Sending in the National Guard. And the Marines?

On Friday, June 7, Trump ordered federalization of National Guard troops “to temporarily protect ICE and other United States Government personnel who are performing Federal functions, including the enforcement of Federal law, and to protect Federal property, at locations where protests against these functions are occurring or are likely to occur based on current threat assessments and planned operations.” 

The presidential “memorandum” directed to the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Homeland Security, and Attorney General does what is commonly referred to as “federalizing the National Guard.” But that’s not a self-explanatory move. 

Back in November 2024, the Brennan Center described three separate authorities for presidents to call out the National Guard—none of which is the specific section of law invoked by Trump’s proclamation. 

To be clear: Trump did NOT invoke the Insurrection Act. Not yet. And what it means to “invoke the Insurrection Act” is far from clear. 

If Trump’s broad directive stands, it may open a way to get around any limits embodied in the Insurrection Acts and the Posse Comitatus Act. (For an enlightening discussion of the Insurrection Act and the Posse Comitatus law, see constitutional scholar Steve Vladek’s Five Questions About Domestic Use of the Military, published in April 2025.)

The Trump proclamation calls out “at least 2,000” National Guard troops for “at least 60 days.” That’s extremely non-specific, leaving many questions unanswered.

Which troops, from what state(s)? Not specified. 

Where will they go? Reporting generally refers to immigration enforcement Los Angeles, and that’s where the first National Guard troops have been sent.

Trump social media posts and press secretary statements make it clear that Los Angeles is a target of the deployment. Nothing in the proclamation limits the deployment to Los Angeles. While the proclamation specifically characterizes protests against immigration enforcement as “rebellion,” its language is broader, allowing use of military to protect any “federal property” and any U.S. government personnel carrying out “federal functions.” 

The proclamation gives broad discretionary authority to the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth. Scary? Yes. 

Hegseth is directed “to coordinate with the Governors of the States and the National Guard Bureau in identifying and ordering into Federal service the appropriate members and units of the National Guard.” 

Which states? How many states? That appears to be up to Hegseth. 

And that’s not all. Hegseth is also directed by the proclamation to “employ any other members of the regular Armed Forces as necessary to augment and support the protection of Federal functions and property in any number determined appropriate in his discretion.”

The first more or less official word from Hegseth signaled that he is ready to call out the military. As has become customary, that announcement came on X/Twitter, rather than on an official website. The New York Times reported:

“”Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said in a post on X late on Saturday that the Pentagon was “mobilizing the National Guard IMMEDIATELY.” But he did not say when or where the troops would assemble, or identify their units. …

” In Mr. Hegseth’s post on X, he said that active duty Marines were “on high alert” at Camp Pendleton, about 100 miles south of Los Angeles, and could also be mobilized.”

The presidential proclamation does not authorize the National Guard or regular military to conduct immigration raids, make immigration arrests, or do anything other than protecting federal employees and property. 

That could be a limitation. Or not. 

“Protection” could be construed to allow the federalized National Guard (or the Marines) to set up a secure perimeter around a Home Depot parking lot in Los Angeles or a restaurant in Minneapolis in order to “protect Federal personnel” who are carrying out immigration raids or any other kind of federal law enforcement activities. On Face the Nation on Sunday morning, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem criticized Minnesota and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, implying that we could be next. She also said protesters “would not be allowed to wear masks.”

To be clear: no state authorities see a need for federal troops, whether from the National Guard or the regular military. In California and elsewhere, local law enforcement offers plenty of protection for federal agents and repression of protest. California Governor Gavin Newsom denounced the National Guard mobilization as an inflammatory action. 

The bottom line: this is one more escalation of repression. The scope of the escalation is, as yet, undefined, but the threat is clear. 

During his campaign, Trump said he would order federal military response to protests. He said: “You’re supposed to not be involved in that, you just have to be asked by the governor or the mayor to come in — the next time, I’m not waiting.”

x x x x x x

Want to protest the continuing attacks on human rights, the Constitution, and the rule of law? Show up for a “No Kings” protest on June 14. More than two dozen No Kings protests are scheduled in Minnesota. In St. Paul, people will gather at 11:00 AM at St. Paul College before the march (235 Marshall Ave, St Paul, MN 55102). At noon, they will march to the MN State Capitol. At 1 p.m, the rally at the Capitol will continue with speakers, bands, and activities.

*CORRECTION: Date of June 7 in first paragraph.