Latest news with #InsurrectionActof1807
CNN
3 days ago
- Politics
- CNN
US military expected to announce two new zones where service members can detain migrants on southern border, officials say
The US Departments of the Navy and Air Force are expected to announce the establishment of two additional military zones along the US southern border this week, three US officials told CNN. The zones, which are known as National Defense Areas, will be attached to Joint Base San Antonio, Texas, and Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma, the officials said. The NDA around Joint Base San Antonio will include roughly 250 miles of the Rio Grande River, two of the officials added. The NDA near MCAS Yuma will extend over 100 miles along the border, the third official said. The new zones will bring the total count up to four, after the establishment of the Texas National Defense Area attached to Fort Bliss, Texas, in May, and the New Mexico National Defense Area attached to Fort Huachuca, Arizona, in April. 'The establishment of a second National Defense Area increases our operational reach and effectiveness in denying illegal activity along the southern border,' US Northern Command commander Gen. Gregory Guillot said after the establishment of the Texas National Defense Area. 'This is the second area in which Joint Task Force – Southern Border service members who are already detecting and monitoring through stationary positions and mobile patrols nearby can now temporarily detain trespassers until they are transferred to an appropriate law enforcement entity.' US troops are prohibited from conducting law enforcement activities by the Posse Comitatus Act. But the defense areas are treated as extensions of military installations, allowing service members to temporarily detain migrants who are trespassing before handing them off to law enforcement, conduct cursory searches of trespassers, and conduct crowd-control measures. Democratic lawmakers have criticized the defense areas as a way to side-step the act. Sen. Jack Reed, the ranking member of the Senates Armed Services Committee, said last month that the NDAs 'evade the long-standing protections of the Posse Comitatus Act by allowing military forces to act as de facto border police, detaining migrants until they can be transferred to Customs and Border Protection.' 'In the Administration's telling, this approach permits military involvement in immigration control without invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807,' Reed said. 'This is both unprecedented and a legal fiction. Sen. Martin Heinrich of New Mexico also raised concerns to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth last month that the Trump administration is 'bypassing due process for individuals who either intentionally or unintentionally enter this newly restricted area.' Service members began directly detaining migrants in June. The Department of Justice only just got its first convictions related to trespassing in the NDAs this month. According to the Justice Department, two individuals pleaded guilty to charges including trespassing into the New Mexico National Defense Area. In both cases, the individuals were apprehended by Border Patrol agents. Dozens of national security charges against migrants were dropped by a judge in New Mexico earlier this month after they found little evidence that the migrants knew about the defense areas. The establishment of the new defense areas comes as over 4,000 National Guard troops and roughly 700 active duty Marines are currently mobilized in the Los Angeles area, in response to protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement actions.
The Hill
5 days ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Michigan Dem to introduce bill limiting presidential power to deploy troops on US soil
Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.) is set to introduce legislation next week that would make it illegal for President Trump to deploy active duty service forces to a state or territory without receiving a direct request from the state or territory's governor. The Stop Trump's Abuse of Power Act, revealed first to The Hill, comes after the Trump administration deployed hundreds of Marines and over 2,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles earlier this month amid unrest over the president's immigration agenda. 'President Trump has shown a disturbing pattern of disregard for the Constitution and due process. This month, he made it harder for local law enforcement to do their jobs in California by unlawfully deploying our military on U.S. soil — further escalating tension and violence,' Stevens said in a statement. 'We must stand up to Donald Trump's chaos and destruction, which is why I am introducing this legislation to limit his powers and make sure he cannot deploy troops on U.S. soil for his political gain. We are a nation of laws and it's about time the President begins to follow them.' According to Stevens's office, the legislation would add the language into the Insurrection Act of 1807 and only apply to duties connected to peaceful demonstrations. Trump faced fierce backlash from Democrats, including California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) over his move to deploy troops to Los Angeles. The California governor has maintained that the president's move to federalize soldiers without consulting him was illegal and asked the courts for an emergency order to block the deployment. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, a Clinton appointee, initially ruled in California's favor, but the emergency injunction was overturned by the 9th Circuit on June 13. The three-judge panel then unanimously extended its pause in an unsigned, 38-page decision released Thursday night. 'We emphasize, however, that our decision addresses only the facts before us. And although we hold that the President likely has authority to federalize the National Guard, nothing in our decision addresses the nature of the activities in which the federalized National Guard may engage,' the appeals panel wrote. Trump called the ruling a 'big win' on Friday, while Newsom said in a post on X that 'the fight doesn't end here.'
Newsweek
19-06-2025
- Politics
- Newsweek
Trump's Military Crackdown on Los Angeles Was Unconstitutional
Advocates for ideas and draws conclusions based on the interpretation of facts and data. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. What unfolded in Los Angeles this month wasn't about restoring order. It was a calculated power play—testing the outer limits of executive authority and showcasing just how far President Donald Trump is willing to go in his second term. Federal judges have begun to rebuke his authoritarian actions. But courts alone aren't enough. Protests began on June 6 as grassroots responses to a surge in aggressive ICE raids across Southern California. Students, clergy, and immigrant advocates led calls for dignity, due process, and an end to mass detentions. On June 14, the movement swelled into the "No Kings" protests—a nationwide day of action timed to coincide with the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary and Trump's birthday. Tens of thousands flooded downtown Los Angeles to reject authoritarianism and the militarization of civic life. Interfaith leaders prayed. Students marched. Families carried signs. According to both LAPD and journalists on the ground, a small group of individuals unaffiliated with organizers later clashed with police barricades. Law enforcement responded with tear gas, rubber bullets, and baton charges, resulting in injuries to medics, journalists, and at least one protester now at the center of an LAPD use-of-force investigation. Still, the overwhelming majority remained peaceful. As Vanity Fair reported, 98 percent of the city was unaffected—protests were largely confined to a few blocks downtown. Even before the June 14 "No Kings" demonstrations, President Trump had already ordered the deployment of more than 4,000 National Guard troops and nearly 700 active-duty Marines to Los Angeles. The decision, made over the objections of state and local officials, defied constitutional norms. The sight of uniformed soldiers patrolling immigrant neighborhoods under federally imposed curfews was not just legally dubious—it echoed the tactics of authoritarian regimes. Trump's supporters cited the Insurrection Act of 1807, which permits the president to use domestic military forces during instances of insurrection or if local law enforcement is unable or unwilling to act. But as a federal court confirmed, nothing happening in Los Angeles meets that standard. The city remained under the control of its mayor and police department. There was no breakdown in law enforcement, and Governor Gavin Newsom made no request for federal intervention. Nevertheless, the White House invoked the act—without issuing the formal proclamation of unrest required by statute—and sent in soldiers. This is not law enforcement. It's authoritarian theater. "Trump's militarization of the already tense situation in Los Angeles is unprecedented," wrote Rachel E. VanLandingham, a former judge advocate and professor at Southwestern Law School. "Instead of protecting protestors, Trump federalized the National Guard this past weekend without Newsom's support, which risks squashing First Amendment-protected protests... thereby throwing gasoline on an already volatile situation." U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer issued a temporary restraining order halting the federalization of California's National Guard and ordered that command of it be returned to the state. But within hours, a Ninth Circuit panel issued an emergency stay, allowing the federal deployment to continue pending appeal. The hearing is expected to resume this week. US Customs and Border Protection agents disperse protester in front of the Federal Building during ongoing demonstrations in response to federal immigration operations in downtown Los Angeles on June 12, 2025. US Customs and Border Protection agents disperse protester in front of the Federal Building during ongoing demonstrations in response to federal immigration operations in downtown Los Angeles on June 12, 2025. RONALDO SCHEMIDT / AFP/Getty Images California officials pledged to keep fighting. Governor Newsom wrote on X, "The military belongs on the battlefield, not on our city streets." Meanwhile, ICE activity continues to surge. Recent raids have targeted schools, job sites, hotels, and even places of worship. These operations, while controversial, are not indicative of a breakdown in order. The response they sparked—rallies, vigils, walkouts—has remained largely nonviolent. Citing isolated incidents of unrest to justify a military crackdown across a city as large as Los Angeles, as Trump's supporters have done, is both legally indefensible and dangerously misleading. As Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern noted, Judge Breyer's ruling clarified that "a handful of individuals toppling a Waymo or lighting up fireworks does not in fact strip thousands of peaceful protesters of their First Amendment rights." This case, Stern notes, is not just a fight over legal statutes—it's a fight over truth. Rather than meeting dissent with dialogue or reform, the Trump administration chose curfews, soldiers, and a deliberate rebranding of protest as rebellion. We've seen this playbook before—during the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests—but today, the implications are more dire. The militarization of civic life is not just an American problem—it's a textbook marker of democratic backsliding in any society. Democracies don't collapse in a single night. They erode slowly, often through the normalization of exceptional measures. Troops on the streets. Judges overruled. Political opponents smeared as traitors. That dystopian trajectory is now underway. In Los Angeles, federal agents have detained clergy and journalists. Drones monitor protest zones. And even elected officials have been pushed out of the conversation. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), after being physically removed from a Department of Homeland Security press briefing for asking about the raids, remarked: "I'm OK. But if they can do that to me, a United States are they doing to a lot of folks out there when the cameras are not on?" He added: "What we've seen here should not be normalized." The threat isn't just to Los Angeles. It's to the Constitution, the rule of law, and the democratic norms that separate the United States from the regimes it claims to oppose. When the White House invokes emergency powers to suppress dissent, it sets a global precedent. Authoritarian governments take note. Domestic democratic erosion accelerates. We cannot simply wait on the courts to clean this up. They may. But law alone cannot preserve democracy. That responsibility lies with all of us—with journalists who expose abuse, with attorneys who challenge overreach, and with ordinary citizens who refuse to be intimidated. As Judge Breyer said, the president is not a king. The military does not belong on Main Street. Protest is not rebellion. Dissent is not a crime. The choice before Americans is clear: continue down this road—or rise, together, and say: enough. Faisal Kutty is a Toronto-based lawyer, law professor, and frequent contributor to The Toronto Star. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
San Francisco Chronicle
17-06-2025
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump's deployment of troops to L.A. is clearly illegal. Does that still matter? We're about to see
On Tuesday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco will weigh an appeal of a lower court ruling that found President Donald Trump acted illegally when he ordered thousands of California National Guard troops onto the streets of Los Angeles earlier this month. Legally speaking, the result of that appeal shouldn't be in question; Trump's move to send troops to Los Angeles was an antidemocratic act of tyranny done with highly suspect legal justification. In his presidential memorandum justifying the deployment, Trump argued that the 4,000 National Guard members were needed 'to temporarily protect ICE and other United States Government personnel.' He cited a federal law that allows a president to 'federalize' National Guard members if the country 'is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation; there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.' But there is no foreign invasion. And what's going on in L.A. is nowhere close to a rebellion. When previous presidents have used this law, they have almost always done so when requested by the state's governor. That makes sense, because that law also states that the federalizing order 'shall be issued through the governors of the States.' Since World War II, a president has federalized the National Guard without a request from the state's governor on only five occasions. Four were to enforce the Supreme Court's landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision, when governors of southern states directly obstructed school integration. The fifth was to protect nonviolent Selma-to-Montgomery marchers from further violent assaults. As for calling in 700 Marines, Trump has offered no justification. Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy invoked the Insurrection Act of 1807 to send federal troops to enforce school integration. But while Trump has said the protests in Los Angeles amount to an 'insurrection,' they clearly do not. There is no rebellion or revolt against the United States. No governor is blocking the schoolhouse door. And Trump is aware that he refused to order troops on Jan. 6, 2021, when there was an insurrection happening. Of course, the reality is that Trump needs an arguably legal justification only as a smokescreen for doing whatever he wants. His pattern since Jan. 20 is clear. Among other things, he has: Ordered the end of birthright citizenship Allowed deportation without due process of Venezuelans alleged — but not at all proven — to be gang members working for the government of Venezuela Used the Department of Government Efficiency and Elon Musk to completely gut selected federal agencies Encouraged the firing or forced resignations of over 100,000 federal employees Intimidated law firms into providing thousands of pro bono hours by denying their lawyers access to federal buildings and threatening their hiring practices Revoked hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding for universities Created a lucrative family business in cryptocurrency that conflicts with his role as president. Then there are the other smaller items, such as accepting a plane from Qatar and firing a senior staffer at the Smithsonian Institution. And the tariffs, the changes to climate restrictions and much more. Most of these actions have resulted in lawsuits, and many courts have issued restraining orders preventing their implementation. Some courts have even threatened to hold the government in contempt. But in the case of federalizing the National Guard or using the Insurrection Act, the president has discretion to use these powers, provided he does so legally. It's well established that when it comes to the legal system, Trump is a master of delay. He knows that every adverse ruling is just one more case to appeal. And his appeals won't stop until they reach the Supreme Court. Thus far, the Supreme Court has, for the most part, agreed to delays rather than immediate restraint. And with the sole exception of telling the Trump administration to 'facilitate' the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was mistakenly deported, the court has not required any affirmative governmental action. In the interim, lives are affected. Federal employees fear they will not regain lost jobs. The deported sent to a brutal El Salvadorian prison fear they will remain there. Immigrants with legal status — or what was legal status until Jan. 20 — fear deportation. Universities fear losing funding for scientific research. And cities like Los Angeles — there will be other cities, Trump tells us — fear a widespread invasion of government troops. Fear and the consolidation of power are two of the hallmarks of a despot. Right now, the only arbiter that can rein in Trump is the Supreme Court, which to date does not appear to have the stomach for it. That court that improvidently granted the president wide immunity is now faced with the prospect of pulling the Trump train back into the station — a daunting task. Trump is, of course, acutely aware that if push comes to shove, the court has no troops of its own if he simply refuses to obey. This puts Trump dangerously close to despotism. Unless enough people wise up to this danger and make their feelings known, and loudly, the prognosis for our country is not good.
Politico
12-06-2025
- Politics
- Politico
Sending in the Troops Can Burnish a Presidency — or Backfire Spectacularly
President Donald Trump has long mused about his desire to send in troops to crush political protests, but his decision to deploy 700 active-duty Marines to Los Angeles, ostensibly to protect federal offices and employees from unruly protesters, still registered as a jolt for many. The administration had already federalized 4,000 members of the California National Guard over the express objection of both local authorities and California Gov. Gavin Newsom. The use of active-duty troops was an escalation and Trump was speaking 'the words of an authoritarian,' Newsom told POLITICO. On social media, he added, 'The absurdity of threatening the people of the United States of America with their own military is morally reprehensible.' Deploying active-duty service members to quell domestic unrest is a rare occurrence, and it is at odds with the nation's founding principles, which included a healthy skepticism of large, standing armies and their use to control civilian populations. But it isn't without precedent. In several notable instances throughout American history, U.S. presidents have deployed active-duty military troops — not just National Guard or reservists — to quash unrest or enforce domestic order. The political fallout has varied from one episode to another, yet a distinct pattern stands out: When presidents intervene to restore public safety during acute civil disorder, they often enjoy public support. But when presidents deploy federal troops to suppress economic or social protest movements, the backlash can be swift and severe. The Insurrection Act of 1807 gives presidents the legal authority to use regular Army troops on U.S. soil under extraordinary circumstances. Though the law is designed for moments of crisis, how and why it is invoked can define presidencies and reshape public trust in the federal government. The lesson for Trump and his party is clear: If the public believes the president is acting in the service of public safety, he will likely enjoy sufficient support or acquiescence. But if voters believe he is using the military as a blunt instrument to quiet his political opponents, he could face severe electoral consequences in 2026 and beyond. Abraham Lincoln was the first president to deploy active-duty troops onto U.S. soil — and not without controversy. In the early days of the Civil War, on April 19, 1861, an armed mob in Baltimore prevented the Sixth Massachusetts regiment from passing through the city — a strategically vital hub with deep Southern sympathies — en route to Washington. Eager to avoid inflaming the situation further, Lincoln initially ordered troops arriving from Northern states to travel around, not through, Baltimore. But that didn't solve the problem. Seeking to appease the city's pro-secessionist population, the mayor and governor promptly ordered the detonation of railroad bridges connecting Baltimore to Philadelphia and Harrisburg, as well as telegraph lines that serviced Washington, D.C. For days, the capital lay in siege, with no effective means of sending or receiving news. In response, Lincoln authorized the suspension of habeas corpus and deployed active-duty Union troops to secure key rail lines, arrest secessionist state legislators (fully one-third of the legislature ended up in a military prison) and prevent Maryland from joining the Confederacy. It was his first but hardly last use of the regular military to tamp down dissent. Over the course of the war, Lincoln used the Army to arrest anti-war (aka Copperhead) Democratic newspaper editors and politicians, including Ohio Rep. Clement Vallandingham, whom a military tribunal exiled to Canada. The military enforced martial law in areas like Missouri and backed the suspension of habeas corpus, allowing mass arrests without trial. In July 1863, during the New York City draft riots, Lincoln sent in Army regiments — fresh from the Battle of Gettysburg — to restore order after local authorities were overwhelmed, marking one of the bloodiest instances of domestic military intervention in U.S. history. Lincoln's use of military power was met with neither universal praise nor outright condemnation. Supporters viewed it as a necessary defense of national unity. Critics, especially Copperhead Democrats, saw it as an unconstitutional expansion of executive authority. Republicans suffered heavy losses in the 1862 off-year elections, in part because the war effort was badly stalled and many voters opposed Lincoln's plan to issue an Emancipation Proclamation — a pledge he made that fall. But popular opposition to martial law, mass arrests and the use of the Army to suppress dissent also factored heavily into the electorate's sour mood. Still, Lincoln's deployment of troops in Northern cities, while aggressive, was rooted in the logic of wartime survival, not economic suppression or policing protest. As such, it provoked momentary opposition but did not augur the end of his presidency. In the years after the Civil War, presidents faced different kinds of crises and responded with varying levels of success when deploying the military. During Reconstruction, President Ulysses S. Grant sent active-duty troops to the South to combat the Ku Klux Klan and protect Black citizens and fragile Republican state governments. These efforts were controversial among white Southerners but earned praise in the North as a defense of law, order, and civil rights — a rare example of federal force used in a progressive context. Grant, of course, enjoyed a deep well of Northern support, given his role in the Civil War. Such was not the case for his successor, Rutherford B. Hayes, whose presidency was marked by widescale labor unrest. In 1877, workers on the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad staged a walkout over scheduled wage cuts, provoking a nationwide general strike that paralyzed commerce across the emerging industrial belt of the Midwest and mid-Atlantic states. In Pittsburgh, working-class protesters clashed with the state militia, resulting in a fire that destroyed a hundred locomotives and two thousand railroad cars. General work stoppages quieted factories and mills in Chicago and St. Louis. In the coalfields of western and southern Pennsylvania, forty thousand workers walked off the job. In response, wealthy and middle-class professionals formed armed militia groups to protect private property against the 'Great Strike.' Many militiamen even donned tight-fitting army uniforms that had been gathering dust in their closets for over a decade. From Washington, Hayes ordered the Army to break the strike, which it did with overwhelming force, reopening clogged rail lines, busting up union meetings and escorting strikebreakers through the line. 'The strikers have been put down by force,' noted Hayes, a Civil War combat veteran who had fought enthusiastically against slavery just a decade before. Hayes's use of active-duty troops to break the Great Railroad Strike of 1877 drew sharp criticism from labor groups and working-class Americans, who saw it as a blatant defense of corporate interests. While some middle- and upper-class observers praised the move for restoring order, many viewed it as the beginning of an era in which the federal government would side with capital over labor. The violent suppression deepened labor's mistrust of Washington and helped radicalize parts of the growing labor movement. No troop deployment has backfired more spectacularly than President Herbert Hoover's 1932 use of the U.S. Army to disperse the so-called Bonus Army. During the early days of the Great Depression, thousands of World War I veterans camped in Washington, D.C., demanding early payment of bonuses owed to them in later years. Hoover, fearing radicalism and facing pressure from the business community, ordered the veterans forcibly removed from several federal buildings they were occupying. Active-duty troops under General Douglas MacArthur exceeded that order, deploying tanks and calvary, setting the Bonus Army's camps on fire and routing the protestors. The images — uniformed troops expelling impoverished veterans with fixed bayonets and tear gas — stunned the nation. Hoover's popularity, already waning, collapsed. This episode fits the now-familiar pattern: When federal troops are used to dismantle peaceful economic or social protests, the moral and political backlash is profound. On the other hand, when presidents use military force to secure public safety, the electorate can be more forgiving. President Lyndon B. Johnson's deployments of federal troops during urban protests in 1967 and 1968 were largely received as legitimate exercises of federal power. During the Detroit uprising of 1967, where the Michigan National Guard was overwhelmed, Johnson sent in paratroopers from the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions. When riots engulfed Washington, D.C., following the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. in April 1968, Johnson again called in the Army. Johnson was deeply ambivalent about using troops, and he worried about appearing like an occupying power in Black neighborhoods. But the scale of violence and local government pleas for help pushed him to act. Johnson framed his use of troops as a public safety measure, not as a move to suppress political dissent. And the public largely agreed. A similar situation unfolded in 1992, when a jury acquitted four white LAPD officers in the beating of Rodney King, a Black man, sparking mass unrest across Los Angeles. Gov. Pete Wilson deployed the California National Guard, but the situation escalated beyond their control. At Wilson's request, President George H. W. Bush invoked the Insurrection Act and sent in active-duty troops, including the 7th Infantry Division and 1st Marine Division. Bush carefully framed the intervention as a restoration of public safety, not a targeted attempt to stifle legitimate protest. His public statements emphasized sympathy for those outraged by police brutality, while also drawing a clear line between protest and looting. The measured tone — and the very real breakdown of order — won Bush public support. It was a textbook case of the federal government stepping in to ease a crisis, not suppress a cause. Across 150 years of American history, the pattern is unmistakable. When presidents use federal troops to protect lives and property amid chaos, public opinion is often forgiving — even supportive. But when those same troops are used to disrupt protests over wages, inequality or democratic rights, the public recoils. The distinction lies in intent and framing. In 1877 and 1932, Hayes and Hoover deployed the military against their own citizens as adversaries. In 1968 and 1992, Johnson and Bush deployed them as protectors. Lincoln, sitting at the intersection of war and unrest, remains an edge case. His use of the military to suppress anti-war, and even pro-secession, voices was both an exercise of state wartime powers and, to some minds, an egregious over-use of executive authority. That distinction may be the difference between a presidency that survives a crisis — or one that is defined and doomed by it. As Donald Trump sends in active-duty marines to Los Angeles amid protests over ICE raids, history poses a deceptively simple question: to what end?
