In August, President Donald Trump deployed the National Guard to Washington, D.C., to, in his own words, “rescue our nation’s capital from crime, bloodshed, bedlam and squalor and worse.” Similarily, in response to the widespread protests in California against increased ICE activity in June and July, Trump also deployed around 5,000 members of the National Guard to Los Angeles in an effort to quell the civil unrest brewing in the city. More recently, Trump threatened to extend his crusade to Chicago, intent on also lowering crime rates there.
These recent deployments have captured national attention, and the circumstances surrounding the deployments make it clear that Trump’s decision was a misuse of federal power. Inconsistent and vague justifications for the National Guard hint at hidden purposes beyond simply assisting or protecting these cities. Citing Title 10 U.S.C. 12406, Trump summoned the National Guard on two specific terms to California and D.C.
In LA, he expressed the presence of the troops was to “suppress rebellion,” and in D.C., the troops were to “execute the laws of the United States.” However, local officials in both cities, including the D.C. police department and LA Mayor Karen Bass, have disagreed with his reasoning.
The D.C. police department questioned the necessity for extra troops to lower crime rates when the total violent crime in D.C. in 2024 is the lowest it has been in 30 years, according to the DOJ. The CEO of the Council of Criminal Justice, Adam Gelb, said, “overall, there’s an unmistakable and large drop in violence since the summer of 2023, when there were peaks in homicide, gun assaults, robbery, and carjacking.” D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb filed a lawsuit against Trump Sept. 4, citing harmful economic and jurisdictional impacts.
Similarly, in California, Federal Judge Charles Breyer ruled the deployment unlawful, stating Trump had abused his power, turning the National Guard into his own “national police force.” California Governor Gavin Newsom and Bass backed up the court decision, with Newsom stating, “no president is a king — not even Trump — and no president can trample a state’s power to protect its people.” His comment highlights how deploying the National Guard usually falls under the jurisdiction of the state governor, not the president; similar to how Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz approved activation for National Guard assistance after the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests in Minneapolis. In this case, however, Trump neither notified nor consulted Newsom before sending the National Guard to LA.
Furthermore, after the protests in LA ended, the National Guard remained stationed in Long Beach, participating in immigration raids and conducting arrest warrants alongside local authorities, a wholly different purpose than that for which they were deployed. Coincidentally, all of the cities Trump has targeted so far have been major blue cities with large immigrant populations, with over 20% of both LA and Chicago’s total populations being foreign-born. Cracking down on these specific cities could be an attempt at furthering his own political agenda and enforcing his ICE immigration raids.
Whether incompetence or personal motivations fueled his decision, in each circumstance, the obscure purpose behind Trump’s deployed troops paints a picture of executive overstep, if not complete abuse of power. Without the proper checks and balances in place, similar federal abuses of authority could continue. It is citizens’ duty to speak up about federal overreaches and exploitations publicly, which can bring awareness and contribute to policy changes. Advocating for clearer legislation and contacting local officials are also other ways to create positive change. There is no place for kings in America.
