Democrats want you to believe that Donald Trump federalizing the National Guard is unconstitutional. It’s part of their hoax that Trump is a dictator, but none of what they say is true. Fifteen U.S. presidents used the military within the nation, including federalizing the National Guard, three times without the governor’s agreement.
In the Twentieth Century, Taft ordered 20,000 federal troops to the Texas/Mexico border in 1911 during the Mexican Revolution. In 1957, Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard without the governor’s agreement, plus sent the 101st Airborne to uphold Brown vs.
the Board of Education. In 1962, JFK sent federal troops to quell riots at the University of Mississippi, and again in 1963 to enforce the integration of the University of Alabama. In 1965, LBJ federalized the AL National Guard without the governor’s agreement to protect civil rights advocates marching from Selma to Montgomery, Al.
Others earlier used regular troops or federalized the National Guard to quell unrest within the United States since the beginning: Monroe twice in 1817; Andrew Jackson in 1833 to enforce tariffs; Van Buren in 1838; Tyler in 1844; Grant in 1871 to quell the KKK; Hayes in 1877 during the railroad strike; Benjamin Harrison in 1892 during a mining strike; and in 1894 Cleveland used troops to keep Pullman strikers from obstructing trains.
Two other times were unique. George Washington federalized the militia and personally led them into Pennsylvania to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. Abraham Lincoln used troops within the nation during the Civil War and suspended habeas corpus.
More importantly, in 1992, George H. W. Bush invoked the Insurrection Act of 1792 federalizing the California National Guard, plus deploying Marines in LA to quell rioting and looting during the Rodney King riots. President Trump did the exact same thing in LA to quell violence, rioting and to protect ICE agents, federal facilities, local and state law enforcement, stores and citizens. Any judge saying otherwise ignores the law and precedent.
History doesn’t bear out Democrats’ false claims. It’s disingenuous for them to now wave around the constitution, which recently they were decrying as written by white supremacists and slave owners. They continue to sink into a party of hoaxes and no solutions, who really just want sound bites for fund raising, cheap labor and future voters.
Ralph Miller
* * *
While the recent op-ed correctly lists historical instances of presidents deploying federal forces domestically, it fundamentally misses the crucial distinction between reactive deployments in genuine emergencies and preemptive shows of force against constitutionally protected activities.
Every historical precedent cited supports the principle that federal military deployment should be a last resort when civilian authorities have genuinely lost control. Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard only after Governor Faubus actively defied federal court orders. JFK sent troops to Mississippi after violent riots had erupted and local law enforcement proved inadequate. The 1992 LA deployment came after days of widespread looting, arson, and the complete breakdown of civil order.
Trump's approach represents a dangerous departure from this established pattern. The Lafayette Square incident of June 2020 exemplifies this shift—federal forces cleared lawfully assembled protesters not to restore order, but to facilitate a photo opportunity. Local authorities hadn't requested help, hadn't lost control, and weren't defying federal law. This was preemptive escalation, not emergency response.
The op-eds historical examples actually demonstrate why Trump's actions are concerning. Presidents Washington, Lincoln, Eisenhower, and others used federal forces reluctantly, in response to genuine emergencies where civilian governance had broken down or constitutional rights were being actively denied. They followed established legal frameworks, typically the Insurrection Act, with clear justifications.
Trump's recent California National Guard deployment, conducted without citing the Insurrection Act and against the state governor's wishes, lacks these historical justifications. California authorities hadn't lost control, weren't requesting assistance, and weren't obstructing federal law. The deployment relied on questionable theories of inherent presidential authority rather than established legal precedent.
The Constitution's framers deliberately made military deployment within our borders difficult, requiring extraordinary circumstances. They understood that a republic depends on civilian governance and that using military force against citizens should be genuinely exceptional.
The historical precedents cited prove this principle worked: federal forces were deployed when democratic institutions had genuinely failed, not when they were functioning normally but producing outcomes the president disliked. The difference between quelling the Whiskey Rebellion and clearing peaceful protesters is the difference between preserving democracy and undermining it.
What makes Trump's approach particularly concerning is the pattern of early, aggressive federal intervention. Not whether he is a dictator or not (although we can debate this also). Rather than working with state and local authorities, supporting civilian law enforcement, or allowing democratic processes to function, there's been a consistent preference for federal shows of force as first responses rather than last resorts. From what I read and observe, the Democrats are merely pointing out similarities to other nations that have succumbed to authoritarian movements such as Hungary, Russia, North Korea, etc.
This isn't about partisan politics—it's about constitutional governance. The same legal authorities that allowed presidents to protect civil rights marchers in Selma should not be stretched to justify federal intervention against peaceful protesters in American cities today.
History does indeed provide precedent for presidential use of military force domestically. But that same history teaches us such power must be used sparingly, reluctantly, and only when civilian governance has genuinely failed. The question isn't whether presidents can deploy federal forces—it's whether they should, and under what circumstances.
The precedents cited in the op-ed actually support the principle that federal military deployment should remain an extraordinary measure for extraordinary circumstances, not a routine tool of presidential preference. That distinction matters for our democracy. I believe our country is being hijacked.
Joe Conway
* * *
Federalizing the National Guard and using the military is tantamount to doing nothing in circumstances like this. It is nothing more than a show of neutered power.
The local police can fire at people in the U.S. that are doing something wrong but not the military. That was driven into our heads in boot camp.
Both of those were done for vanity's sake for the most egotistical president ever.
A thing or two about Saturday’s vanity of vanities parade - it was stupid and extremely expensive.
Raleigh Perry