#title 10

Olivia Troye at Olivia of Troye:

I've seen the signs abroad, in intelligence briefings, crisis war rooms, and inside Trump's White House. The raids in Los Angeles weren’t about immigration. They were a televised warning, a declaration not just of Trump’s return to power, but of his intent to rule by force. Days after the raids sparked protests, Trump deployed 2,000 National Guard troops, claiming they were needed “to ensure law and order.” White House hardliners like Stephen Miller are branding demonstrators “insurrectionists,” deliberately reframing peaceful action as criminal uprising. Then Trump escalated again: dispatching more Guard units and U.S. Marines. Secretary Pete Hegseth stated during Congressional questioning today that the Guard troops will be there for sixty days, costing taxpayers $134 million. When your government is acting lawlessly, it’s the height of hypocrisy to accuse the American people of disorder. Trump keeps invoking “order” while operating outside the very boundaries of our Constitution. And now, we brace for the next act: a military parade in Washington, D.C.—funded, staged, and weaponized by a White House that dreams of autocracy. Let’s call this what it is. These aren’t isolated incidents. They’re steps in a sequence. The mass ICE raids, the armored vehicles, the media spectacle, they were the rehearsal. The parade is the performance. Martial law is no longer theoretical. It's coming. Trump’s obsession with parades dates back to his first term. I was there. He envied strongmen who stood before tanks and troops, not as symbols of service, but of personal power. Ask anyone in South Korea what it feels like to watch a North Korean military parade: the missiles, the precision marching, the unspoken threat: We can unleash this on you. That’s not theater. That’s control. That’s not speculation; that’s exactly how North Korea uses these parades to control its population and project dominance abroad. That’s the template Trump is following. The parade in Washington, D.C. isn’t about honoring the military. It’s about flexing it. While the Army’s 250th birthday celebration was long scheduled, Trump announced plans to hijack the event, conveniently timed to his own 79th birthday, and turn it into a full-blown military showcase. Sixty-ton M1 Abrams tanks and Paladin howitzers are now set to roll through D.C. "No Kings" counter-protests are planned nationwide, with a mass march to the White House expected on Saturday. Officials worry that clashes in L.A. could spread to D.C. or other cities. That’s the climate being engineered: confrontation by design.  This parade isn’t symbolic. It’s strategic. It’s meant to normalize the military’s presence in civilian life, to blend uniforms with political power. This isn’t optics. It’s indoctrination. Again, this was never just about immigration. It’s about conditioning the public to comply. Making people too afraid to question authority. The raids didn’t just detain undocumented individuals. They terrorized entire communities. And Trump’s crackdown on protest was meant to instill fear—of speaking, of gathering, of being seen.

It’s a line we were never meant to cross. Legal scholars are sounding alarms over Trump’s expanded use of Title 10 powers, federalizing troops without state consent to suppress protest. It’s a direct threat to the balance of power between states and the presidency, and it blurs the lines between civil governance and military rule.  This isn’t paranoia. It’s a blueprint. Once the public gets comfortable with militarization, it’s easier to justify curfews, surveillance, emergency powers, and martial law. U.S. Marines are no longer just on standby, they’re being deployed. These are troops trained for combat, not crowd control, now backing federal operations on American soil. This isn’t public safety. It’s a message: stay in line, or else. I’ve deployed with the military. I’ve stood alongside troops overseas whose mission was to defend this country, not be turned against it. There is no foreign enemy on our shores. We are not in a war zone. What’s unfolding is a domestic power grab. Authoritarian regimes use troops to silence their people. Democracies train them to protect people. That distinction is vanishing. And if we let it vanish now, we may never reclaim it.

[...] Protest is powerful when it robs the strongman of his narrative. So protest with purpose. Don’t become the story Trump wants. If you go to D.C. on June 14, or attend a counter-protest elsewhere, be peaceful. Be disciplined. Bad actors are looking to exploit this moment. Trump’s people are hoping they succeed. Bring your flag. Bring the banner of your cause, your heritage, your identity. But bring the American flag, too. Own it. This is your country, too. It always has been. Don’t let MAGA extremists twist your presence into propaganda. Be proud. Be peaceful. Be unmistakably American! We cannot afford to freeze in fear. We must move in defiance.

Olivia of Troye is right: The ICE Raids in Los Angeles and the protests that subsequently followed it were provoked by the Trump Regime’s obsession for control over the American citizens in a bid to try to invoke martial law.

See Also:

Steven Beschloss at America, America:

I rarely publish on Sunday, but I realized this story could not wait until Monday. Yesterday evening Donald Trump called for 2,000 National Guard troops to confront protestors in Los Angeles County, a move that seriously and dangerously escalates the conflict over his mass deportation agenda. This is exactly what Trump wanted. California Gov. Gavin Newsom called the federal action “purposefully inflammatory” and said that it would “only escalate tensions.” The governor also noted this deployment of soldiers is “not because there is a shortage of law enforcement, but because they want a spectacle.” This followed two days of protests, in which police clad in riot gear fired tear gas and flash-bang grenades to quell the dissent after dozens of migrants were detained by ICE agents. David Huerta, the president of the Service Employees International Union who was reportedly observing and documenting the ICE activity, was pushed to the ground, arrested and subsequently taken to the hospital to treat a head injury. To pursue this federalizing escalation and take control of California’s National Guard, Trump invoked Title 10 of the U.S. Code on Armed Services. According to Title 10, this is permissible when the U.S. is invaded or in danger of invasion, there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the government's authority, or the president is unable to execute the law “with regular forces.” Trump’s directive yesterday stated, “To the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.” Note the words: “a form of rebellion.” And note the further escalation by Defense Secretary and Trump sycophant Pete Hegseth who posted this on social media: “The DeptofDefense is mobilizing the National Guard IMMEDIATELY to support federal law enforcement in Los Angeles. And, if violence continues, active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton will also be mobilized—they are on high alert.”

Gov. Newsom’s response: “The Secretary of Defense is now threatening to deploy active-duty Marines on American soil against its own citizens. This is deranged behavior.” Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass’ response to the federal actions: "These tactics sow terror in our communities and disrupt basic principles of safety in our city.” The American Civil Liberties Union also commented on the decision to federalize National Guard troops. “By taking this action, the Trump administration is putting Angelenos in danger, creating legal and ethical jeopardy for troops, and recklessly undermining our foundational democratic principle that the military should not police civilians,” said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project. To be clear, violent protest plays into the Trump regime’s hands; this is a time that calls for non-violent civil disobedience against a hostile government that is bent on implementing a police state with the use of our military.

The current confrontation is exactly what Trump wanted and promised. Recall his comments in October during the campaign: “I think the bigger problem is the enemy from within…We have some very bad people. We have some sick people, radical left lunatics…and it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military, because they can’t let that happen.” [...]

Next week, on June 14, when Trump will be despicably parading massive military force in the streets of Washington, every American who rejects this despotic regime has an opportunity to peacefully protest in the “No Kings” demonstrations across America. This act of defiance could not be more democratic and American.

The situation in LA is being escalated by the Trump Regime just so he can enact a Reichstag Fire excuse to trample on our freedoms.

See Also:

The Guardian: US national guard arrive in Los Angeles after protests over immigration raids

AP, via HuffPost: National Guard Troops Arrive In Los Angeles On Trump's Orders To Quell Immigration Protests

Judd Legum at Popular Information:

For years, President Trump has dreamed of mobilizing the military against protesters in the United States. On Saturday night, Trump made it a reality, ordering the deployment of 2,000 members of the California National Guard — against the wishes of state and local officials — in response to protests against federal immigration raids on workplaces in and around Los Angeles. By the time Trump issued the order, the protests consisted of a few dozen people at a Home Depot. The move violated longstanding democratic norms that prohibit military deployment on American soil absent extraordinary circumstances. The last time the National Guard was mobilized absent a request from local officials was in 1965 — to protect civil rights protesters in Alabama marching from Selma to Montgomery. Trump strongly advocated for using the military to quell racial justice protests in the summer of 2020. He encouraged governors to deploy the National Guard to "dominate" the streets. "If a city or state refuses to take the actions necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them," Trump said. Behind the scenes, Trump was even more ruthless. According to a 2022 memoir by former Defense Secretary Mark Esper, Trump asked Esper if the military could shoot at people protesting George Floyd's murder. "Can't you just shoot them?" Trump allegedly asked. "Just shoot them in the legs or something?" On another occasion that summer, according to a book by journalist Michael Bender, Trump announced that he was putting Army General Mark Milley, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in charge of quelling the protests. This reportedly led to a shouting match:

["I said you're in f---ing charge!" Trump shouted at him. "Well, I'm not in charge!" Milley yelled back. "You can't f---ing talk to me like that!" Trump said. … "Goddamnit," Milley said to others. "There's a room full of lawyers here. Will someone inform him of my legal responsibilities?"]

The lawyers, including Attorney General Bill Barr, sided with Milley, and Trump's demand was tabled. (Trump called Bender's book "fake news.")

[...]

Were there "violent mobs"?

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump's mobilization of the National Guard was necessary because "violent mobs have attacked ICE Officers and Federal Law Enforcement Agents carrying out basic deportation operations in Los Angeles, California." Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the National Guard would "support federal law enforcement in Los Angeles" in response to "violent mob assaults on ICE and Federal Law Enforcement." These claims were directly contradicted by the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), which described Saturday's protests as "peaceful." [...] Trump's order, however, says the unrest in California is so severe it constitutes "a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States" that necessitates the mobilization of military personnel. Although any violence and property destruction is a serious matter, local law enforcement appears fully capable of responding to the situation. [...]

Trump's unusual legal theory

The Posse Comitatus Act generally prohibits using the military for domestic law enforcement without specific statutory (or Constitutional) authority. The most famous exception to the Posse Comitatus Act is the Insurrection Act, which permits the President to deploy the military for domestic law enforcement under specific circumstances. But, historically, the Insurrection Act has "been reserved for extreme circumstances in which there are no other alternatives to maintain the peace." It also requires the president to issue a proclamation ordering "the insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a limited time." Trump, however, invoked a different federal law, 10 U.S.C. 12406. That provision lacks some of the legal and historical baggage of the Insurrection Act, but it also confers a more limited authority. That is why Trump's proclamation authorizes the National Guard to "temporarily protect ICE and other United States Government personnel who are performing Federal functions, including the enforcement of Federal law, and to protect Federal property, at locations where protests against these functions are occurring or are likely to occur." In other words, the National Guard is not authorized to engage in law enforcement activities, but to protect others doing that work. It remains to be seen whether the administration will respect these limitations in practice. [...] Trump's order mobilizing the National Guard, however, likely inflamed tensions — and that may have been the point. Federal and state authorities clashed with protesters in downtown LA on Sunday afternoon. Law enforcement "used smoke and pepper spray to disperse protesters outside a federal detention center in downtown Los Angeles," according to the Los Angeles Times.

The crisis that we’re seeing in LA the last few days was engineered by the Trump Regime’s obsession for control.

See Also:

Jamelle Bouie at The New York Times on how Donald "TACO" Trump aspires to be a strongman, but is in reality a weak man who chickens out (06.11.2025).

Jay Kuo at The Status Kuo:

A long anticipated showdown begins today in a California federal courtroom. Gov. Gavin Newsom of California has challenged the right of President Trump to deploy federal troops over ICE protests in Los Angeles. The White House argues that the deployment is proper to help quell rebellion against the federal government.

At issue is the Posse Comitatus Act. I’ve written about this at length before, but in sum, the Act criminalizes the use of federal armed forces to conduct civilian law enforcement. Newsom argues that there was no legal exception to Posse Comitatus here, and therefore their deployment is illegal. The White House claims the troops aren’t conducting law enforcement activities, and that no civil suit enforcement mechanism is legally authorized. Perhaps in anticipation of that argument, Newsom also argues that Trump violated the Tenth Amendment, which reserves to the states all powers not expressly given to the federal government or prohibited to the States. Policing is usually considered a core use of state power. He also argues that the White House violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because the Secretary of Defense neither consulted Newsom nor issued the orders to deploy the National Guard through him, as required by statute. We have a clearer sense than earlier of the parties’ precise legal arguments going into this three-day bench trial. I’ll walk through them and discuss various strengths and vulnerabilities. Then I’ll zoom out and lay out the national stakes and why history is a very strange guide for the federal and state arguments at issue in this case. [...]

Even if there was police action, it’s allowed, argues the White House

Trump’s attorneys argue that the National Guard was federalized and deployed under a little-known and rarely used law, codified at Title 10 Section 12406(3). That law permits the federalization of the National Guard in three specific cases:

If the US is being invaded or faces danger of invasion;

If there is a rebellion or danger of rebellion; or

If the president is unable “with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”

The federal government attorneys argued that, as a matter of law, Trump was within his rights to federalize and deploy the California National Guard and that the case should be dismissed. But the judge hearing the case, Judge Charles Breyer of the Northern District of California (who is the brother of former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer), wasn’t buying it. He found the protests in Los Angeles “fall far short of ‘rebellion’” and declared in an order setting the bench trial, “Next week’s trial is not cancelled.” Further, as California points out, under the very terms of the law the Trump White House is trying to rely on, it didn’t follow the required procedures. Specifically, Secretary of Defense Hegseth and the Department of Defense were required by law to issue orders federalizing the National Guard through Governor Newsom. That Section clearly states,

[Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the State…]

But Newsom had neither consented to the actions nor was consulted on any troop deployment. Because the APA allows courts to “hold unlawful and set aside agency action” that is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law,” that is “contrary to constitutional right (or) power,” or that is “in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right,” the Court, California argues, can undo the illegal order entirely, declare it null and void, and order the remaining troops to depart.

The national stakes of the case are high

Only some 300 National Guard soldiers remain in Los Angeles. They are currently stationed at the Joint Forces Training Base in Los Alamitos. Newsom argues that they are “without a clear mission, direction, or a timeline for returning to their communities.” Sending them home would change nothing on the ground, where there haven’t been mass protests since June. But the outcome of the case could carry far larger constitutional ramifications. By the time it reaches SCOTUS, the matter could well define the limits, or lack thereof, for the use of federal troops in civilian law enforcement.

Just today, there are new reports that Trump will “take over” the D.C. police and deploy the National Guard to the streets of Washington D.C. in response to alleged “high crime levels.” There is no evidence that crime levels in D.C. are on the rise (as Hillary Clinton immediately pointed out, they are at 30–year low). This despite a much publicized carjacking and supposed assault in D.C., allegedly perpetrated by a juvenile boy and girl from Maryland on a well known DOGE coder known simply as “Big Balls.” (Yes, this is the absurd timeline we are stuck in, and that sure sounds like a false flag op if it’s not just wild coincidence.) Again, I should emphasize that there are already plenty of police within D.C, and neither the mayor of D.C. nor its police chief has asked for any federal help with crime control. Nor is the National Guard trained to conduct crime control as Trump wants them to. Still, Trump still seeks to maintain a troop presence, in part as a distraction from the Epstein files scandal, but also in furtherance of his goal of establishing a permanent police state, starting apparently with D.C.

But deploying the military to conduct basic police matters could backfire badly. It fundamentally misunderstands how military officers and soldiers see their mission and purpose, which is to defend the national security of the country against foreign enemies, not to be local cops. The move will likely not put Trump and Secretary Hegseth in better standing with the troops or broader military leadership. The move mirrors what the Justice Department has done with the FBI and what DHS has done even within ICE itself. Those agencies have reassigned officers primarily to civilian immigration enforcement, moving them from crime interdiction and causing a huge drop in morale and confusion over their mission. The misuse of federal troops as a stand-in for civilian law enforcement will also likely cause grumblings and pushback within the military and a fall in morale.

The military isn’t some black box that Trump can wind up and deploy. His record with getting the military to do what he wants is already quite spotty, as his recent sad military parade, complete with trudging soldiers showing lackluster enthusiasm, demonstrated to the world. The problem will only grow more acute as untrained and unprofessional new ICE agents multiply in number, recruited in large measure from political right-wing fringe and local law enforcement looking to earn big sign-on bonuses. The military will be asked to provide back up for these unseasoned federal agents even as they terrorize innocent people over the color of their skin. It’s not clear that is a sustainable program.

California is the first of many challenges for Trump’s police state, with D.C. and “sanctuary cities” such as New York City likely next up. The more the public stands up to and rejects the presence of permanent troops on the streets, the more likely the military command will recall their oaths to the Constitution and hesitate to pass along the President’s orders unconditionally. This means that in the coming weeks and months, as federal troops begin to be deployed to our cities, our voices of dissent and protest will be more crucial than ever. They must grow loud enough for the military to understand, with no uncertainty, that the people do not assent to their presence as a posse comitatus, or to their use to intimidate and squelch democratic opposition to the Trump regime.

This week, a trial is being held to determine whether the Trump Regime had clear intent to violate the Posse Comitatus Act by deploying federal troops to Los Angeles to quell ICE protests without Gov. Gavin Newsom (D)’s consent.

See Also:

Brandi Buchman at HuffPost:

As protests continue to flare in Los Angeles over the Trump administration carrying out immigration raids and deploying National Guard troops to the area, President Donald Trump has floated the idea of invoking the Insurrection Act over objections from California’s governor and the mayor of LA. Invoking the Insurrection Act, which generally gives the president the authority to quell rebellion or unrest by deploying the military, would be an escalation of the administration’s actions so far in California. On Saturday, Trump deployed at least 300 National Guard troops to downtown Los Angeles after thousands of protesters took to the streets. They largely concentrated themselves in the city’s garment district, where federal agents had started conducting raids for undocumented workers on Friday. According to the Department of Homeland Security, rioters assaulted multiple Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, “slashed tires, defaced buildings and taxpayer funded property,” the agency said in a statement on Saturday. (The agency also singled out several Democratic lawmakers, accusing them of “villainizing and demonizing” ICE agents.) Local news station KTLA reported Monday that at least five LAPD officers have been injured, requiring medical care. Six other officers experienced minor injuries that did require hospitalization. Many protesters were not violent nor particularly destructive, but some individuals lobbed rocks and fireworks at police, or set driverless cars on fire. Los Angeles police made roughly 150 arrests on Sunday, according to The New York Times. Law enforcement used flash-bangs and rubber bullets against protesters. During a live broadcast on Sunday, police hit a journalist in the leg with a rubber bullet. Trump signed a proclamation late Saturday that mobilized the Guard to respond to protests against the raids, claiming the demonstrations interfered with the “faithful execution of federal immigration laws.” As tensions escalated on Sunday, the Pentagon said it was prepared to send in at least 500 active U.S. Marines to Los Angeles.

Trump’s proclamation is not an invocation of the Insurrection Act but instead relies on Title 10, or 10 USC 12406, a federal code that allows him to wield his authority as president to federalize the National Guard but only under very limited circumstances. Those circumstances include: an actual foreign invasion or the threat of a foreign invasion, an actual or threatened rebellion against “the authority of the government of the United States,” or when the president is unable to executive the nation’s laws with “regular forces.” Before boarding Air Force One on Sunday, Trump was asked by reporters whether he intended to invoke the Insurrection Act outright.

[...] California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass have objected to the White House’s use of the National Guard, and Newsom has said he intends to sue the administration. Newsom called the move by Trump to federalize California’s National Guard “purposefully inflammatory.”

The Trump Regime has hinted at declaring an Insurrection Act over what has happened in Los Angeles.

See Also:

Daily Kos: Trump tries to turn California into a war zone as protesters fight back

The Status Quo (Jay Kuo): Trump Deployed the National Guard. But What Does That Mean?

Lauren Gambino, Maya Yang, and Diana Ramirez-Simon at The Guardian:

Donald Trump on Saturday authorized the deployment of 2,000 national guard troops to Los Angeles, after an immigration crackdown erupted into mass protests for a second day and police in riot gear used teargas on bystanders. The California governor, Gavin Newsom, said in a statement on X that the federal government was “moving to take over” the California national guard. Newsom said the mobilization was “purposefully inflammatory” and warned that it would “only escalate tensions”. “The federal government is taking over the California National Guard and deploying 2,000 soldiers in Los Angeles — not because there is a shortage of law enforcement, but because they want a spectacle,” he said later. “Don’t give them one.” The defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, wrote on X that national guard troops were being mobilized “IMMEDIATELY” and threatened to send “active duty Marines” if the unrest continued. Tensions this week started on Friday, when protesters clashed with law enforcement officials conducting immigration raids on multiple locations in the city’s downtown. On Saturday, US immigration authorities extended enforcement action into Paramount, a majority Latino area south-east of Los Angeles, and were met with more protests outside an industrial park. In an hours-long standoff, border patrol personnel in riot gear and gas masks stood guard outside the park, deploying teargas as bystanders and protesters gathered on medians and across the street, some jeering at authorities while recording the event on smartphones.

“Ice out of Paramount. We see you for what you are,” a woman announced through a megaphone. “You are not welcome here.” One handheld sign said: “No Human Being is Illegal.” Law enforcement personnel and protesters mostly stayed at a distance, kicking teargas canisters back and forth amid streams of white gas. Among several hundred protesters, a handful were bloodied by projectiles. More than a dozen people were arrested and accused of impeding immigration agents, according to the US attorney’s office for the central district of California. A Los Angeles sheriff’s department spokesperson said ​their office arrested t​wo individuals ​for assault​ing an officer, that one demonstrator threw a molotov cocktail, and that three deputies had been struck, with minor injuries.​ The sheriff’s office said the department “was focused solely on traffic management and crowd control​” and was not involved in any federal law enforcement operations.

By Saturday evening, protests in Paramount had dwindled from their peak on Saturday afternoon, but some protesters and authorities were engaged in a tense standoff. Protesters had also gathered in nearby Compton, amid reports that a few were hurling glass bottles at police, and police were deploying teargas. On its end, the Trump administration moved aggressively. The White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt on Saturday evening accused California’s Democratic leaders of having “completely abdicated their responsibility to protect their citizens”. “The Trump Administration has a zero tolerance policy for criminal behavior and violence, especially when that violence is aimed at law enforcement officers trying to do their jobs,” she said in a statement, announcing that Trump had signed a memo late Saturday night ordering the national guard deployment. The memo asserts that the demonstrations impeded “execution of laws” and therefore “constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States”. Trump, according to the memo, federalized the state’s national guard troops under what is known as Title 10 authority, which places them under federal, rather than state, control. Newsom said there was no such need. On Saturday afternoon, he made assurances that the Los Angeles police department was available to authorities and that his administration was in close contact with city and county officials. “There is currently no unmet need,” he said.

[...] Advocates for immigrant rights say people were also detained outside Home Depot stores and a doughnut shop. During afternoon protests at a federal detention facility in downtown LA on Friday, David Huerta, the president of the California branch of the Service Employees International Union, was arrested amid a police response that included teargas and flash-bangs. Huerta, who was injured and detained, released a statement to the Los Angeles Times from the hospital, saying: “What happened to me is not about me. This is about something much bigger.” “This is about how we as a community stand together and resist the injustice that’s happening. Hard-working people, and members of our family and our community, are being treated like criminals. We all collectively have to object to this madness because this is not justice,” he added. DHS said in a statement that recent Ice operations in Los Angeles had resulted in the arrest of 118 immigrants.

California leaders were quick to condemn the raids. Bass said the activity was meant to “sow terror” in the nation’s second-largest city. “I am deeply angered by what has taken place,” Bass said. “These tactics sow terror in our communities and disrupt basic principles of safety in our city. We will not stand for this.” Newsom said: “Continued chaotic federal sweeps, across California, to meet an arbitrary arrest quota are as reckless as they are cruel. Donald Trump’s chaos is eroding trust, tearing families apart, and undermining the workers and industries that power America’s economy.” Newsom also condemned Huerta’s arrest, saying: “David Huerta is a respected leader, a patriot, and an advocate for working people. No one should ever be harmed for witnessing government action.”

The Trump Regime stamped on California’s states’ rights by deploying the National Guard (over Gov. Gavin Newsom’s objections) using Title 10 in a bid to quell dissent against the ICE Gestapo-caused riots in LA (Paramount, CA more specifically).

This is a very frightening trend towards Martial Law that the Trump Regime seeks to do in order to crush protests against 47. Blue states such as California may well consider secession or at least withhold federal taxes.

See Also:

Alix Breeden at Daily Kos:

President Donald Trump has deployed thousands of National Guard members and Marines to Los Angeles in an attempt to quell protests against ICE’s unconstitutional immigration raids.  And as protesters exercising their First Amendment rights are met with a sea of active military personnel, a question has popped up across the country: How much power does the U.S. military have against its own citizens? [...]

Under Title 10 USC 12406, the Trump administration can deploy active military units if the United States is being invaded by a foreign nation, if there is a rebellion against the government, or if Trump is unable to execute the law with regular law enforcement.

But it was actually Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth who tried to justify the use of this bypass maneuver by claiming that the protesters fit the justification for a “foreign invasion.”

Even so, without invoking the Insurrection Act, the military is supposed to be limited in what it can do. Then again, as Nunn told Daily Kos, when put in an active area of duress, the situation can quickly escalate.  “The administration has put forth this theory that is rooted in … protecting federal property,” he said. “Guarding federal property or protecting ICE agents still puts military personnel in a position where they could be interacting with civilians in a sort of law enforcement capacity, and that's, you know, legally dubious.”

In other words, military members may not be authorized to physically engage or arrest protesters without the Insurrection Act, but when directly placed in a situation where they may need to do so, the lines become blurred.