Introduction
This article was flagged for fact-checking due to its controversial reporting on a recent appeals court ruling allowing President Trump to continue deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles without state consent. The piece hinges on legal justifications for federalizing state troops, public safety concerns, and the constitutional debate over executive power. A DBUNK user specifically asked what legal standard is required to classify protests as a “rebellion” under Title 10 of U.S. law—a central premise in justifying this military deployment.
Historical Context
The federalization of the National Guard without state permission is highly unusual and has historically only occurred during moments of significant national unrest. The most widely cited precedent is when President Lyndon B. Johnson deployed federal forces to enforce civil rights protections in the 1960s. Under Title 10 of the U.S. Code, the President can assume control of a state’s National Guard in situations deemed as rebellion or insurrection, or when it becomes impractical for the state to enforce federal law. However, such actions are controversial, as they raise concerns over federal overreach and conflicts with state sovereignty.
Fact-Check: Specific Claims
Claim #1: President Trump legally invoked Title 10 by classifying L.A. protests as a “rebellion.”
The article states, “Mr. Trump said the protests constituted a ‘form of rebellion’ against the U.S.” Title 10, Section 12406, permits the President to federalize the National Guard if there is an insurrection, rebellion, or the inability of a state to enforce federal law. The 9th Circuit concluded that Trump had a “colorable basis”—a legal term meaning plausible but not necessarily correct—for invoking Title 10. However, it’s important to note that no formal finding of “rebellion” was declared by the Department of Justice or through a congressional resolution. As such, the invocation remains legally contested and is subject to judicial review. Legal scholars, including those at the Brennan Center for Justice, argue this sets a dangerous precedent unless closely scrutinized. The claim is technically accurate in describing what Trump asserted, but the characterization of the protests as a rebellion lacks clear legal consensus and may exaggerate the situation’s severity.
Claim #2: Governors cannot veto the President’s decision to federalize the Guard.
The article notes, “the court said that [Title 10] ‘does not give governors any veto power.’” This is accurate. Title 10 allows the President to bypass governors in certain extreme scenarios. The specific section referenced by California officials—requiring that federalization occur “through the governors”—has been interpreted by courts as procedural, not granting veto authority to the states. This interpretation was supported by prior judicial rulings such as Perpich v. Department of Defense (1990), reaffirming that the President holds final authority, although under limited circumstances. Therefore, this claim accurately reflects the current legal interpretation of Title 10, but it glosses over the substantial debate about whether federal deployment was proportionate or necessary in this case, especially without intergovernmental coordination.
Claim #3: It had been 60 years since a president last deployed the National Guard without a state’s request.
The article states, “It had been 60 years since a president last sent in the National Guard without a request from a state’s government.” This statement is largely accurate. The most notable example was when President Lyndon B. Johnson federalized the Alabama National Guard in 1965 to protect civil rights marchers during the Selma-to-Montgomery marches. Since then, most National Guard deployments have occurred with state cooperation or in response to natural disasters. The Brennan Center corroborates this historical comparison, emphasizing the rarity and significance of such unilateral federal action. The article presents this fact accurately and provides important historical context that reinforces the exceptional nature of the current deployment.
Claim #4: Courts must be “highly deferential” to the president’s military decisions under Title 10.
The article accurately cites the 9th Circuit’s reasoning: “judges need to be ‘highly deferential’ to the president if he decides that troops need to be deployed.” This claim reflects legal precedent. The Supreme Court’s ruling in cases like Gilligan v. Morgan (1973) established that courts traditionally avoid second-guessing military or national security decisions, out of respect for separation of powers. However, that deference is not absolute. The court in this case rejected the administration’s broader claim that it had “unreviewable discretion.” In effect, while courts are limited in challenging the president’s military discretion, they can still assert oversight when claims of statutory violations are clear and substantial. The article communicates this nuance correctly but could provide more clarity about the distinction between “deferential” and “non-reviewable.”
Conclusion
The article is generally accurate but lacks important nuance when explaining the legal standards and historical precedent related to deploying the National Guard under federal control. While it correctly cites the judiciary’s acceptance of President Trump’s authority under Title 10, it glosses over the contested interpretation of “rebellion” and does not include diverse legal expert analysis that might challenge the administration’s justification. Additionally, minor bias appears in how quotes from both sides are framed, such as repeating a derogatory nickname used by Trump toward Governor Newsom, which could undercut neutrality. Overall, the article presents factual information but omits legal complexities and emphasizes the administration’s position more prominently than its critics’.
Take Action Now
Help stop the spread of misinformation by checking the facts before you share. Use DBUNK to verify headlines, explore multiple viewpoints, and submit your own fact-check requests.
Download the DBUNK App.
