When Presidents Bypass Governors to Deploy the National Guard

On March 25, 1965, thousands of marchers reached Montgomery, Alabama, protected by the National Guard after weeks of violent clashes. This deployment, ordered by President Lyndon B. Johnson, was a watershed moment in the fight for Civil Rights, illustrating the federal government’s ability to override state authority in the name of justice. Nearly six decades later, this precedent echoes in Los Angeles, where President Donald Trump has similarly bypassed California Governor Gavin Newsom to deploy the National Guard amid escalating immigration protests.

Johnson’s Historic Decision During the Selma March

The events of March 1965 were set against the backdrop of violent segregation in the South. The Selma-to-Montgomery marches, organized by Civil Rights leaders including Martin Luther King Jr., sought to demand voting rights for African Americans. According to Wvtm13, Alabama Governor George Wallace, a staunch segregationist, initially promised to use state troopers to protect the marchers but later backtracked, urging President Johnson to intervene. Johnson, citing Wallace’s unwillingness to act, federalized Alabama’s National Guard to ensure the marchers’ safety.

Just weeks earlier, on March 7, 1965, state troopers brutally attacked peaceful demonstrators in Selma, an event known as “Bloody Sunday.” The violence galvanized national attention and prompted Johnson’s decisive action. His deployment of the Guard underscored federal commitment to civil rights and paved the way for the passage of the Voting Rights Act in August 1965.

California in 2025: A State-Federal Clash

Fast forward to June 2025, tensions flared in Los Angeles as protests erupted against immigration raids conducted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). According to Time, over 100 arrests were made in just two days, with demonstrators clashing with law enforcement in the streets. Amid this unrest, President Trump invoked the Insurrection Act to federalize California’s National Guard, deploying 2,000 troops to the area without Governor Gavin Newsom’s consent.

Newsom condemned the move as a “serious breach of state sovereignty,” arguing that there was no legitimate crisis warranting federal intervention. He described the deployment as a politically motivated act designed to inflame tensions rather than resolve them. In a public statement, Newsom called for the immediate withdrawal of federal forces, emphasizing that California had sufficient resources to manage the protests.

The Role of the National Guard in Historical Context

The National Guard, traditionally under the control of state governors, has a complex history in responding to civil unrest. As highlighted by The Conversation, the Insurrection Act of 1807 allows presidents to federalize the Guard during emergencies, though its use is rare and often controversial. Previous examples include President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s 1957 deployment of federal troops to enforce school desegregation in Little Rock, Arkansas, and President John F. Kennedy’s 1963 intervention at the University of Alabama.

Unlike these historical precedents, Trump’s deployment in Los Angeles lacks a clear civil rights justification. Critics argue that the action serves to bolster federal immigration policies rather than address genuine public safety concerns. Legal experts, including those cited by Time, warn that such unilateral decisions risk undermining the balance of state and federal powers, setting a dangerous precedent for future crises.

Public Reaction and Broader Implications

The reactions to Trump’s deployment have been deeply polarized. Civil rights organizations, including the ACLU, denounced the move as an attack on constitutional freedoms, while Republican allies defended it as necessary to restore order. Protests in Los Angeles have continued, with demonstrators decrying what they view as federal overreach and a violation of their right to peaceful assembly.

The broader implications of this conflict extend beyond California. As noted by The Conversation, the tension between state and federal authority reflects a growing national debate over the scope of presidential power. The use of the National Guard as a political tool raises critical questions about the future of federalism in the United States.

The echoes of 1965 remind us of the enduring struggle to balance federal authority with state rights and civil liberties. As history unfolds in Los Angeles, the lessons of the past offer both caution and clarity for navigating these turbulent times.