House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., recently weighed in on the discussion surrounding the potential deployment of U.S. Marines to control anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) riots in Los Angeles. Johnson defended Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s suggestion, stating that sending military support would not be a heavy-handed response. During an appearance on ABC’s “This Week,” Johnson endorsed actions taken by former President Donald Trump, such as the deployment of National Guard troops, arguing that federal laws need to be upheld amid increasing civil unrest in California. He criticized Governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass for their perceived failures in maintaining order and supported a federal response as a demonstration of leadership.
The conversation intensified as Johnson responded to Hegseth’s statements, which indicated that the Department of Defense was ready to mobilize the National Guard and potentially active-duty Marines if violence persisted. Johnson suggested that this military readiness could act as a deterrent, arguing that “peace through strength” principles apply domestically as well as internationally. ABC’s Jonathan Karl challenged him on whether sending Marines to American streets could be perceived as heavy-handed, but Johnson maintained that proactive measures are essential to discourage violence.
In response to Hegseth’s comments, Governor Newsom expressed concerns over the mention of deploying active-duty Marines to manage civil disobedience, branding such measures as “deranged behavior.” In a swift rebuttal, Hegseth countered that law enforcement should not be subjected to attacks during protests meant to voice grievances. His remarks highlighted a broader narrative regarding the relationship between federal agents and criminal elements, characterizing ongoing protests as attacks on law enforcement by individuals attempting to prevent the deportation of dangerous illegal aliens.
Hegseth’s initial statements emphasized perceived threats to national security stemming from what he called “violent mob assaults” on ICE and federal law enforcement officers, accusing criminal organizations of facilitating dangerous situations within the U.S. He declared that under the Trump administration, violence against federal entities would not be tolerated, and his defense of ICE’s operations underscored a firm stance against laws being undermined by protestors. However, deploying military forces for law enforcement, traditionally viewed as federal overreach, raised legal questions.
The legality surrounding the deployment of military personnel for domestic law enforcement is governed by the 18th-century Insurrection Act, which allows a president to mobilize troops during rebellions or significant unrest. However, Trump did not invoke this act but chose to utilize federal law to activate National Guard troops under specific conditions. The president’s memorandum allows federalizing National Guard troops to protect federal functions and personnel during protests based on threat assessments. Although this action suggests federal involvement, it raises uncertainties regarding the necessary consent from state governors for troop deployment under such circumstances.
The Posse Comitatus Act complicates the matter further, restricting the use of federal military for domestic law enforcement, while state-controlled National Guard units may be utilized. Historical precedents indicate that Trump considered using the Insurrection Act during prior civil unrest but opted for federal agents instead, illustrating the complexities of navigating the intersection of law enforcement and military authority in domestic situations. This ongoing debate emphasizes the contentious nature of federal responses to civil disobedience, particularly in the context of ongoing protests surrounding immigration enforcement and the broader implications for community relations.
