A dangerous precedent: Trump's deployment of troops to Democratic cities

By Maryam Munshi

President Trump takes yet another stride toward American authoritarianism through his deployment of National Guard troops in Democrat-led cities. As neither the military occupation of Los Angeles, nor that of Washington D.C., satisfied the administration’s crusade against “lawlessness” troops have now expanded into Memphis. With ongoing attempts to enter Chicago and Portland currently being disputed in court, we’re left wondering— who really is the “lawless” one? 

In June, Trump ordered 700 Marines and 4,000 state-based National Guard troops to Los Angeles in response to anti-immigration raid protests, despite California governor Gavin Newsom’s objections. In D.C., approximately 2,000 National Guard troops were deployed, allegedly in attempts to combat homelessness and crime. Following the filing of two cases against the Trump administration in California, a federal judge found that Trump’s use of the military personnel in Los Angeles violated the Posse Comitatus Act as there “was no rebellion, nor was civilian law enforcement unable to respond to the protests and enforce the law.” Although the ruling constrained military authority within California, marking a significant victory for Newsom, its effect on a national scale was limited. Trump continued National Guard deployment into Memphis which he described as “deeply troubled” due to its high violent crime rates, discounting that the city’s crime was at a 25-year low. 

From just these instances alone, it is abundantly clear that Trump is exploiting the American military to aid his anti-immigration agenda. In Democratic-led cities (especially Los Angeles) anti-ICE protests gained widespread attention, fuelled by social media and fostering a sense of collective resistance. Although peaceful and arguably manageable through civilian law enforcement, this wave of mass discontent directly challenged the President immigration strategy for immigration. What Trump sought to suppress isn’t the threat of physical damage, but damage to his policy’s public image. In tandem with this, whilst Memphis was not a major centre of civilian protest, it’s home to the region’s only immigration court attracting families with uncertain immigration status from Tennessee, Arkansas, and Mississippi. These are precisely the individuals that Trump’s deportation initiative targets, as reflected by the rising numbers of arrests at immigration courthouses. Trump is not only utilising military force to quell dissent, but also to cruelly ensnare those in vulnerable immigration situations.  

Those who remain staunchly by Trump’s side may argue that the increase in federal involvement effectively deters crime, observing the recent decrease of crime in D.C. However, as experts note, this short-term impact would likely occur in “any city in America with a 50% increase in their officers.” This doesn’t suggest lasting impact, nor does it justify the fiscal burden to maintain. More importantly, this approach risks “erod[ing] trust and relationships with the community,” ultimately creating a weaker, more fractured state. That cannot be Trump’s true objective. His strategy isn’t about public safety — it's about fearmongering.  

This is evident in Trump’s threats to invoke the Insurrection Act to expand National Guard deployment into Chicago and Portland. Illinois governor JB Pritzker stated, “the President of the United States is threatening to go to war with an American city” in light of Trump’s push for military presence in Chicago. This was only partially halted by the issuing of a restraining order against the use of National Guard soldiers in Illinois until October 23^rd. Following this, Trump directed troops into Portland under the justification of combatting “domestic terrorists” and protecting Portland-based ICE facilities, despite the state lawyers arguing that the protests in Portland did not meet the threshold for military intervention. Like the other cities victim to Trump’s militarisation, Portland has become a focal point of opposition to Trump’s immigration policies and a target for aggressive federal enforcement against undocumented individuals. Reports from Portland describe federal agents descending from Black Hawk helicopters during immigration raids and deploying chemical irritants against non-violent protesters. Both cities have since taken legal action, suing the federal government for an unconstitutional use of military force on civilian streets. The Trump administration, however, maintains that it is “very confident in the president’s legal authority to do this”. 

The Insurrection Act empowers the American president to deploy the military domestically and to federalise the National Guard units of the individual states under dire conditions, such as the suppression of civil disorder, insurrection, and armed rebellion against the federal government. It also permits federal troops to perform law enforcement measures like searches and arrests. Traditionally, its use has been extremely rare. The last invocation took place in 1992 by President George H.W. Bush during the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles. Bush saw the act as a last-resort to restore public safety with the explicit support of the California governor at the time. In stark contrast, President Trump is now threatening to employ the Act to circumvent court rulings and override legal barriers. He is wielding the Insurrection Act as a political weapon to bypass democratic processes and expand the administration’s power. This sets a truly dangerous precedent in which the president uses the military not to protect the people, but to control them. As the president challenges judicial limits, his colleagues across the nation are beginning to question — “what else is left on the path to full-blown authoritarianism?” 

Above all else, Trump prioritises self-interest over national welfare — a pattern that defined both his presidencies. In his second term particularly, he appears to be testing the limits of his notorious ‘Make America Great Again’ philosophy and “I alone can fix it” mantra. His recent actions suggest a deliberate effort to consolidate power through undermining democratic norms, almost as if in retaliation to his 2020 loss to Biden, not as a strategic policy maker but more like a vengeful child. Trump’s approach seems aimed at exacerbating the chasm between conservative rural America and liberal urban America as seen in his decision to deploy reserve troops from Republican states into Democratic cities. This tactic not only stokes regional resentment but also intensifies the already volatile political polarisation across the country — a conflict Trump has repeatedly exploited to maintain control. Through “manufactur[ing] a crisis,” Trump adopts a strongman position, standing at the precipice of authoritarian governance. 

The only real hope of ending Trump’s pursuit of unchecked power lies in overcoming the divide between America’s political extremes and uniting in defence of common democracy. Whilst such an occurrence seems close to impossible, a recent survey found that 58% of Americans, including 70% of Democrats and 50% of Republicans, believe troops should not be used domestically except in response to foreign threats. If members of Trump’s own party are rejecting his unconstitutional tactics, the opposition may grow strong enough to effectively push back. Ultimately, Trump’s political manipulation paints a bleak picture for the future of American democracy, but widespread public resistance could still be the force that prevents that future from becoming a reality.

Image: Wikimedia Commons