It is a step that goes far beyond political symbolism - and reaches deep into the constitutional entrails of the United States: On June 7, 2025, Donald Trump ordered California's National Guard into Los Angeles without the governor's consent. A breach of taboo? A legal precedent? Or a violation of the federal order?
Historically, the case is explosive - because no U.S. president has dared since 1965 to deploy military forces on a state's territory against its will. Back then, it was President Lyndon B. Johnson who, at the height of the civil rights movement, sent troops to Alabama to protect peaceful demonstrators in Selma. Johnson relied on the Insurrection Act - a law from the 18th century that allows the president to use military force within the U.S. in the event of an uprising. The difference today: Johnson acted in consultation with Congress - and in the spirit of constitutionally protecting fundamental rights.
(1965)
Donald Trump, however, is taking a different path. He is forgoing the Insurrection Act - likely because invoking it is politically toxic - and is instead relying on another provision in the United States Code, Title 10, Section 12406. This allows the president to place members of the National Guard under federal command if he believes an "insurrection" or a "hindrance to the execution of laws" is taking place. But here lies the catch. Because that same law also states: Such orders must be issued through the governors of the affected states. Trump, however, bypassed California Governor Gavin Newsom - thereby triggering a massive constitutional conflict.
Newsom himself spoke in a public letter of a "serious constitutional breach" that undermines the separation of powers. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass called the president's move a "deliberate escalation." - That does not serve public safety but intimidation. In fact, the situation in Los Angeles was tense - but by no means uncontrollable. The protests, sparked by large-scale deportation actions by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), had escalated in the city center on June 7 and 8. There were burning vehicles, road blockades, and sporadic lootings. But instead of de-escalation, the White House opted for toughness. On social media, Trump openly called for the arrest of masked demonstrators and invoked "law and order" - a rhetorical throwback to his first term, now laced with legal explosives.
Tatsächlich war die Lage in Los Angeles angespannt – aber keineswegs unkontrollierbar. Die Proteste, ausgelöst durch großangelegte Abschiebungsaktionen des Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), hatten sich am 7. und 8. Juni im Zentrum der Stadt zugespitzt. Es kam zu brennenden Fahrzeugen, Straßenblockaden und punktuellen Plünderungen. Doch statt auf Deeskalation setzte das Weiße Haus auf Härte. In sozialen Netzwerken forderte Trump offen die Verhaftung maskierter Demonstrierender und rief nach „Law and Order“ – ein rhetorischer Rückgriff auf seine erste Amtszeit, nun aber angereichert mit juristischem Sprengstoff.
(2025)
Because what comes with this decision is not only a political message, but a systemic reinterpretation of the power balance between Washington and the states. Can a president deploy the National Guard against a state's declared will - without formally declaring a state of emergency? This question is currently the subject of intense debate at American universities, in bar associations, and at the Supreme Court, which has already drawn clear boundaries in similar cases - but still owes an exact answer to the newly created situation.
The renowned Brennan Center for Justice points out that there has been no comparable case since 1965. Even George W. Bush, who wanted to deploy the National Guard in Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina, did so only after consulting the governor. And Barack Obama, during the Ferguson protests in 2014, deliberately let the state of Missouri decide for itself whether military support was necessary - out of respect for federal sovereignty. Donald Trump ignores these principles - and once again tests the limits of presidential power, bearing primary responsibility for the severe unrest. He blends security rhetoric with campaign slogans, legal gray areas with political repression. The deployment of California's National Guard without the consent of California is therefore not just a controversial tool in a heated protest situation - but a dangerous precedent.
A precedent that could shake a federal system - and reveals a president who is pushing open the door to central state control further than the U.S. Constitution may allow.
English 
German 
