Thirty-three years after National Guard troops were deployed to restore order during the 1992 Los Angeles riots, the Guard has once again returned to the City of Angels—this time under drastically different circumstances and amid intense political controversy.

Since the National Guard was formally established under the Militia Act of 1903 and later strengthened by the National Defense Act of 1916, its primary role has been to support state and federal governments during emergencies and conflicts.

Over the years, most domestic activations of the Guard have involved responding to natural disasters or quelling civil unrest.

Dennis Quaid’s #1 Warning for Americans

Yet, despite the Guard’s utility, presidential federalization of the force—especially over a governor’s objections—remains a rarity.

One of the most memorable examples of such an activation came in 1992.

Following the acquittal of Los Angeles police officers in the brutal beating of Rodney King, the city erupted in one of the worst riots in American history.

At the joint request of California Republican Governor Pete Wilson and Democratic Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, President George H.W. Bush authorized the deployment of thousands of National Guard troops to help restore order.

The riots left dozens dead, more than 1,500 injured, and caused an estimated $500 million in property damage.

Fast-forward to this month: President Donald Trump ordered 2,000 California National Guard troops to deploy to Los Angeles in response to protests sparked by his administration’s immigration policies and federal immigration raids.

Unlike the 1992 deployment, Trump’s move was made over the objections of California’s Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom.

Notably, Trump did not invoke the Insurrection Act, as Bush had in 1992.

Instead, he used Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code, a legal provision allowing federal activation of the National Guard if there is “a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States” or if the President is otherwise unable to enforce federal law with regular forces.

Governor Newsom immediately objected to the deployment and made his opposition known both publicly and formally.

On June 8, he posted on X (formerly Twitter) a letter he sent to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, writing, “We didn’t have a problem until Trump got involved. This is a serious breach of state sovereignty — inflaming tensions while pulling resources from where they’re actually needed. Rescind the order. Return control to California.”

https://x.com/GavinNewsom/status/1931840646773715068

This unprecedented federal move—absent state consent—marks the first time in over 60 years that a U.S. president has activated the National Guard in defiance of a governor’s wishes.

Even in the devastating aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2006, President George W. Bush considered federalizing the Louisiana Guard but ultimately backed off when then-Governor Kathleen Blanco opposed the decision.

“There is not a governor in this country, four territories, or the mayor of Washington, D.C., who would give up control of the National Guard,” Blanco later stated in a Senate hearing.

“You absolutely have to have the law enforcement capacity of the Guard in these circumstances.”

California Attorney General Rob Bonta echoed that sentiment after Newsom filed a lawsuit against both Trump and Hegseth on June 9.

“There is no rebellion. The President is trying to manufacture chaos and crisis on the ground for his own political ends,” Bonta declared in a statement.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass reinforced that claim, telling CNN, “This is not citywide civil unrest taking place in Los Angeles. A few streets downtown — it looks horrible.”

She added that those engaging in vandalism would be prosecuted, but maintained that the situation did not merit federal military intervention.

Historically, presidential deployment of the National Guard has occurred in deeply consequential moments, often to enforce civil rights laws.

In 1957, President Dwight D. Eisenhower deployed federal troops to Little Rock, Arkansas, to enforce school integration.

In 1962 and 1963, President John F. Kennedy activated the National Guard to ensure integration at the University of Mississippi and University of Alabama, respectively—over the staunch resistance of segregationist governors.

In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson again federalized the Guard to protect peaceful civil rights marchers in Selma, Alabama.

The Guard was also mobilized during the 1967 Detroit uprising and again in 1968 after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., which sparked riots in cities across the nation.

Unlike those historic instances, the California National Guard’s current deployment does not fall under the Insurrection Act.

As such, The Washington Post reported, the troops are restricted from engaging in law enforcement activities such as immigration raids, arrests, or home searches.

Their presence in Los Angeles is limited to logistical and support roles.

Despite the legal framework for such action, Trump’s decision to override state authority has reignited a fierce debate over the limits of federal power, the sanctity of state sovereignty, and the proper role of the military in domestic affairs.

With court challenges now underway and political tensions running high, the deployment raises urgent questions not only about the legality of the action but also about the future balance of power between state and federal governments.