Immigration Protests – Will Congress Step In to Restrain Trump?
The United States has recently witnessed the deployment of 700 Marines in Los Angeles, a move that has sparked intense debate about its legality and its impact on the relationship between the American people and their military.
One of the key reasons Americans deeply respect their military is that they do not fear it. This principle, established by George Washington, was grounded in restraint and respect for the law during a genuine armed rebellion, according to Foreign Policy magazine.
For over two centuries, the military has been used domestically only in rare and legally restricted circumstances, reinforcing public trust in the president and military leadership.
Since 1878, the Posse Comitatus Act has prohibited the use of the regular U.S. military in domestic policing operations, except in cases specifically authorized by Congress or the Constitution, or if the President formally declares an invasion or insurrection.
By contrast, the National Guard enjoys greater flexibility. It can be deployed by state governors, with congressional or gubernatorial approval. In rare instances, the President may federalize the Guard without a governor’s consent, particularly if local authorities hinder enforcement of federal law.
This exception was used in the 1950s and 60s to enforce Supreme Court rulings and uphold civil rights protections.
The Insurrection Act grants the president broad powers to restore order, yet political constraints have typically discouraged overreach. Notably, Donald Trump refrained from invoking it during his first term, despite pressure, following pushback from Defense Secretary Mark Esper and several state governors.
Now, the recent Marine deployment in Los Angeles lacks a clear legal foundation. The Insurrection Act has not been triggered, even though the president labeled protesters as “violent gangs and rebels” and threatened to arrest California’s governor. Such actions deviate from principles of responsible crisis management.
Historically, during the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791, George Washington acted prudently — favoring negotiation, obtaining judicial authorization, and only deploying the National Guard as a last resort. He personally accompanied the troops, which led to a peaceful surrender, followed by trials and eventual pardons, earning public approval.
In contrast, the current president has not transparently explained the legal basis for deploying regular troops. The Pentagon has merely cited a vague “executive authority”, while the White House is attempting to reinterpret the Constitution’s enforcement clause to grant broader powers to protect federal property and enforce federal laws.
This has been accompanied by personnel changes in the Department of Defense’s legal team, aimed at securing more flexible interpretations.
According to Foreign Policy, the current administration is also attempting to blur the lines between the restricted role of regular troops and the wider authority of the National Guard. The U.S. Northern Command stated that Marines would work “seamlessly with regular forces,” even though — by any interpretation — their role should be strictly limited to protecting federal facilities, not overriding state authority.
Tellingly, the president admitted that the protests are “completely under control,” suggesting a bad-faith use of military threats to intimidate demonstrators rather than defuse tensions.
In light of these developments, Congress has a duty to exert greater political pressure to constrain the president’s ability to deploy the military domestically.
Lawmakers should summon military leaders for testimony about the advice they gave the White House regarding troop deployment in Los Angeles. Moreover, the president should revoke the decision to use regular troops to manage protests, given the harm this does to military morale, recruitment efforts, and the delicate balance between the public and the military institution.
