Protests in Los Angeles: Power struggle in California: What are Trump’s powers?

For the first time in decades, a US president has taken control of the national guard of a state without the consent of the governor there. The regular military also sent Donald Trump to Los Angeles because of the continuing protests against his migration policy. His procedure in the US state of California is not only extremely unusual – but also a legally controversial taboo break. What legal basics are important – and what could threaten next? Questions and answers at a glance:

What is the legal basis for Trump’s procedure?

Trump, citing the so -called Title 10 of the Code of the United States, took command of the National Guard in California. In the United States, states normally have control over the national guard. It is a military reserve unit and part of the US armed forces. Each state has its own national guard, which can be used in natural disasters, unrest or emergencies inside.

Trump supports the takeover of the command on the National Guard in California, among other things, on a determination of Title 10, which allows the president in the event of a “rebellion or the risk of a rebellion against the authority of the United States” to take control of the National Guard. He argues that the protests against the officers of the immigration authority are a rebellion against the federal government.

Trump’s step is extremely unusual. It is the first time since 1965 that the president seized without the consent of a governor of the national guard of a state. At that time, President Lyndon B. Johnson also used regular soldiers in addition to the national guard to protect the almost exclusively black demonstrators during the civil rights movement in the southern state of Alabama.

What are the powers of the National Guard and the Marine Fantrymen?

Trump also had 700 marine fans of the regular military sent to Los Angeles on Monday. Unlike the national guard, the regular military is always subject to the federal government. Unlike the National Guard, it is more responsible for warfare and national security.

It is unclear what legal foundations the US government is based on the step. However, the responsible regional command made very clear what the task of the naval fan fans: The soldiers are intended to support the already mobilized forces of the National Guard in protecting federal employees and ownership. This coincides with the assessments of experts on the powers of the National Guard – these are therefore currently limited.

According to the lawyers, the national guard can protect the officers or buildings of the immigration authority. However, they should not take normal law enforcement measures such as arrests or raids, writes the lawyer Stephen Vladeck from Georgetown University in the US capital Washington. Trump’s procedure in California nevertheless raises many legal questions – and should still employ the dishes for a while.

What would be the next escalation level?

In order for the national guard and probably the marine fans, Trump had to impose a kind of emergency right, and continue to apply a law known as an “Insurrection Act”. This law of 1807 allows the President in exceptional situations to use the military in Germany and to take part in law enforcement measures in order to restore public order. Under normal circumstances, this is not allowed in the United States. For example, President Johnson also took this step in 1965.

The last time “Insurrection Act” was used in 1992. At that time there was massive unrest in Los Angeles when police officers brutally beaten the black Rodney King and was then acquitted. Unlike today, however, the governor of California and the mayor of Los Angeles asked the then President George HW Bush for the support of the federal government.

Trump threatened during his first term during the protests against racism and police force after the death of African American George Floyd to activate the “Insurrection Act”. Even in the election campaign, he repeatedly spoke of wanting to apply the law, and did not rule this out now. He described the demonstrators in California as “insurrectionists” – in German, for example, insurgents or rebellions. On Monday, the Republican said that an uprising was prevented by the national guard.

What does the activation of the “Insurrection Act” mean?

In practice, the application of the emergency law should mean that the US military could also be used for law enforcement in California. The soldiers could then arrest demonstrators or carry out raids. The activation of the “Insurrection Act” would probably lead to another political and social division in the country, the situation should continue to escalate – nationwide protests would be expected.

“If the President uses the Insurrection Act, we will experience large legal disputes in the coming hours, days and weeks as to whether these far -reaching powers can be applied or not,” the “Los Angeles Times” quotes the lawyer Jessica Levinson from the Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. “Everyone should pause if the President uses an emergency powers and the governor and the mayor say: Please do not, we don’t need that.”