The deployment of the National Guard by President Donald Trump in Los Angeles in 2025, against the wishes of California Governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, has sparked significant controversy and drawn comparisons to historical instances of federal-state conflict. By examining the actions of Newsom and Bass alongside historical figures like Jefferson Davis, Orval Faubus in 1957, and George H.W. Bush in 1993, we evaluate whether Trump’s actions to address unrest in California align with legal precedent for suppressing insurrection and whether the Newsom administration’s resistance constitutes unconstitutional obstruction. This comparison highlights the complex interplay of federal and state authority, constitutional law, and the use of military force in domestic crises.
The Insurrection Act of 1807 was created to address the young nation’s vulnerability to internal threats and to ensure the federal government could maintain order and enforce its laws. The Burr Conspiracy highlighted the potential for individuals or groups to destabilize the republic, while earlier rebellions like Shays’ and Whiskey underscored the limitations of state-controlled militias. Congress sought to empower the president to act decisively in cases of insurrection, rebellion, or domestic violence, balancing federal authority with respect for state sovereignty.
By establishing a legal framework for federal intervention, the Insurrection Act reinforced the supremacy of federal law and the government’s responsibility to protect constitutional order.
Jefferson Davis, as president of the Confederate States of America from 1861 to 1865, represents a stark example of resistance to federal authority. Davis led a secessionist movement that sought to dismantle the Union, directly challenging the U.S. Constitution and federal sovereignty. His actions precipitated the Civil War, a clear insurrection against the United States, which prompted President Abraham Lincoln to use federal military forces to preserve the Union. The Insurrection Act of 1807, which authorizes the president to deploy federal troops to suppress rebellion, was implicitly invoked to justify Union military actions against Confederate states. Davis’s defiance was not merely a refusal to comply with federal orders but an attempt to establish a rival government, constituting a direct and unambiguous violation of constitutional order.
The relevance of Davis to the current situation lies in the scale of his resistance. His actions were deemed treasonous because they sought to overthrow federal authority entirely. In contrast, Newsom and Bass have not sought to secede or establish a rival government but have publicly criticized and resisted Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to address protests in Los Angeles, which were sparked by federal immigration raids. Newsom called the deployment “purposefully inflammatory,” and Bass has similarly opposed federal intervention, arguing it escalates tensions. While their resistance is vocal and public, it lacks the existential threat to federal authority posed by Davis, making the comparison to his actions exaggerated in scope.
A more relevant historical parallel is Orval Faubus, the Arkansas governor who, in 1957, deployed the Arkansas National Guard to prevent nine Black students from integrating Central High School in Little Rock, defying the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown v. Board of Education (1954). Faubus’s actions were a direct challenge to federal authority, as he used state-controlled forces to obstruct a federal court order. President Dwight Eisenhower responded by federalizing the Arkansas National Guard under Executive Order 10730 and deploying 1,000 troops from the 101st Airborne Division to enforce desegregation. Faubus’s refusal to comply with federal law was deemed an insurrectionary act, as it sought to nullify constitutional protections and federal judicial authority. Eisenhower’s use of the Insurrection Act was widely seen as a lawful exercise of presidential power to uphold federal law and maintain order.
Newsom’s and Bass’s resistance to Trump’s National Guard deployment shares some similarities with Faubus’s actions. Like Faubus, they have publicly opposed federal intervention in a state or local matter, arguing that it undermines local governance and escalates unrest. Newsom’s statement on X, challenging Trump’s border czar and asserting his commitment to “stand up for California,” echoes Faubus’s defiance of federal overreach. However, key differences exist. Faubus actively used the National Guard to block a federal court order, an overt act of obstruction. In contrast, Newsom and Bass have not deployed state forces to counter federal troops but have limited their resistance to public statements and political posturing. Their actions, while critical, do not rise to the level of actively obstructing federal law enforcement, as Faubus did. Furthermore, the 1957 crisis involved a clear constitutional violation (segregation), whereas the current unrest in Los Angeles stems from protests against federal immigration policies, a more ambiguous legal and political issue.
In 1992, President George H.W. Bush federalized the California National Guard to address the Los Angeles riots following the acquittal of police officers in the Rodney King beating case. Unlike the current situation, California Governor Pete Wilson requested federal assistance, and Bush’s deployment of 4,000 National Guard troops and 1,000 federal law enforcement officers was coordinated with state authorities. The action was authorized under the Insurrection Act, as the riots—marked by widespread looting, arson, and violence—threatened public safety and overwhelmed local and state resources. Bush’s use of federal authority was seen as a lawful response to a clear breakdown of order, with no significant state resistance.
Trump’s 2025 deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles, however, occurred without a request from Newsom or Bass, marking a rare instance of a president overriding state authority. Trump invoked Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which allows federalization of the National Guard in cases of “rebellion or danger of rebellion” against U.S. authority. The White House justified the deployment as a response to protests against federal immigration raids, labeling the unrest as potential insurrection. Critics, including Newsom and legal scholars like Elizabeth Goitein of the Brennan Center for Justice, have called this an abuse of power, arguing that protests do not necessarily constitute an insurrection. Unlike Bush’s coordinated effort, Trump’s unilateral action has heightened tensions with state and local leaders, drawing parallels to Eisenhower’s confrontation with Faubus rather than Bush’s cooperative approach.
The Insurrection Act of 1807 (10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255) grants the president broad authority to deploy federal troops or federalize the National Guard to suppress insurrections, rebellions, or domestic violence that obstructs federal law. Trump’s deployment in Los Angeles is legally grounded in this statute, particularly if the protests are deemed to threaten federal authority, such as by interfering with immigration enforcement. The Supreme Court has historically upheld broad presidential discretion under the Insurrection Act, as seen in cases like Ex parte Milligan (1866) and Moyer v. Peabody (1909), which affirm the executive’s power to act in emergencies. Trump’s use of Title 10 to federalize the National Guard aligns with Eisenhower’s actions in 1957 and Bush’s in 1992, suggesting a legal basis for his decision.
However, Newsom’s and Bass’s resistance does not clearly constitute unconstitutional obstruction. While they have criticized the deployment and refused to cooperate fully, they have not actively deployed state forces or taken legal action to block federal troops, as Faubus did. Their opposition is primarily political, expressed through public statements and media engagements. For example, Newsom’s provocative X post challenging Trump’s border czar and Bass’s calls for de-escalation reflect dissent but fall short of the active obstruction seen in Faubus’s mobilization of the National Guard. The Constitution’s Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes federal law as supreme, meaning states cannot legally obstruct federal actions authorized by Congress, such as those under the Insurrection Act. However, Newsom and Bass have not violated this principle in a manner comparable to Davis’s secession or Faubus’s direct defiance.
Comparing Newsom and Bass to Jefferson Davis and Orval Faubus overstates the severity of their actions. Davis’s leadership of the Confederacy was a treasonous rebellion, and Faubus’s use of the National Guard to defy a federal court order was a clear constitutional violation. In contrast, Newsom and Bass have engaged in political opposition to Trump’s National Guard deployment, criticizing it as inflammatory but not actively obstructing federal operations with state resources. Their actions align more closely with rhetorical resistance than with the overt defiance of federal authority seen in 1861 or 1957.
George H.W. Bush’s 1992 deployment offers a partial parallel, as it involved federalizing the National Guard in Los Angeles, but the cooperative nature of that intervention contrasts sharply with Trump’s unilateral action in 2025. Trump’s use of the Insurrection Act appears legally defensible, given the statute’s broad scope and historical precedent, but the characterization of protests as an “insurrection” is contentious and lacks the clarity of the Little Rock crisis or the Civil War. Newsom’s and Bass’s resistance, while vocal, does not meet the threshold of unconstitutional obstruction, as they have not taken concrete steps to impede federal operations beyond public criticism.
Ultimately, Trump’s deployment is within his legal authority, but its legitimacy depends on whether the unrest in Los Angeles genuinely constitutes an insurrection—a determination that remains debated. Newsom and Bass, while challenging federal overreach, have not crossed into unconstitutional territory, as their actions are primarily political rather than operational. The comparison to historical figures like Davis and Faubus highlights the gravity of past federal-state conflicts but also underscores the distinct nature of the current dispute, which is rooted in political theater as much as in legal principle.
Editorial comments expressed in this column are the sole opinion of the writer.
