A federal judge ruled on September 2, 2025, that the Trump administration violated federal law by deploying National Guard troops to Los Angeles in June 2025. This move was intended to address protests against immigration raids. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer determined that the troops lacked proper training regarding their legal authority, asserting that the President’s directive for them to engage in “domestic military law enforcement” breached the Posse Comitatus Act. This legislation restricts military involvement in civilian law enforcement, with limited exceptions.
While Judge Breyer did not mandate the withdrawal of the remaining soldiers, he urged the administration to avoid using them for law enforcement duties. The situation in Los Angeles reflects broader concerns regarding President Donald Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to combat crime in various cities, including Washington, D.C. His recent pledge to send the Guard to Chicago and Baltimore raises significant legal and ethical questions about the roles of the military and police in domestic affairs.
Legal and Operational Distinctions
State and local police officers receive specialized training focused on law enforcement, community relations, and conflict resolution. This includes the use-of-force continuum, which guides officers on appropriate responses to various situations. In stark contrast, the training for National Guard members primarily emphasizes military combat skills, including the use of weapons and tactics suited for warfare rather than civilian policing.
The National Guard does possess a limited law enforcement role during domestic emergencies, typically responding at the request of state governors. For instance, in 1992, President George H.W. Bush deployed the Guard to Los Angeles with the approval of the California governor to quell civil unrest following the Rodney King verdict. However, deploying troops who are not trained in policing can lead to tragic outcomes. A notable example is the incident at Kent State University in 1970, where National Guardsmen killed four unarmed students during an anti-war protest.
Historically, presidents have exercised caution in sending military personnel to manage civil unrest, often collaborating with state governors who request federal assistance. Following Hurricane Sandy in 2012, thousands of National Guard members were deployed to multiple states, coordinated with local authorities. The last instance of a president bypassing a governor in such a manner occurred in 1965, during the Selma protests, when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent National Guard troops without the Alabama governor’s consent.
Issues of Federalism and Military Authority
The deployment of military forces in domestic matters raises critical questions about federalism, which delineates the distribution of power between national and state governments. In the United States, the 10th Amendment grants states the authority to establish and enforce laws that protect public welfare and safety. The application of military personnel for routine law enforcement tasks challenges the fundamental principles that govern the relationship between federal and state jurisdictions.
The legal justification for the President to use federal control over the National Guard hinges on the notion of an insurrection or rebellion. In the case of Los Angeles, Judge Breyer found that the violence associated with the protests did not meet the threshold necessary to warrant such military intervention, emphasizing that traditional law enforcement responses were sufficient.
In recent developments, California filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, contending that the deployment of National Guard troops was unlawful. Similar legal action was taken by Washington, D.C., in response to the President’s decision to send National Guard troops to manage activities in the capital. These lawsuits highlight the growing tension over the use of military forces in civilian contexts and the implications for governance and civil liberties.
As this debate unfolds, the implications for the future of policing and military engagement in domestic issues remain significant. The erosion of established legal and operational boundaries may set a precedent that alters the relationship between the military and civilian law enforcement in the United States.
