How have other state National Guards engaged with civilian protesters historically, and what were the outcomes?
Executive summary
The National Guard has repeatedly been mobilized against civilian protesters from the civil‑rights era through the 21st century, sometimes to protect demonstrators or restore order and sometimes to suppress or escalate unrest; outcomes have ranged from successful protection and de‑escalation to deadly force, mass arrests, costly deployments and protracted legal fights . Debates over legality, control and optics—governors versus presidents, federalization under the Insurrection Act or Title 10, and use under Title 32—have shaped both operational choices and political consequences .
1. From Selma to Kent State: protection, confrontation and tragedy
During the civil‑rights movement the Guard was used in divergent ways — President Lyndon Johnson federalized troops to protect Selma marchers, affirming protesters’ rights, while other state activations in the 1960s and 1970s saw troops deployed to suppress unrest, sometimes with lethal results; the Kent State shootings in 1970 remain the most infamous instance where National Guardsmen killed four students during an anti‑war protest after the governor called up troops .
2. The modern pattern: mass activations, mixed effects
In recent decades governors have mobilized tens of thousands of Guardsmen for public‑safety missions, including pandemic support and protest response, and those activations have sometimes restored order after violent crackdowns or threats but have also intensified tensions and led to large numbers of arrests — for example, roughly 8,000 Guardsmen were deployed in California after the George Floyd protests, where police arrested more than 3,000 people in Los Angeles County, and many deployments were criticized for escalating confrontations .
3. Federal vs. state control: legal fights and political theater
Presidential federalization or cross‑state deployments have repeatedly triggered legal contests and political backlash; presidents can invoke wartime or statutory authorities to federalize guards or send active troops, but those moves have provoked lawsuits and appeals questioning whether such use is constitutional or appropriate, as seen in multiple post‑2020 disputes over federal troop deployments to cities and the lawsuits that followed the 2025 Los Angeles federalization [1].
4. Tools, training and the "optics" problem
Guardsmen often support civilian police and lack arrest authority in many statuses, yet they can be equipped for crowd control and are not primarily trained for prolonged civilian law‑enforcement tasks; experts and legal advocates warn that limited civil‑disturbance training and militarized appearances can worsen community distrust and risk escalation rather than calm, an argument repeated in coverage emphasizing that “optics matter” and that Guardsmen receive minimal civil‑disturbance preparation .
5. Outcomes measured: safety, costs, lawsuits and long memories
Measured outcomes include short‑term protection of federal property or restoration of order in some cases, but also thousands of arrests, financial costs running into tens of millions for state deployments, civil‑liberties litigation, and political fallout that can deepen polarization; California’s litigation over a 2025 federalized deployment, the Ninth Circuit’s divided opinions, and the burdensome bill for prior large‑scale activations all illustrate how deployments ripple beyond the streets into courts, budgets and public trust .
6. Competing narratives and implicit agendas
Officials who call up the Guard often emphasize public‑safety and property protection, while opponents argue the presence of armed troops is inherently escalatory and sometimes politically motivated — an argument raised when federal troops were sent over a governor’s objection to protect controversial immigration enforcement actions in 2025, prompting state lawsuits that framed the deployments as politically charged uses of military power [1].