Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
House Speaker Mike Johnson, representative from Louisiana, commented on Sunday regarding Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s recent proposal to send U.S. Marines to address ongoing anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement protests in Los Angeles. Johnson believes this action would not constitute a heavy-handed response.
During his appearance on ABC’s This Week, Johnson discussed President Donald Trump’s decision to potentially deploy National Guard troops to help maintain order in Los Angeles. Trump indicated he might federalize the California National Guard if state authorities, including Governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, fail to uphold civil order in the wake of increasing violence and looting.
Johnson supported Trump’s actions, stating, “I have no concern about that at all. I think the president did exactly what he needed to do. These are federal laws and we have to maintain the rule of law, and that is not what is happening. Gavin Newsom has shown an inability or an unwillingness to do what is necessary there, so the president stepped in. That’s real leadership, and he has the authority and the responsibility to do it.”
In a further discussion, Johnson addressed comments made by Hegseth, who announced via social media that the Department of Defense was prepared to mobilize the National Guard immediately to support federal law enforcement in Los Angeles. Hegseth also warned that if violence persisted, active duty Marines stationed at Camp Pendleton would be put on high alert for potential deployment.
Johnson remarked, “One of our core principles is maintaining peace through strength. We do that on foreign affairs and domestic affairs as well. I don’t think that’s heavy-handed. I think that’s an important signal…” This statement came as a response to a critical question from ABC host Jonathan Karl, who probed whether deploying Marines in American cities might be seen as excessive force.
“You don’t think sending the Marines into the streets of an American city is heavy-handed?” Karl challenged. Johnson responded affirmatively, suggesting that the mere threat of such deployment could have a deterrent effect against further unrest. He asserted, “We have to be prepared to do what is necessary, and I think the notice that that might happen might have the deterring effect.”
Newsom quickly reacted to Hegseth’s remarks, describing the notion of sending active-duty Marines against American citizens as “deranged behavior.” In response, Hegseth countered, “Deranged = allowing your city to burn & law enforcement to be attacked. There is plenty of room for peaceful protest, but ZERO tolerance for attacking federal agents who are doing their job.” He emphasized that the National Guard, along with Marines if necessary, would stand in support of ICE.
Addressing the reasons behind such military involvement, Hegseth stated, “The violent mob assaults on ICE and Federal Law Enforcement are designed to prevent the removal of criminal illegal aliens from our soil; a dangerous invasion facilitated by criminal cartels. Under President Trump, violence and destruction against federal agents and federal facilities will not be tolerated. It’s common sense.”
Typically, U.S. military personnel are restricted from undertaking civilian law enforcement roles against U.S. citizens unless specific emergency conditions are declared. The longstanding Insurrection Act serves as the primary legal framework allowing a president to activate military or National Guard resources during scenarios of unrest.
Despite Trump’s recent statements, he refrained from invoking the Insurrection Act during these riots. Instead, his memorandum activated National Guard members under the authority of federal law to temporarily safeguard ICE personnel who are executing federal functions and to protect government property amidst ongoing protests.
The federal law cited permits the president to deploy National Guard troops under three notable conditions: in instances of invasion or imminent danger, during rebellion or perceived rebellion against the U.S. government, or if the president finds himself unable to enforce U.S. laws with regular military forces. Furthermore, the law specifies that such orders must typically be routed through each state’s governor.
The National Guard operates as a combined entity, serving both state and federal purposes. A crucial question remains regarding whether federal activation of National Guard troops is permissible without an order from the state governor.
In addition, ambiguity surrounds the legality of deploying military personnel domestically. The Posse Comitatus Act limits federal troops from carrying out domestic law enforcement duties, although state-controlled units can perform those functions. Enacted in the late 1800s, this law forbids federal military deployment for law enforcement unless expressly sanctioned by the Constitution or Congress.
Previously, Trump had suggested the use of the Insurrection Act amidst 2020 protests following George Floyd’s death, but he ultimately chose not to invoke it. However, the president did deploy federal agents to various cities, including Portland, where demonstrators clashed with law enforcement, resulting in numerous nights of unrest.
A Shifting Landscape in Law Enforcement Approaches
The situation in Los Angeles highlights a critical moment in the debate over law enforcement and military involvement in domestic civil disturbances. As tensions rise, dialogues surrounding the role of the National Guard and federal troops in preserving public order continue to evolve.
Providing clarity on military involvement in domestic matters is paramount as lawmakers and state officials navigate increasingly charged interactions between law enforcement and community stakeholders. Ensuring that peace is maintained without compromising constitutional rights remains a central tenet of this discourse, particularly as protests emerge nationwide.
As further developments unfold, observations will be essential to understanding the broader implications of these actions and the evolving relationship between civilian authorities and military support in responding to civil unrest.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
