President Donald Trump’s deployment of troops to protect federal agents during anti-ICE riots in Los Angeles has sparked fierce debate over the extent of presidential authority in domestic affairs. Gov. Gavin Newsom of California called the move ‘unconstitutional’ and accused the president of acting like a dictator. However, legal experts and historians argue that this intervention falls firmly within the president’s constitutional powers.
Anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles and other cities have escalated into violent riots, with demonstrators attacking federal agents and obstructing immigration enforcement operations. The deployment of 2,000 National Guardsmen and 700 Marines has been framed as a necessary action to restore public order and protect federal officials from violence. The Supreme Court has long recognized the president’s right to use military force to protect federal law enforcement, as seen in landmark cases like In re Neagle (1890) and In re Debs (1895), which affirmed the government’s power to enforce laws and maintain order.
President Trump’s actions are defended by legal scholars such as John Yoo, who cited the Insurrection Act of 1807, which grants the president authority to deploy federal forces if domestic unrest threatens the execution of federal laws. This power was invoked by President Dwight Eisenhower in Little Rock, Arkansas, when the state government resisted desegregation, and by President George H.W. Bush during the 1992 Rodney King riots in Los Angeles. Critics, however, argue that the use of military force against anti-ICE protests is a racialized response to Trump’s immigration policies.
Despite the accusations of overreach, legal experts emphasize that the president’s ability to enforce federal laws is rooted in constitutional and congressional provisions. Title 10 of the U.S. Code authorizes the president to call on the National Guard to assist in enacting federal laws, even without the consent of state governors. This power was explicitly recognized in the Posse Comitatus Act, which permits the use of military forces in emergencies to protect federal interests. The legal rationale for Trump’s actions is grounded in the belief that the president must ensure the enforcement of immigration laws, which the Supreme Court has affirmed as a federal responsibility.