Is Trump allowed to use National Guard to quell LA protests? Law explained

Tear gas, flash bangs and rubber bullets in downtown Los Angeles. Massive unrest in the second-most populous city of the United States -- the nation's Liberal heart.

All because President Donald Trump decided to send in the National Guard to quell protests against immigration raids.

The whole thing started on Friday with peaceful protests against the federal immigration department conducting raids in the migrant strongholds of the southern Californian city.

But, the protests soon turned violent with agitators clashing with agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement department.

Things only got worse after Trump decided to crackdown on the protests by deploying 2,000 California National Guard troops to the streets of LA.

Security forces in riot gear used tear gas, flash bangs and rubber bullets to disperse protesters now resorting to violence, arson and vandalism. Injuries and arrests followed.

The disarray in LA has set off a political firestorm.

California Governor Gavin Newsom condemned Trump's decision to call in the National Guard, and threatened to sue the President.

The Trump administration hit back by accusing Newsom of failing to uphold law and order in LA, and forcing the President to take action.

So what is it? Executive overreach by Trump, or necessary and legal action?

But before we get to that, some context on the US National Guard and its jurisdiction.

The National Guard is a state-based military force that is a part of the US Armed Forces Reserve. It acts as a hybrid entity that serves both the state and federal interests.

The state-level force is made up of hundreds of thousands of trained soldiers who serve only part-time. Most hold jobs or attend colleges.

They only respond to emergency situations, like disaster management or the Covid pandemic. They are also deployed when police feel overwhelmed while tackling social unrest.

But during times of war or national emergencies, the federal government, in this case President Trump, can call upon the National Guard for military service.

Usually, a state’s governor holds authority over the National Guard. But when deployed nationwide, the US President has full control of the force as the commander-in-chief.

Protocols dictate that the president can activate the force using an 18th-century wartime law called the Insurrection Act.

But Trump didn’t use this law for deploying the state force on Saturday.

Instead, he invoked a similar federal law, known as Title 10 of the US Code on the Armed Forces, to federalise the National Guard.

According to Title 10, Trump can call upon the services of the national guard only under three circumstances.

First, when the US is invaded or in danger of invasion.

Second, when there is a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority of the US government.

And third, when the president is unable to ‘execute the laws of the United States,’ with regular forces.

Notably, Title 10 also states that the President's order in these regards “shall be issued through the governors of the states.”

But, Trump decided to ignore this clause. The President bypassed the California governor’s authority and activated the state’s National Guard force without his permission.

Now, Trump has threatened, on several occasions, to deploy US troops on domestic soil. But, this was the first time since 1965 that a president used the National Guard without the governor’s consent.

And that's caused the political storm.

Democratic Senator Cory Booker condemned Trump's decision to deploy the troops without California's approval, warning it would only escalate tensions.

Newsom himself called the federal response an overreach, and accused Trump of trying to manufacture a crisis and violating California's state sovereignty.

Trump hit back by calling Newsom incompetent.

Several legal experts have questioned Trump’s use of Title 10 in response to LA protests, calling the move inflammatory and reckless.

According to them, the protests do not meet the criteria of a ‘rebellion’ and do not prevent the federal government from executing the laws of the United States.

Though a lawsuit is likely to drag on for months -- way after the protests have died down -- Newsom could still take Trump to court to make a political point.