Why This Article Was Flagged
This article triggered multiple user queries concerning the legality of President Donald Trump’s decision to deploy the National Guard to Los Angeles amid escalating immigration-related protests, and why Governor Gavin Newsom hasn’t enacted similar measures. Given the legal, political, and law enforcement implications, DBUNK has performed a thorough fact-check to clarify the accuracy of the legal claims and scrutinize the broader context to ensure transparency.
Understanding the Background
Protests erupted in Los Angeles following Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations that led to over 100 arrests. Frustration intensified when reports indicated that federal agents used force and conducted high-profile detainments across various communities. Tensions escalated further when President Trump authorized sending 2,000 National Guard troops to the city, sparking debates about federal authority and state sovereignty. The incident echoes similar tensions that played out during civil unrest in several American cities in recent decades.
Claim #1: “President Trump deployed the National Guard to Los Angeles using Title 10 without Governor Newsom’s consent.”
This claim is accurate. Title 10 of the U.S. Code allows the President to activate the National Guard under federal authority—an action that does not require approval from the state governor. Known as a “Title 10 activation,” it grants the President the power to federalize the National Guard for national defense or emergency response. This differs from Title 32 or state active duty deployments, which are under gubernatorial control.
According to the Defense Department, the President used Title 10 authority to deploy approximately 2,000 troops. This is within the federal executive’s legal purview. The U.S. Code (10 USC §12304) confirms that under certain conditions—including threats to federal property—the President can legally order deployment without state consultation.
Claim #2: “It may be unconstitutional or illegal for the President to override the governor’s authority by sending the Guard.”
This claim is misleading due to lacking context but is not false. The U.S. Constitution and federal law permit the federal government to supersede state authority in certain situations. This includes quelling insurrections, protecting federal property, or enforcing federal laws. These powers are reinforced under the Insurrection Act (10 USC §§ 251–255), which the President does not appear to have invoked here but could lawfully do in similar cases.
However, the use of National Guard troops for domestic law enforcement—when federally activated—is constrained by the Posse Comitatus Act, unless explicitly permitted by Congress or another legal exception applies. In the article, it is noted that the National Guard’s mission is to support federal properties and federal law enforcement, which is consistent with legal standards when under Title 10 activation.
Claim #3: “Governor Gavin Newsom did not deploy the California National Guard despite violent protests.”
This claim is accurate. Governor Newsom chose not to deploy the California National Guard independently and publicly criticized the federal action. His statement emphasized that there was no “unmet need” at the state level and that Los Angeles had sufficient resources. Instead, he dispatched the California Highway Patrol to reinforce local authorities without militarizing the situation.
This invokes a policy decision, not a legal failure. Governors are not compelled to deploy the National Guard unless specific emergencies exceed local capacity. Newsom’s approach aligns with several past gubernatorial responses during civil unrest, wherein decisions were made to emphasize de-escalation and maintain civil-military balance.
Claim #4: “The protests involved assaults on police, molotov cocktails, and attempts to block federal operations.”
This claim is supported by on-the-ground reporting. The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department confirmed that arrests were made for assault on peace officers, including one individual who allegedly threw a molotov cocktail, injuring deputies. Protesters blocked streets and attempted to interfere with federal buses. Footage from CBS News and additional photos validate these claims, showing clashes and the use of smoke canisters and riot gear. These events escalated the federal government’s response.
It is important to separate lawful protest activity from violent actions. The presence of violence by a portion of participants does not invalidate the right to peaceful assembly by the broader group.
Final Verdict
The article accurately reports that President Trump used Title 10 to deploy the National Guard, a legal action that bypasses the need for Governor Newsom’s approval. Assertions alleging illegality are incorrect when viewed through the framework of federal law. However, the article, while factually sound, could offer greater legal clarity by explaining the differences between Title 10, Title 32, and state-commanded National Guard deployments. Furthermore, readers should be mindful that the tensions between federal and state powers are not constitutional violations but contested interpretations within lawful boundaries. The report does not exhibit overt bias but does leave ambiguity around the legality that could mislead uninformed readers.
Want Clarity Like This On Every News Story?
Download the DBUNK app for real-time fact-checks on breaking news. Join our growing community on social media and never be misled again.
Read the full article here:
https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/los-angeles-immigration-protests-surprise-ice-operation/
