#10thamendment

A constitutional crisis in plain sight

In June 2025, President Trump ordered the deployment of over 4,000 federalized National Guard troops and 700 Marines into Los Angeles to respond to immigration protests and so-called sanctuary resistance.

But here’s what makes this historic and deeply troubling:

He did it without invoking the Insurrection Act—and against the will of California’s governor. That combination of unchecked executive action has set off alarms across the legal and military communities.

⸻

Why This Should Terrify Everyone

1. The 10th Amendment Was Ignored

The 10th Amendment gives states power over internal matters not assigned to the federal government—including control over their own National Guard. Normally, a president can only federalize a state’s Guard with the governor’s consent, unless the state is in full rebellion.

Governor Newsom explicitly rejected Trump’s action—and yet Trump seized control anyway. This is a direct attack on state sovereignty and the balance of powers built into the Constitution.

⸻

2. He Used Title 10, But Skipped the Insurrection Act (And That’s a Big Problem)

Trump cited 10 U.S. Code § 12406 to federalize the National Guard, claiming the state was not enforcing immigration law adequately. But he did not invoke the Insurrection Act, which is the only legal pathway for deploying federal troops—like active-duty Marines—for domestic enforcement.

Here’s why that matters:

🔸 Under the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S. Code § 1385), federal military forces—like the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines—cannot be used for domestic law enforcement unless authorized by law.

🔸 The only law that allows this is the Insurrection Act (10 U.S. Code §§ 251–255). It must be formally invoked and justified in writing.

Trump didn’t do that.

Yet, Marines were deployed in Los Angeles to support operations near protests, under the justification of “protecting federal buildings.” This makes their presence legally questionable and constitutionally dangerous.

Even “non-enforcement” roles—like guarding property—can still be considered an unlawful “show of force” if they intimidate civilians or suppress protest rights. Courts have recognized this distinction in past rulings.

⚠️ In short:

You cannot deploy active-duty Marines on American streets unless you formally declare a legal emergency. Trump didn’t.

That makes this more than political theater—it’s a breach of the legal firewall between military and civilian life, and potentially a violation of federal law.

And here’s where the historical irony comes in:

Past presidents have used the Insurrection Act—with full transparency—when conditions truly warranted it:

• Eisenhower used it to desegregate schools in Little Rock.

• George H.W. Bush used it during the 1992 L.A. riots.

• Even George Washington used federal forces during the Whiskey Rebellion.

They followed the law—even when the politics were hard.

Trump didn’t.

Why? Maybe because the Insurrection Act requires documentation, justification, and oversight.

And if there’s one thing Trump avoids, it’s legal process and accountability.

That’s not leadership.

That’s dictator behavior—bypassing legal structures to do what he wants, when he wants, no matter the cost.

⸻

“They’re Just Protecting Federal Buildings”?

One common defense is: “They’re only there to protect federal property.”

But even this raises red flags.

🔸 Under the Posse Comitatus Act, military troops cannot engage in domestic law enforcement unless the Insurrection Act is invoked.

🔸 Simply stationing troops in protest-heavy civilian zones is often viewed as a “show of force”—which courts have said can be illegal if it chills public expression or suppresses dissent.

As one veteran put it:

“I am deeply concerned about a president clearing a path through peaceful protesters for a photo-op… The U.S. military should never be used to violate the constitutional rights of fellow citizens.” -Admiral Mike Mullen (former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff)

⸻

Service Members Are Now at Risk

This isn’t just a constitutional crisis. It’s a legal trap for the very troops being deployed.

Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ):

• Article 90: Makes it a crime to disobey a lawful order.

• Article 92: Makes it a crime to obey an unlawful order.

That means if these troops believe the order to deploy without proper legal authority is unconstitutional, they could be punished for following it—or for refusing it. They are now caught in a no-win scenario.

“Just following orders” is not a defense if the order is found unlawful.

⸻

Real People Are Asking the Right Questions

From online comments and veterans’ groups to constitutional scholars, Americans are sounding the alarm. Here are just a few questions people are raising:

1. Isn’t it illegal to use the military against civilians?

Yes—unless the Insurrection Act is invoked. It wasn’t.

2. How is immigration enforcement a rebellion?

It’s not. California was enforcing its laws. There was no uprising.

3. Can a president override a governor like this?

Not without extraordinary legal cause. Trump’s action is unprecedented.

4. Where was this urgency on January 6?

Trump refused to send in the National Guard when the Capitol was under attack—but is quick to send them now over peaceful protests?

5. Are these troops protecting property, or threatening people?

Without accountability, their presence functions as intimidation—not protection.

6. What if Biden did this to Texas?

Imagine the outrage. That’s the constitutional test: would your stance change if the roles were reversed?

⸻

What’s Really at Stake

This isn’t just about immigration. It’s about:

• Executive overreach

• Undermining federalism

• Militarizing domestic policy

• And putting American troops and civilians in harm’s way—legally and morally

This moment isn’t politics as usual.

It’s the creeping edge of authoritarianism dressed up as national security.

⸻

Final Thought

Trump bypassed the legal path, ignored state sovereignty, and placed troops in the streets without constitutional authority—all while skipping the one law that could’ve made it legal: the Insurrection Act.

Why?

Because that law comes with guardrails. With transparency. With limits.

And Trump has shown—time and time again—that he prefers power without limits.

This isn’t strength.

The Trump Admin. says “to hell with states rights” when it comes to states doing what Trump doesn’t like