One other note - I've been following the LA protests all weekend, and they were peaceful until the administration decided to knowingly pour gasoline on the fire and escalate the situation.
If Stephen Miller's administration (that's who's calling the shots here) was actually interested in reducing the number of undocumented folks here, he'd go after the employers for hiring illegal labor, and there wouldn't be any reason for them to be here.
Instead, he's ordered ICE to go after folks looking for work outside Home Depot, because ICE is either unable to find enough violent criminals or is too chickenshit to actually arrest them to make their 3,000 deportations a week quota.
It really makes one wistful remember James Lankford's 2023 bill that would have addressed this issue in a grown-up manner, but Trump had his minions torpedo so that he could run on the issue, instead of seeing it addressed in a decent and effective manner.
"President Trump is right to deploy the California National Guard to quell growing Los Angeles violent protests against ICE."
Trump is breaking the law seizing command of the California National Guard away from the California governor[1]. 10 U.S. Code § 12406 specifies clearly:
"... the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws. Orders for these purposes SHALL BE ISSUED THROUGH THE GOVERNORS OF THE STATES or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia." (Emphasis added.)
There is no One Weird Trick that allows him to shut California Governor Newsom out of the loop here.
It's also rich that he has the gumption to call up the National Guard to protect ICE officers in Los Angeles, but couldn't find the same resolve to call up the DC National Guard to protect Congress on the morning and afternoon of January 6th, 2021.
This kind of careless and illegal crap is what happens when all the lawyers that would be advising you that this is careless and illegal are fired for insufficient loyalty.
From Shipwreckedcrew's latest post regarding the statute you quoted. Note his lawyer vocabulary lesson on "disjunctive"
."The first thing to note here is that the three numbered passages are written in the disjunctive — “or” joins them together. This means that only one of the three circumstances need be present for the President to be authorized to exercise the authority given to him by Congress in the full paragraph that follows (3).
The only “judgment” a President must make is that the “regular forces” available to him are unable to “execute the laws of the United States.” Otherwise the authority extended to him is unconditional. For most of the day yesterday, the efforts of ICE and other federal law enforcement agents were met with violent resistance in the streets of Los Angeles. President Trump opted to exercise the authority given to him by Congress. His statement read as follows:"
Click through to the full law that I linked to above (not just the incomplete portion that Shipwreckedcrew screen captured).
The portion about requirement to be issued through the governors of the state is not part of the three clauses joined by "ORs". That's the part I'm referring to, which in boolean terms would be ((A or B or C) and D). A, B, and C are his three numbered passages, while D (containing the governor requirement) applies to all of them.
Sincerely, a fellow who uses Boolean statements as part of his livelihood.
Shipwreckedcrew furthers his argument with the following.
"10 U.S. Code § 253 - Interference with State and Federal law
U.S. Code
Notes
prev | next
The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—
(1)so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(2)opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution."
Yeah. You've hit on what Trump was trying to avoid. Invoking the exception to "posse comitatus"
From Shipley:
"Pres. Trump Did Not Invoke the "Insurrection Act" in Los Angeles -- But He Can Now."
Contrary to the X-Lawyers claiming that Pres. Trump is violating the “Posse Comitatus Act” — which prohibits use of the military for purposes of domestic law enforcement — the Insurrection Act is a statutory exception to the restrictions of posse comitatus. The statute authorizes the use of militia or armed forces — with “militia” defined elsewhere at the National Guard — “to suppress, in a State any … domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy….”
That applies if Trump invokes the Insurrection Act. His own memo from this weekend does not do that, and explicitly refers to the same law I cited above[1]:
"... by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard under 10 U.S.C. 12406 to temporarily protect ICE and other United States Government personnel who are performing Federal functions ..."
If Trump wants to use Section 253, he can declare an insurrection in California - with the required declaration and notice to Congress, as well as explicit order for insurgents to return to their homes[2] - explicitly citing the *specifics* surrounding his invocation of the Insurrection Act, which the memo linked above DOES NOT do.
For an example of what this looks like, see George H.W. Bush's proclamation invoking that authority during the 1992 L.A. riots.[3]
There's a process that must be followed for any of this to be legal -- it's not like Michael Scott (from "The Office") declaring bankruptcy[4].
LA County is ~4700sq miles in size and has ~10mil people. Relatively small, localized issues - ones that LAPD had under control - does not make for such a response.
Right to deploy the National Guard? I dunno about that, considering even LAPD said things were within their abilities to control - and they're not exactly known for their restraint.
How is the Democratic Party responsible for what random people do re Palestine? Most of those people probably hate Democrats more than they hate the GOP, and aren't even party members.
Hell, one member of LAPD couldn't resist the temptation to shoot an Australian journalist covering the event, just because he had a new toy to play with. Watch the LAPD officer on the left slowly take aim and fire as she's reporting.
Tom Homan warned early on about collateral arrests. Illegals hanging with the wrong crowd are fair game. All illegals are subject to arrest. The violence in LA and elsewhere proves that arrest and deportation is a good policy.
Without vetting, there is no clue whether an illegal is violent or criminal. So far, I see plenty of indicators that arrest and deportation of illegals is justified.
Ah, ain't that the kicker though? Most illegal immigration is due to visa overstays - so those people were in fact vetted for entry in the first place via the visa process.
Criminals - violent or not - is a specific thing, not a generalization. Either an individual is accused of committing a crime or not. You know if someone is an accused criminal - because there must be an accusation.
Visa overstays like the Boulder firebomber or riot participants at various universities? We are bound to give citizens the benefit of a doubt. That does not apply to illegals, especially those implicated in criminal investigations.
There is no innocence or guilt involved - only the conveyance of a privilege. What is dumb as hell is risking national security and safety by granting residence to an unvetted person who is under a cloud of suspicion because of the manner of entry.
How did the military push back on Jan. 6th? They weren't even involved, were they? Because, remember, Trump offered National Guard troops to both Muriel Bowser and Nancy Pelosi and they turned them down...
That's not what happened, at least not in the way you're trying to make it seem. On Jan 5 Trump and Chris Miller discussed having the National Guard be available on Jan 6, with Trump suggesting a number being needed and Miller stating that an official request would have to be made. Trump didn't order Miller to have those troops ready.
And importantly: once the riot started, Trump did nothing to mobilize the National Guard to take action.
June 11, 2024, House Oversight Committee obtains footage from a video shot by Alexandra Pelosi in which Nancy Pelosi admits she dropped the ball with respect to security on J6, that would seem to tell a different story, no?
One other note - I've been following the LA protests all weekend, and they were peaceful until the administration decided to knowingly pour gasoline on the fire and escalate the situation.
If Stephen Miller's administration (that's who's calling the shots here) was actually interested in reducing the number of undocumented folks here, he'd go after the employers for hiring illegal labor, and there wouldn't be any reason for them to be here.
Instead, he's ordered ICE to go after folks looking for work outside Home Depot, because ICE is either unable to find enough violent criminals or is too chickenshit to actually arrest them to make their 3,000 deportations a week quota.
It really makes one wistful remember James Lankford's 2023 bill that would have addressed this issue in a grown-up manner, but Trump had his minions torpedo so that he could run on the issue, instead of seeing it addressed in a decent and effective manner.
https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-stephen-miller-immigrants-home-depot-7eleven-b2762892.html
Someone worth listening to.
https://bsky.app/profile/iwillnotbesilenced.bsky.social/post/3lr6mo4vgcc2f
100%. Reform e-Verify and go after the employers.
Also relevant: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/06/trump-provoke-not-pacify-los-angeles/683080/?gift=otEsSHbRYKNfFYMngVFweFs6ghvwLpOI8C_k9ilv1jk&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share
"President Trump is right to deploy the California National Guard to quell growing Los Angeles violent protests against ICE."
Trump is breaking the law seizing command of the California National Guard away from the California governor[1]. 10 U.S. Code § 12406 specifies clearly:
"... the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws. Orders for these purposes SHALL BE ISSUED THROUGH THE GOVERNORS OF THE STATES or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia." (Emphasis added.)
There is no One Weird Trick that allows him to shut California Governor Newsom out of the loop here.
It's also rich that he has the gumption to call up the National Guard to protect ICE officers in Los Angeles, but couldn't find the same resolve to call up the DC National Guard to protect Congress on the morning and afternoon of January 6th, 2021.
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/12406
This kind of careless and illegal crap is what happens when all the lawyers that would be advising you that this is careless and illegal are fired for insufficient loyalty.
From Shipwreckedcrew's latest post regarding the statute you quoted. Note his lawyer vocabulary lesson on "disjunctive"
."The first thing to note here is that the three numbered passages are written in the disjunctive — “or” joins them together. This means that only one of the three circumstances need be present for the President to be authorized to exercise the authority given to him by Congress in the full paragraph that follows (3).
The only “judgment” a President must make is that the “regular forces” available to him are unable to “execute the laws of the United States.” Otherwise the authority extended to him is unconditional. For most of the day yesterday, the efforts of ICE and other federal law enforcement agents were met with violent resistance in the streets of Los Angeles. President Trump opted to exercise the authority given to him by Congress. His statement read as follows:"
Click through to the full law that I linked to above (not just the incomplete portion that Shipwreckedcrew screen captured).
The portion about requirement to be issued through the governors of the state is not part of the three clauses joined by "ORs". That's the part I'm referring to, which in boolean terms would be ((A or B or C) and D). A, B, and C are his three numbered passages, while D (containing the governor requirement) applies to all of them.
Sincerely, a fellow who uses Boolean statements as part of his livelihood.
Shipwreckedcrew furthers his argument with the following.
"10 U.S. Code § 253 - Interference with State and Federal law
U.S. Code
Notes
prev | next
The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—
(1)so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(2)opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution."
Furthermore, your legal reference explicitly states that Trump has not yet invoked the Insurrection Act, so none of this is relevant until he does.
https://shipwreckedcrew.substack.com/p/pres-trump-did-not-invoke-the-insurrection
Yeah. You've hit on what Trump was trying to avoid. Invoking the exception to "posse comitatus"
From Shipley:
"Pres. Trump Did Not Invoke the "Insurrection Act" in Los Angeles -- But He Can Now."
Contrary to the X-Lawyers claiming that Pres. Trump is violating the “Posse Comitatus Act” — which prohibits use of the military for purposes of domestic law enforcement — the Insurrection Act is a statutory exception to the restrictions of posse comitatus. The statute authorizes the use of militia or armed forces — with “militia” defined elsewhere at the National Guard — “to suppress, in a State any … domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy….”
That's why the Marines are on standby.
That applies if Trump invokes the Insurrection Act. His own memo from this weekend does not do that, and explicitly refers to the same law I cited above[1]:
"... by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard under 10 U.S.C. 12406 to temporarily protect ICE and other United States Government personnel who are performing Federal functions ..."
If Trump wants to use Section 253, he can declare an insurrection in California - with the required declaration and notice to Congress, as well as explicit order for insurgents to return to their homes[2] - explicitly citing the *specifics* surrounding his invocation of the Insurrection Act, which the memo linked above DOES NOT do.
For an example of what this looks like, see George H.W. Bush's proclamation invoking that authority during the 1992 L.A. riots.[3]
There's a process that must be followed for any of this to be legal -- it's not like Michael Scott (from "The Office") declaring bankruptcy[4].
[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/06/department-of-defense-security-for-the-protection-of-department-of-homeland-security-functions/
[2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/254
[3] https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/proclamation-6427-law-and-order-the-city-and-county-los-angeles-and-other-districts
[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-m3RtoguAQ
LA County is ~4700sq miles in size and has ~10mil people. Relatively small, localized issues - ones that LAPD had under control - does not make for such a response.
Right to deploy the National Guard? I dunno about that, considering even LAPD said things were within their abilities to control - and they're not exactly known for their restraint.
How is the Democratic Party responsible for what random people do re Palestine? Most of those people probably hate Democrats more than they hate the GOP, and aren't even party members.
Not known for their restraint?
Hell, one member of LAPD couldn't resist the temptation to shoot an Australian journalist covering the event, just because he had a new toy to play with. Watch the LAPD officer on the left slowly take aim and fire as she's reporting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vglaT7awScY
I saw that earlier. He should be charged.
My reference is to this statement from the LAPD: https://x.com/LAPDPIO/status/1931538326600995262/photo/1
That LAPD statement is dated June 7. I believe there is an update...
https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2025/06/09/lapd-chief-remarks-that-obliterate-dem-narrative-n2190225
And Trump made his declaration on - June 7.
non sequitur
Relevant timing.
Tom Homan warned early on about collateral arrests. Illegals hanging with the wrong crowd are fair game. All illegals are subject to arrest. The violence in LA and elsewhere proves that arrest and deportation is a good policy.
Right, so it was never about violent criminals at all.
Without vetting, there is no clue whether an illegal is violent or criminal. So far, I see plenty of indicators that arrest and deportation of illegals is justified.
Ah, ain't that the kicker though? Most illegal immigration is due to visa overstays - so those people were in fact vetted for entry in the first place via the visa process.
Criminals - violent or not - is a specific thing, not a generalization. Either an individual is accused of committing a crime or not. You know if someone is an accused criminal - because there must be an accusation.
Visa overstays like the Boulder firebomber or riot participants at various universities? We are bound to give citizens the benefit of a doubt. That does not apply to illegals, especially those implicated in criminal investigations.
We are bound to give everyone benefit of the doubt: innocent until proven guilty is the foundation of our system and laws.
The amount of process varies, but exists nonetheless
Important to this: arresting people that are following the law is dumb as hell
There is no innocence or guilt involved - only the conveyance of a privilege. What is dumb as hell is risking national security and safety by granting residence to an unvetted person who is under a cloud of suspicion because of the manner of entry.
How did the military push back on Jan. 6th? They weren't even involved, were they? Because, remember, Trump offered National Guard troops to both Muriel Bowser and Nancy Pelosi and they turned them down...
That's not what happened, at least not in the way you're trying to make it seem. On Jan 5 Trump and Chris Miller discussed having the National Guard be available on Jan 6, with Trump suggesting a number being needed and Miller stating that an official request would have to be made. Trump didn't order Miller to have those troops ready.
And importantly: once the riot started, Trump did nothing to mobilize the National Guard to take action.
June 11, 2024, House Oversight Committee obtains footage from a video shot by Alexandra Pelosi in which Nancy Pelosi admits she dropped the ball with respect to security on J6, that would seem to tell a different story, no?
Re preparedness. The president is still the one to approve any requests or to order them mobilized - and did not do so
Ah, now this is interesting: Trump in 2020 said he had to have governors request the National Guard be mobilized. What's changed? https://x.com/Acyn/status/1932121748373479632
Of interest...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14793935/la-riots-protests-today-live-latest-2025-ice-gavin-newsom.html
How's this relevant to the ICE raid in Paramount?