Why Did Trump Want To Send The National Guard To La

In May 2020, amid nationwide protests following the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, President Donald Trump made a series of public statements suggesting that he would consider sending the U.S. military, including the National Guard, into cities like Los Angeles to restore order. His comments sparked debate over presidential authority, civil liberties, and the appropriate role of military forces in domestic law enforcement. Understanding why Trump advocated for such a move requires examining the context of civil unrest, his administration’s approach to public safety, and the legal boundaries governing military intervention on American soil.

The Context: Civil Unrest in Los Angeles

Los Angeles, like many major U.S. cities, experienced large-scale protests in late May and early June 2020. While many demonstrations were peaceful, some escalated into violence, looting, and clashes with law enforcement. On May 31, 2020, downtown LA saw widespread property damage, arson, and confrontations between protesters and police. The LAPD declared a state of emergency and requested assistance from California’s National Guard.

California Governor Gavin Newsom responded swiftly by activating over 1,000 National Guard troops to support local authorities. Despite this state-level deployment, President Trump publicly criticized the response as insufficient. In a series of tweets and remarks during White House press briefings, he suggested that governors who failed to “dominate the streets” should allow federal forces to intervene.

“We need strength in our cities,” Trump said on May 31, 2020. “If a city or state refuses to take the actions necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem.”

Federal Authority and the Insurrection Act

The president’s ability to deploy military forces domestically hinges on the Insurrection Act of 1807, a rarely invoked law that permits the use of federal troops to suppress civil disorder when state authorities are unable or unwilling to maintain order. Unlike the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits the military from engaging in domestic law enforcement, the Insurrection Act creates an exception under specific conditions.

Trump’s suggestion to send the National Guard—or even active-duty troops—into Los Angeles was framed as a contingency under this act. However, legal experts pointed out that the National Guard is typically activated at the request of a governor, not unilaterally by the president. Federalizing the Guard changes its command structure, placing it under Pentagon control rather than state authority.

While Trump never fully federalized the National Guard in California, his rhetoric signaled a willingness to override state leadership—a move that raised constitutional concerns. Governors, including Newsom, emphasized that they had the situation under control and did not request federal military intervention.

Tip: The National Guard operates under state authority unless federalized; presidents cannot unilaterally deploy them without legal justification or gubernatorial consent.

Political Messaging and Law-and-Order Rhetoric

Beyond legal considerations, Trump’s push to deploy troops reflected a broader political strategy centered on law and order. Throughout his presidency, but especially during the 2020 election cycle, Trump positioned himself as a defender of public safety against what he described as “radical left” movements and urban chaos.

By emphasizing military solutions to civil unrest, Trump appealed to his base’s concerns about crime, social instability, and perceived weakness in Democratic-led cities. Los Angeles, governed by Democratic officials, became a symbolic target in this narrative. Critics argued that the rhetoric exaggerated the threat and risked militarizing responses to legitimate protest.

Security analysts noted that while looting and vandalism occurred, the majority of protests in LA remained nonviolent. Over-militarized responses, they warned, could escalate tensions rather than de-escalate them. Nonetheless, the administration maintained that visible force was necessary to deter further unrest.

Comparison: State vs. Federal Deployment of the National Guard

Aspect	State-Activated National Guard	Federalized National Guard
Command Authority	Governor of the state	President / Department of Defense
Primary Mission	Support state law enforcement	Enforce federal laws or restore order
Funding Source	State budget (with possible federal reimbursement)	Federal government
Legal Basis	State emergency powers	Insurrection Act or other federal statutes
Example	CA Governor Newsom deploying Guard in LA (2020)	Federalization of Guard in Detroit (1967 riots)

A Real Example: The 1992 Los Angeles Riots

To understand the gravity of Trump’s proposal, it helps to look back at a precedent: the 1992 Los Angeles riots. After the acquittal of police officers in the beating of Rodney King, six days of unrest resulted in over 60 deaths, thousands of injuries, and widespread destruction. Then-President George H.W. Bush invoked the Insurrection Act and deployed approximately 4,500 active-duty troops, alongside 10,000 National Guard members, to restore order.

This remains one of the most significant uses of federal military power in a domestic crisis. At the time, California’s governor, Pete Wilson, formally requested federal assistance—an important distinction from Trump’s 2020 stance, where no such request was made. The 1992 deployment demonstrated that while federal intervention is legally possible, it is politically sensitive and typically reserved for extreme circumstances where local and state forces are overwhelmed.

“The key to lawful federal intervention is invitation or clear incapacity at the state level. Without that, it risks appearing as federal overreach.” — Dr. Laura Benton, Constitutional Law Scholar, Georgetown University

Step-by-Step: How Military Deployment Works During Civil Unrest

1. Local law enforcement responds to initial protests or disturbances.
2. State declares emergency if unrest escalates beyond local capacity.
3. Governor activates National Guard under state authority to assist police.
4. If situation worsens, governor may request federal support or invoke mutual aid agreements.
5. President may federalize the Guard or deploy active-duty troops under the Insurrection Act, but only if state authorities are deemed ineffective or unwilling.
6. Congress and courts monitor for constitutional compliance and potential abuse of power.

Common Misconceptions About the National Guard

• Misconception: The president can send the National Guard anywhere at any time.
  Reality: The Guard is primarily a state force; federal deployment requires legal justification.
• Misconception: Deploying troops is the fastest way to stop violence.
  Reality: Military presence can escalate tensions; community policing and de-escalation often prove more effective.
• Misconception: The National Guard has full law enforcement powers.
  Reality: Their role is usually support-based—traffic control, logistics, and perimeter security—not arrests or crowd dispersal.

FAQ

Did Trump actually send the National Guard to Los Angeles?

No. While California’s governor activated the National Guard independently, Trump did not federalize or directly deploy troops to LA. His statements remained largely rhetorical, aimed at pressuring state leaders to take stronger action.

Can the president deploy the military in U.S. cities without permission?

Generally, no. Under the Posse Comitatus Act, the military cannot perform civilian law enforcement. The Insurrection Act is the main exception, but it requires specific conditions—such as rebellion or inability of local authorities to enforce the law—and is subject to legal scrutiny.

Why didn’t California accept federal military help?

Governor Newsom and city officials believed state and local forces, supported by the state National Guard, were sufficient. Accepting federal troops could have undermined local command structures and heightened public distrust, particularly in communities already skeptical of law enforcement.

Tip: Public trust during civil unrest depends heavily on the perceived legitimacy of the response. Over-militarization can erode confidence even when order is restored.

Conclusion: Balancing Security and Civil Liberty

Donald Trump’s suggestion to send the National Guard to Los Angeles was less about immediate tactical necessity and more about asserting federal authority and promoting a law-and-order message. While the legal framework allows for military intervention in extreme cases, its application requires careful judgment, intergovernmental cooperation, and respect for constitutional limits.

The events of 2020 highlighted the tension between maintaining public safety and protecting democratic freedoms. As future leaders face similar challenges, the lessons from Los Angeles—about communication, proportionality, and the importance of state autonomy—will remain essential. The best responses to civil unrest are not always the most forceful, but those that rebuild trust while ensuring accountability and justice.

🚀 Stay informed. Understand your rights. Engage in civic dialogue. Whether you’re analyzing policy or participating in peaceful protest, your voice matters in shaping how America responds to crisis.