After National Guard, US Marines deployed on LA streets: Is Trump turning protest into a battlefield?

Fireworks explode around police officers in riot gear during a protest in response to federal immigration operations in the Little Tokyo neighborhood of downtown Los Angeles, on June 9, 2025.

US President Donald Trump’s decision to deploy military forces, including the National Guard and US Marines, to Los Angeles amid protests against immigration raids had ignited a storm of controversy. Legal experts and military veterans have warned that this unprecedented show of force – without the consent of California’s governor or LA’s mayor - represents a potential violation of democratic norms and a dangerous precedent for domestic military involvement.

Trump, speaking in Washington, branded the protesters "professional agitators and insurrectionists."

On social media, he said protesters spat at troops and if they continued to do so, "I promise you they will be hit harder than they have ever been hit before."

California Governor Gavin Newsom slammed the move, posting on X that US Marines "shouldn't be deployed on American soil facing their own countrymen to fulfil the deranged fantasy of a dictatorial President. This is un-American."

On June 7, Trump issued a memorandum ordering the deployment of 2,000 National Guard members to Los Angeles to quell escalating protests. This came in response to public demonstrations against immigration raids and mass deportations by federal agencies like ICE. The following day, the Pentagon confirmed that an additional 2,000 Guard members would join the effort.

In an even more provocative development, around 700 US Marines were activated in the Los Angeles area, according to a statement from the US Northern Command. This marks one of the rare instances in modern American history where active-duty military personnel have been used to police domestic civil unrest — an area traditionally reserved for civilian law enforcement.

At the heart of the legal debate is the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 law that prohibits the use of the US military in domestic law enforcement without explicit authorisation from Congress. While the president does have some emergency powers, legal experts argue that Trump’s unilateral deployment – especially of active-duty Marines – may exceed constitutional limits and run afoul of long-standing legal norms.

The Act exists precisely to draw a line between military and civilian roles, preventing the armed forces from being used as a tool of domestic suppression. Critics warn that Trump’s actions blur that line dangerously.

Trump’s decision to mobilise the National Guard without approval from California Governor Gavin Newsom or Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass has also sparked fears of federal overreach. Normally, when the National Guard is used for domestic purposes, state authorities retain control. But in this case, the president has invoked his powers under Title 10 of the US Code — placing the Guard under federal command.

This move has prompted accusations that Trump is sidestepping state leadership, centralising power in Washington, and undermining the federalist structure of governance.

The use of federal troops to manage domestic unrest is extremely rare and often contentious. The last time active-duty forces were deployed at scale was during the 1992 LA riots, and even then, it was done with the state governor’s request and coordination.

Critics say Trump’s unilateral action recalls darker moments in US history — from Kent State in 1970, where National Guard troops killed four unarmed students, to President Eisenhower’s federalising of troops to enforce desegregation in Little Rock. The key difference, however, is that past interventions were either constitutionally justified or had clear moral imperatives. Trump’s move, by contrast, is seen as crushing dissent rather than defending rights.

Trump’s military deployment in Los Angeles has raised fundamental questions about constitutional limits, federalism, and the role of the military in civil society. While the protests may have triggered security concerns, critics argue that the response — deploying Marines and federalising the National Guard without state approval — is disproportionate and dangerous.