Since taking office in January, U.S. President Donald Trump has ordered the deployment of over 7,000 National Guardsmen to cities across the U.S. In October, Trump had said he would deploy the National Guard to San Francisco, but recently he changed his mind.
According to executive orders signed by the president, the purpose of these National Guard deployments is to protect immigration personnel and facilities from protesters, while assisting local law enforcement on patrol.
Junior Kai Ruwitch still has concerns despite the National Guard not being deployed to the Bay Area. “The reason I’m worried is because I’m [uncertain about] the future of our country. While I’m not directly affected by what the National Guard is doing yet, I am indirectly affected right now.”
Ruwitch believes the president’s deployment of troops in American cities violates the First Amendment. “If the president can use the United States military on dissidents who are expressing their opinion according to the First Amendment, then that has implications on all of us,” Ruwitch said.
These deployments have been extremely controversial on social media. At the state level, California, Oregon and Illinois have all sued the federal government over the use of the National Guard as a law enforcement entity. Title 10 of the United States Code allows the president to federalize the National Guard of a state, placing them under his command. However, this also places strict restrictions on what the National Guard can be used for, particularly with regards to law enforcement; it is these restrictions that have become the source of the controversy. Title 10 allows the use of the National Guard as law enforcement in two circumstances: in the event of an insurrection or armed rebellion in the United States.
Federal lawyers have argued that Title 10 grants broad exceptions when it comes to enforcing federal law. State lawyers have argued that the protests that led Trump to deploy the National Guard do not meet the standard of insurrection or rebellion.
History teacher Joseph Mitchell is concerned about Trump’s use of the National Guard as a law enforcement entity and its seemingly extralegal motivations. “His politics seem to be guiding his hand about where he wants to send these National Guard units, which is, I think, the most surprising,” he said.
Mitchell said it’s not only citizens’ rights that are a concern, but also the safety of civilians when military units are used for crowd control and law enforcement. Investigation by The New York Times revealed that National Guardsmen often lack the same equipment that local authorities have for handling protests or riots. As Mitchell explains, the presence of armed soldiers itself can also be inflammatory, causing protests to possibly become violent. “ I’m just waiting for something bigger to happen. Some sort of violent clash would be pretty significant,” Mitchell said. “So I don’t know, not that I want that to happen, but I just kind of predict [it will].”
Upper School history teacher Trevor McNeil said that court rulings on the legality of Trump’s National Guard deployment have been inconsistent with the Illinois case set to go to the Supreme Court. McNeil thinks the decision that the Supreme Court makes on the case may shape the role of the National Guard going forward. He emphasised that the ruling could redefine the balance of power between federal authority and states’ rights for years to come.
