As a staunch federalist, I had my reservations about the decision, which seemed to infringe upon some state rights. However, there were also substantial reasons for this action. From a practical viewpoint, the slow response from Newsom and Mayor Bass in deploying law enforcement at the onset of the riots provided valid justification. Particularly, the targeting of federal buildings by protestors and attacks on federal agents from agencies like ICE made the situation appear more warranted.
Examining the guidelines for this scenario confirms its validity. While some reports suggested that President Trump invoked the Insurrection Act to justify sending federal troops, a more precise legal foundation exists. Title 10 of the US Code, dealing with the deployment of Armed Forces, especially the National Guard, explicitly mentions in Section 12046 where such actions are legally authorised.
This is defensible under the section discussing circumstances like invasion, rebellion, or threat of rebellion. Furthermore, it specifies a situation where the president finds himself “unable with the regular forces to enforce the laws of the United States.” Although there is some discretion in this interpretation, the Code provides a clearer mandate for such measures.
It stipulates that federal troops are permitted to protect federal agents carrying out law enforcement actions and protect federal property. Considering ICE agents have been attacked and facilities such as the federal facility with the immigration detention center were being targeted by rioters, this certainly appears to be an accurate application of the US Code.
There is even a sign of how they are following this federal statute appropriately. In one case of a skirmish seen on the streets, a siege of sorts was taking place at Los Angeles City Hall, and one person questioned why the National Guard was not on site to quell that conflict. Jurisdictionally, they were appropriately stationed at the federal buildings and not at this location to engage with the protestors.
Currently they are only protecting federal property, per the ROE
— Mike S.🏴 (@mike_seigel) June 9, 2025
Newsom reportedly is threatening lawsuits, of course, but this has all the appearances of a face-saving measure to curry sympathy from his party and the press. Few in the media have been curious enough to explore the legal basis of Trump sending in troops; it has mostly been characterized as an overstepping of his authority and his desire to install oppressive tactics. President Trump appears to be fully justified in his actions, and that was brought on by the inaction seen from Newsom and L.A. Mayor Karen Bass.
READ MORE: CNN’s Brian Stelter Delivers a Lesson in Media Narratives As He Attempts to Mold Coverage of the LA Riot
Even if Newsom takes his challenge to the courts, there is a question of how successful he can expect to be. Reuters even looked into this prospect and concluded that the assertion that governors need to grant permission for national troops to come in is a parameter that is flexible.
The protests in California do not rise to the level of “rebellion” and do not prevent the federal government from executing the laws of the United States, experts said. Title 10 also says “orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States,” but legal experts said that language might not be an obstacle. Legislative history suggests that those words were likely meant to reflect the norms of how National Guard troops are typically deployed, rather than giving a governor the option to not comply with a president’s decision to deploy troops.
The reality of this is also one of expedience, or the lack thereof. By the time this would even make its way to a courtroom on the merits, the riots will be long over, and Newsom himself may be out of office, rendering it all a moot issue. If they were wise, it would not even be pursued; given how the Democrats are driven solely by emotions and dramatics, this is more likely to play out to some degree.
