{{ subpage.title }}

Overnight, hundreds of US Marines began arriving in the city of Los Angeles, where protests, some of them violent, against the Trump Administration’s immigration enforcement have been ongoing since Saturday.

The move marked an escalation by the White House beyond its initial deployment of National Guard troops on Saturday, and it came just hours after California’s Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom sued the Trump administration over that decision, calling it an “unprecedented usurpation of state authority,” and accusing the White House of provoking the protests.

Why are the Marines there? The troops are officially acting on orders to protect federal property rather than to restore order more widely, though US President Donald Trump has suggested they are there to suppress protesters he has labeled “insurrectionists.”

Legal scholars say this rhetoric suggests Trump may be leaving the door open to invoke the Insurrection Act, which authorizes the direct use of the military against US citizens to suppress rebellion.

“The Insurrection Act is still sitting there on the shelf and gives the president enormous power,” Yale Legal Expert Emily Bazelon told Ian Bremmer on the upcoming episode of GZERO World.

It allows the military to go beyond protecting federal property, to potentially breaking up and policing the protests themselves. In an eerie historical echo, the last time a president did this was in 1992, when President George H. W. Bush deployed Marines to quell racially charged riots in Los Angeles that were touched off by the acquittal of police officers in the beating of Rodney King, a Black motorist.

Trump has already tested the legal bounds in LA. When he deployed the National Guard over the objections of Governor Newsom – the first time a president has defied a governor in this way since the 1960s, he invoked Title 10 of the US Code. That’s a law which permits the White House to “federalize” state-based National Guard units if necessary to “execute the laws of the United States,” – in this case immigration enforcement.

California’s lawsuit says that the White House overstepped its authority and that local law enforcement is capable of managing the protests alone.

In the White House vs California standoff there are risks for both sides. On the one hand, Trump has public approval for stricter immigration policy, with a slight majority of Americans, and a robust majority of Republicans, in favor of his policies, according to polls taken before the weekend upheaval.

And with polls showing that only a third of Americans support the LA protests, Trump, who has long styled himself as a “law and order” leader, may also relish the notion of Democrats associating themselves with images of unpopular chaos and disorder on American streets.

But the deployment of federal troops also poses risks – if they are seen harming US citizens there could be a public backlash against an administration that is seen to be overstepping its bounds.

For now, Trump seems keen to push the envelope. “It is 100% true that they’re enforcing immigration laws and that there are lots of people in the country illegally. However, if you were just playing the numbers game, you would go to a poultry factory in the middle of nowhere in the Midwest and pick up a lot of factory workers,” says Bazelon.

“When you choose to go into the heart of a city, onto the streets and publicly snatch people up, you’re kind of asking for a reaction.”