Washington, DC., 12 June 2025 —
The US military is a powerful institution, but its power is deliberately constrained in domestic affairs. Deploying the military within its borders at home, such as deploying US Marines in Los Angeles, is a constitutionally sensitive issue. While holding the title Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, the president does not have unlimited authority to use the military domestically. This power is controlled by constitutional principles, federal law, and historical precedent.
Laws like the Posse Comitatus Act, constitutional rights, and a deeply rooted tradition of separating military and civilian spheres all serve to protect Americans from the possibility of their own military being used against them. While there are narrow exceptions, the threshold for invoking them is high – and rightly so. The strength of American democracy lies in its commitment to the rule of law, not the rule of force.
Posse Comitatus Act
One of the most significant legal limitations is the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. This federal law explicitly limits the federal government’s powers to use the US Army or Air Force to enforce domestic policies or laws within the US unless expressly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress. While the Navy and Marine Corps are not directly mentioned, Department of Defense regulations extend the same restriction to all military branches. However, the Act does not apply to the National Guard when under the control of state governors.
The Act was designed to prevent the federal government from using the military as a domestic police force, traditionally reserved for civilian law enforcement under state and local control. The Posse Comitatus Act was a reaction to the military’s role in enforcing Reconstruction policies in the post-Civil War South.
The Insurrection Act: A Narrow Exception
The Insurrection Act, enacted in 1807, provides the president with limited authority to deploy troops within the United States in specific situations, such as to suppress insurrection, domestic violence, or rebellion. However, it is not a free pass.
The Insurrection Act can only be invoked when: a state’s governor requests federal help to restore order; there is an obstruction of law that the state is unable to manage; or civil rights are being suppressed, and the state is either unable or unwilling to protect them. Even then, the use of the military must be carefully controlled and is subject to legal and political scrutiny. In most cases involving unrest or emergencies, governors control the use of the National Guard within their states. Federalizing these forces without the governor’s consent is rare and highly controversial.
However, even under the Insurrection Act, unless a state requests federal assistance or meets the criteria under the Act, the federal government, including the president, has no standing to send active-duty military forces into a state to perform policing functions. It is not a tool for casual or politically motivated interventions. Deploying troops to Los Angeles without California’s consent would be seen as a violation of the state’s sovereignty and could provoke legal and political challenges.
Historical Precedent and Political Ramifications
Presidential deployment of military forces on US soil has occurred rarely and usually under extraordinary circumstances. In 1957, President Eisenhower sent federal troops to enforce school desegregation in Little Rock, Arkansas, after state authorities defied federal court orders. In 1992, President George H.W. Bush invoked the Insurrection Act to deploy federal troops during the Los Angeles riots, but only after California Governor Pete Wilson requested federal assistance.
Any attempt to bypass these precedents today would likely be viewed as executive overreach, provoke intense political backlash, and potentially be challenged in court.
Constitutional Protections
The US Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, offers strong protections to citizens against the use of force by the federal government. The First Amendment protects free speech, assembly, and protest. The Fourth Amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. Both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee due process before the government can deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property. Using the military against peaceful protestors or civilians risks escalating tensions and undermining public trust in both the government and military institutions.
Civil-Military Norms and Traditions
The US has a deeply embedded norm of civilian control of the military. American military leaders are trained to avoid involvement in domestic law enforcement, and many have spoken out against inappropriate uses of military forces on American soil.
For instance, in 2020, top military officials, including the Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, expressed concerns over using the military in response to civil unrest following the death of George Floyd. They were actually asked by then-President Donald Trump if they could “shoot protestors in the leg.” The answer was, “No.” These moments underscore the military’s commitment to staying out of domestic politics and internal security, except under the most extreme and legally justified conditions.
Alternatives to Military Force
Domestic law enforcement in the US is primarily the responsibility of civilian agencies at the local, state, and federal levels. Police departments, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and other agencies are trained and legally equipped to handle civil disturbances and enforce laws.
The military, by contrast, is trained for combat, not for policing. Deploying soldiers trained for warfare in civilian spaces can lead to escalation, not resolution.
Los Angeles 2025
The protests began following raids by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) across Los Angeles on June 6, which resulted in the arrest of at least 44 individuals. These operations targeted various locations, including a clothing warehouse, Home Depot parking lots, and a doughnut shop, leading to demonstrations that escalated into confrontations between protesters and law enforcement. While many of the protests remained peaceful, some incidents of vandalism and assaults on officers were reported.
Without the request, and against the strong objections of California Governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, President Trump ordered the deployment of approximately 700 US Marines to Los Angeles, along with 4,000 National Guard troops on June 9. Both the governor and the mayor argue that the deployment is an overreach of federal power and an unnecessary escalation of tensions.
The situation remains fluid, with protests continuing in Los Angeles and other cities across the country. The federal deployment is expected to last for 60 days, at an estimated cost of $134 million, covering expenses such as travel, housing, and food for the troops. As the legal challenges proceed and public scrutiny intensifies, the balance between federal authority and state rights continues to be a central issue in this unfolding crisis.
The Bottom Line
The president does not have blanket authority to deploy the US military to cities like Los Angeles. The idea of deploying the US military against its own citizens is not just controversial; it is largely prohibited by longstanding laws and core democratic principles. American history, legal frameworks, and constitutional values have all converged to ensure that the military does not become a domestic policing force. Attempting to bypass laws would not only be unlawful but also a profound threat to the norms of American governance.
Photo Credit: California National Guard by The National Guard. Licensed under CC BY 2.0
Lara Kajs is the founder and executive director of The Genocide Report, an NGO nonprofit organization in Washington, DC. She is the author of Assad’s Syria, and Stories from Yemen: A Diary from the Field, available in e-book, paperback, and hardcover at Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Apple Books, and independent bookstores worldwide. Distributed by Ingram. Ms. Kajs frequently speaks about atrocity crimes, forced displacement, and International Humanitarian Law (IHL). Follow and connect with Lara Kajs on Facebook, Instagram, X, LinkedIn, and Bluesky.