Trump’s latest call to use military force on protesters rekindles dangerous echoes of past violence and sets up a constitutional showdown with California.
At a Glance
- Trump ordered 2,000 National Guard troops to California without the state’s request
- He labeled protesters “insurrectionists” and “radical left thugs”
- Oval Office discussion reportedly included asking, “Can’t you just shoot them?”
- California officials argue the deployment violates the Constitution
- Legal and civil rights groups condemn the move as authoritarian overreach
Martial Overreach
President Donald Trump’s order to deploy 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles and San Francisco without the Governor’s consent has sparked a constitutional and cultural wildfire. Triggered by protests against aggressive ICE raids, the move was accompanied by rhetoric labeling demonstrators as “radical left thugs” and “insurrectionists.”
California Governor Gavin Newsom and L.A. Mayor Karen Bass have condemned the action as a breach of state sovereignty, promising legal action under statutes such as the Posse Comitatus Act and challenging Trump’s authority to bypass local jurisdiction.
Watch a report: Trump Is Sending Troops Into LA Over ICE Protests – Here’s What to Know.
Echoes of Violence
This isn’t the first time Trump has toyed with violent solutions to civil unrest. During a 2020 Oval Office meeting, he reportedly asked Gen. Mark Milley, “Can’t you just shoot them in the legs or something?”—referring to protestors during the George Floyd demonstrations. Milley later considered resignation over the incident, according to multiple firsthand accounts.
His infamous 2020 tweet, “When the looting starts, the shooting starts,” was widely condemned for glorifying violence. Trump has also previously endorsed rough police tactics, describing MS-13 gang members as “animals” and encouraging officers to be aggressive, part of a pattern of dehumanizing rhetoric that resurfaces whenever political pressure mounts.
The Legal Gauntlet
California’s pending lawsuit claims the deployment is unconstitutional, citing the absence of a formal request and Trump’s failure to invoke the Insurrection Act. Legal scholars argue that such federal intervention without state consent could set a dangerous precedent.
Civil liberties groups warn this escalation blurs the line between national defense and domestic suppression. Critics describe the move as a pre-election power grab, weaponizing the military against dissent.
As violence continues in California streets—with protestors lighting fires, blocking roads, and clashing with law enforcement—Trump’s reaction risks converting a policy debate into a flashpoint for authoritarianism.
A Precedent Rewritten?
The deeper concern is not just Trump’s words but what they normalize. Dehumanizing political opponents as “thugs,” floating violent enforcement tactics, and deploying troops to suppress protests erode democratic norms with chilling efficiency. Legal boundaries remain—but only if vigorously defended.
