When the boots hit the streets of Los Angeles this week, they didn’t come at the governor’s request. Instead, they arrived under a federal order signed by President Donald Trump, who called in the California National Guard—and later 700 active-duty Marines—claiming that mass protests over immigration raids had tipped into a threat against federal authority.
California disagreed. Loudly. The state has now taken Trump to court, arguing that the troop deployment isn’t just overreaching—it’s illegal.
Trump’s Legal Justification: Title 10 and the ‘Danger of Rebellion’
In invoking Title 10, Section 12406 of the U.S. Code, Trump leaned on a rarely used clause meant for extreme circumstances: foreign invasion, open rebellion, or the inability of regular forces to enforce federal law.
But did the protests—rowdy though they may have been—amount to any of those scenarios? California’s leadership says no. There was no insurrection, no armed conflict, and certainly no breakdown of law enforcement operations. Just citizens protesting immigration enforcement actions, as Americans have for decades.
What the Troops Can—and Can’t—Do
Under U.S. law, the military is largely barred from policing civilians. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 draws a sharp line: soldiers can’t arrest, detain, or directly engage with protesters. What they can do is protect federal agents and federal buildings, serving as an intimidating backdrop while others do the law enforcement.
So while Trump can send the Marines to stand behind ICE officers or National Guard units to surround courthouses, none of them can start slapping on handcuffs—unless the Insurrection Act is invoked.
California Pushes Back
The state’s lawsuit is blunt. It accuses Trump of bypassing Governor Gavin Newsom entirely—something Section 12406 arguably prohibits, requiring that orders go through the state’s governor. The 10th Amendment is also invoked, with California arguing that federal muscle cannot simply override state sovereignty without a valid cause.
What Happens Now?
The courts are now in uncharted waters. Section 12406 has only been triggered once before—by President Nixon, to get mail delivered during a 1970 postal strike. Legal scholars are split. Some believe Newsom’s consent is mandatory under the letter of the law. Others argue the wording simply reflects customary practice, not legal obligation.
Meanwhile, critics from across the political spectrum are calling Trump’s move provocative and reckless, especially given the lack of clear violence or obstruction of federal law.
The Insurrection Act: A Loaded Option
Trump hasn’t yet pulled the ultimate legal lever: the Insurrection Act of 1792. That law would allow troops to play an active law enforcement role—making arrests, conducting searches, using force if needed. It’s been used sparingly, including in 1992 during the L.A. riots after the Rodney King verdict, and most famously during civil rights struggles in the 1960s.
For now, Trump’s team is simply throwing the word “insurrection” around in press briefings. But if the rhetoric turns into action, the political and legal stakes could explode.
And the Marines?
Trump has more direct command over them than he does over state-based National Guard units. As commander-in-chief, he can deploy them without governor approval. Still, unless the Insurrection Act is invoked, their role remains tightly limited—more shield than sword.
What’s Next?
The legal battle is likely to move fast. California wants the deployment declared unconstitutional and blocked altogether. Meanwhile, troops remain on California soil, even as courtrooms prepare for a constitutional showdown.
A president, a governor, and the streets of L.A. caught between them. The question isn’t just what’s legal—it’s how far the balance of American power can tilt before it breaks.
