this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2025
23 points (100.0% liked)

U.S. News

2408 readers
10 users here now

News about and pertaining to the United States and its people.

Please read what's functionally the mission statement before posting for the first time. We have a narrower definition of news than you might be accustomed to.


Guidelines for submissions:

For World News, see the News community.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Donald Trump’s “Border Czar” Tom Homan said Saturday the administration is planning to send in the National Guard Saturday evening to quell protests in Los Angeles.

“This is about enforcing the law, and again, we’re not going to apologize for doing it,” Homan said on Fox News. He continued: “We’re already ahead of the game. We were already mobilizing. We’re gonna bring National Guard in tonight. We’re gonna continue doing our job. We’re gonna push back on these people, and we’re gonna [enforce] the law.”

On Saturday night, following Homan’s on-camera remarks, both national Democratic and Republican figures were scrambling to figure out if he was just mouthing off, or if the federal troops were actually on their way, or just … what the hell was going on.

Two Trump administration officials say they learned about the alleged National Guard plans from journalists such as Rolling Stone’s who had reached out to them on Saturday evening, asking for clarification.

Homan did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment.

“The federal government is moving to take over the California National Guard and deploy 2,000 soldiers,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) wrote on Bluesky Saturday evening. “That move is purposefully inflammatory and will only escalate tensions.”

He added, “LA authorities are able to access law enforcement assistance at a moment’s notice. We are in close coordination with the city and county, and there is currently no unmet need. The Guard has been admirably serving LA throughout recovery. This is the wrong mission and will erode public trust.”

The president can request, but not order, a governor to deploy their state’s National Guard. The governor can refuse the request, and Trump would not be allowed under the Constitution to send National Guard troops to California from other states. However, the Trump administration has previously mulled invoking the Insurrection Act, which could allow the president to deploy the U.S. military domestically, federalize the National Guard, and send in troops to quell uprisings or civil disorder.

Editorializing beyond here:

The Insurrectionist invokes the Insurrection Act.

top 5 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Upvoted for visibility, not for happy.

This is a huge deal partially because the NG cannot be used simply to assist in regular policing actions as part of a federalized deployment (legally, anyways, per the Posse Comitatus Act) without actually formally invoking the Insurrection Act, so they could only ostensibly be deployed somewhere after mass civil unrest has broken out, not just tag along with ICE which is almost certainly what Trump will try to have them do.

When NG is called in by the state governor, PCA doesn't apply, but that is not happening here; Newsom has explicitly said he is against this.

Newsom is calling out that there is "no unmet need" specifically to try to head off the claim that the local authorities are unable to enforce the law.

If this actually happens, it could be the most significant and direct attack on state power that Trump has taken to date.

[–] sp3ctr4l 7 points 1 week ago

Yep. I've cross posted this in several places, but its good to have a Insurrection Act / Posse Comitatus explanation here as well.

This is unironically how we get martial law.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

i don’t think this will go well for trump ultimately.

Like, two ways this goes, the national guard shows up, says “there are no ongoing and active riots so we’re done.” and leave

Or they just make a big PR mess for trump by massively over reacting to something.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

The 2nd option is likely the goal. Inflaming tensions and overreacting makes the administration look like it's tough on crime to his base. Escalating a peaceful protest into a conflict can easily be spun into "the good guys are fighting the violent illegal criminals". The people that elected Trump want a strongman dictator and he's happy to show them that. Even the politically apathetic might see the conflict as "both sides went too far".

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

It's gotten to the point that I fear weekends. The junta always pulls its most heinous shit on Friday and Saturday nights, hoping to take advantage of the lull in the news cycle.

It's a far cry from when those two nights were for dancing and drugs.

Also, I'm reminded of a line from V for Vendetta: "Meanwhile, in the former United States ..." with "footage" of violent protests.