spread across major cities like Chicago, Philadelphia and Washington D.C., a national debate has emerged concerning the Trump administration’s inflammatory response tactics toward these protesters.
Critics claim that Trump’s decision to mobilize and deploy 4,000 National Guard members and 700 Marines to Los Angeles in June represented an unlawful and unnecessary abuse of power: violating state sovereignty and accelerating civil unrest and violence, to the tune of some $134 million in taxpayer dollars.
Yet, even as California Governor Gavin Newsom warned that these incendiary enforcement tactics are an assault on democracy and the U.S. legal system, press secretary Karoline Leavitt doubled down on Trump’s aggressive rhetoric. In a
“Let this be an unequivocal message to left-wing radicals in other parts of the country … You will not succeed. Any lawlessness will only strengthen this president’s resolve to defend the majority of Americans who want to live their lives peacefully, free from the fear of violent criminal illegal aliens.”
Despite Leavitt’s assertions to the contrary, a bipartisan part of U.S. law supports the idea that Trump’s actions have been a substantial miscarriage of justice and power: violating the constitution by turning the U.S. military against its very own citizens.
According to a June press release from Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office, Trump agreed that the actions he’s taking in California are a violation of United States law, admitting in 2020 that a presidential takeover of the National Guard would be completely illegal, in regards to protests in Portland, Ore.
“We have to go by the laws,” Trump said in 2020. “We can’t move in the National Guard. I can call insurrection but there’s no reason to do that, even in a Portland case, we can’t call in the National Guard unless we are requested by a Governor.” Without the consent of Newsom, Trump’s actions can reasonably be seen as a violation of state sovereignty under the Constitution, illegally dismantling Newsom’s ability to control the California national guard as their elected Commander-In-Chief. More than that, one could argue that president Trump is seeking to destroy freedom of speech and the right to protest by sending military force into the Los Angeles protests, without California’s permission.
His actions also violate the “Posse Comitatus Act” according to the Lansing State Journal that prohibits the military to be used on civilian matters, which Trump clearly violates here. The only exception of using the military on U.S. soil, is if the authority of the United States is threatened, but these are only protests. The California government page believes that Trump is also actively abusing his power as president by sending more troops into California than troops that are stationed in Iraq. The situation had been handled by the local law enforcement, until Trump decided to send in the military only to make the streets of LA more dangerous and violent. Another issue with Trump’s argument is the repeated attempt to paint these protestors as violent criminals, rather than U.S. citizens with genuine objections to the way ICE has acted. There have already been numerous examples of deportation mistakes carried out by Trump’s administration. A man identified as O.C.G. was deported to Mexico, but was seeking asylum in America. Digital face recognition is used to arrest unauthorized aliens and they are already making mistakes. U.S. citizen Jensy Mochado was held at gunpoint and arrested by ICE for being falsely identified as illegal.
Despite the evidence levied against Trump’s incendiary use of the National Guard, on June 19, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court upheld the president’s authority to keep control of National Guard troops in Los Angeles – contradicting the ruling of a lower court judge who agreed Trump’s actions were illegal. The initial ruling claimed that Trump did not satisfy the requirements of the law he invoked when seizing control of the National Guard, a law which states clearly he can only do so if he cannot execute laws with “regular forces,” or if an invasion or rebellion is underway. The appeals judges who upheld this ruling appeared to contradict themselves when their ruling confirmed that the protests “fall short of rebellion,” while claiming that the protests posed a potential risk to federal officers and property.
Yet at the same time the appeals judges speculated on the potential destruction of federal property, and claimed that Trump “likely” acted within his authority, they rebuked Newsom’s worries about the military encouraging more violence as “too speculative.” The ruling is not unreviewable, so until further legal action is taken by California we can only speculate on where this ongoing battle ends up.
Lost among these discussions of appeals and court rulings, and whether or not Trump overstepped the boundaries of executive power, is the simple fact that his actions are being directed at people exercising their First Amendment rights to protest.
The courts have allowed active military forces and national guard troops into Los Angeles to contend with civilians speaking up about a system they disagree with, and their willingness to expand definitions of the law to encompass Trump’s “likely” authority is blatantly at odds with the protection of those rights. “Fair treatment” for those protesting in L.A. would be ensuring they are not being threatened off the street by military strength, especially when the court itself confirms these actions fall short of rebellion. The goal posts have officially been moved, and despite the Ninth Circuit’s claims that Trump cannot federalize the National Guard without judicial scrutiny, they’ve certainly given him push in that direction.
