Now in Trump Sent Troops—Using Outrageous Legal Arguments for His Authority to Do So
Trump Sent Troops—Using Outrageous Legal Arguments for His Authority to Do So
700 Marines in L.A.
- On June 6, 2025, ICE initiated a series of raids across Los Angeles. Peaceful protests followed. Instead of addressing community demands or acknowledging the lawful demonstrations, Trump escalated, deploying troops, arresting labor leaders, and seizing control of the California National Guard. But this isn’t just about L.A. It’s a preview of what he’s rolling out nationwide.
- As of June 9, 700 active-duty Marines were deployed to Los Angeles with no clear legal authority or stated mission.
- On Thursday, June 12th, U.S. District Judge Charles Beyer ruled that Trump’s deployment of the National Guard in L.A. was illegal. On June 13th, the federal appeals court (9th Circuit) temporarily paused the court order that required Trump to return control of California’s National Guard to Governor Newsom, allowing his federal deployment to continue until a June 17 hearing. On June 19th, the US appeals court ruled that President Trump can maintain control of the National Guard troops he deployed to L.A., despite clear objections from city leaders and California Governor Gavin Newsom.
Here’s where the legal rubber meets the road: Trump did not invoke the Insurrection Act. That law gives presidents the clearest—and most dangerous—authority to use military force inside the United States, but only in extreme, defined circumstances: a full-scale insurrection, a breakdown of public order, or a state government refusing to uphold federal law. None of that is happening in Los Angeles.
The protests in LA have been peaceful. Even the Los Angeles Police Department acknowledged that publicly. What’s playing out isn’t chaos—it’s a community standing up for itself. So, Trump turned to two shakier, lesser-known powers: a Cold War-era statute and an old executive theory that has never been meaningfully tested in court.
A Cold War-Era Statute: 10 U.S.C. § 12406
Trump’s first legal maneuver was to invoke 10 U.S.C. § 12406, which allows the president to federalize a state’s National Guard—but only under very specific conditions. The law lists three situations where this can happen:
- A foreign invasion
- A rebellion against the authority of the United States
- A situation where regular federal forces are unable to enforce the law
There’s no invasion. California hasn’t refused to enforce federal law. So Trump is hanging his entire legal case on the third option: rebellion.
But even his own memo doesn’t say that outright. Instead, it says the protests “may” constitute rebellion to the extent that” they interfere with immigration enforcement. That’s not a firm legal argument. That’s vague, speculative language that sounds like it was written to create legal cover, not express legal certainty.
This isn’t a rebellion. It’s a peaceful protest. Stretching this statute to fit that scenario is legally flimsy and dangerously dishonest.
A Shadow Theory: “Protective Power” of the Presidency
Trump’s second tool is even shakier: the so-called “protective power” of the presidency. This isn’t a power explicitly granted by Congress. It’s not found in the Constitution. It’s a theory—pieced together from old court cases and Department of Justice memos—that suggests the president has inherent authority to protect federal property and personnel from disruption.
According to the 1971 DOJ memo that remains the core justification, the protective power is strictly limited. It can be used to:
- Guard federal buildings
- Ensure the operation of federal functions (like the mail or agency offices)
- Protect federal employees doing their jobs
But it does not allow troops to arrest protesters, patrol neighborhoods, enforce curfews, or suppress demonstrations. Those actions would likely violate the Posse Comitatus Act, a federal law that prohibits the use of the military for civilian law enforcement purposes unless specifically authorized by statute.
Why This Legal Ground Is Dangerous
What Trump has done isn’t just legally questionable—it’s politically loaded and constitutionally reckless. He’s sidestepped California’s governor, reinterpreted limited legal authorities, and framed peaceful dissent as a threat to national order.
There is no rebellion in Los Angeles. The protests have been overwhelmingly peaceful, and even local law enforcement has acknowledged that. That makes Trump’s use of 10 U.S.C. § 12406 to seize control of the California National Guard an extreme—and likely unconstitutional—overreach.
The “protective power” theory he’s invoking is untested, unbounded, and never meant to justify boots on city streets. It’s a legal theory built on bureaucratic memos, not the Constitution.
Trump is the first president since the civil rights era to federalize a state’s National Guard over the objections of its governor. And now, without invoking the Insurrection Act, he has taken another step: deploying 700 active-duty Marines into a major American city under vague pretenses and no clear legal authority.
He hasn’t signed the Insurrection Act—yet. But the legal line that once separated civilian protest from military occupation is now paper-thin. And if Trump chooses to cross it, we’re not just in a political crisis. We’re in a constitutional one.