Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Was the recent federalisation of the national guard in LA legal?
1. Summary of the results
The federalization of the National Guard in LA faces significant legal challenges and uncertainties. Multiple sources indicate that the legal justification, primarily based on 10 U.S.C. § 12406, is questionable [1] [2]. The deployment was executed without Governor Newsom's approval, which California state government argues is legally required [3]. The situation is particularly problematic because:
- The protests do not meet the legal threshold of "rebellion" required by statute [2]
- Local law enforcement reportedly had the situation under control [3]
- The presidential powers being invoked are intended for extraordinary circumstances [4]
2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints
The original question overlooks several crucial contextual elements:
- The Insurrection Act would typically need to be properly invoked for such deployment [2]
- There are three specific conditions under which a president can deploy the National Guard:
1. Rebellion
2. Inability to enforce laws
3. Invasion
None of these conditions clearly applied in this situation [5]
3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement
The question's simplicity masks the complex legal framework at play. Several competing interests are involved:
- Federal Executive Branch benefits from broad interpretation of presidential powers under the Insurrection Act [2]
- State Government benefits from maintaining control over their National Guard units and challenging federal overreach [3]
- Local Law Enforcement has interests in maintaining their jurisdiction over public safety matters [3]
The deployment represents an unprecedented interpretation of federal authority [1], and the legal community appears largely skeptical of its legitimacy [4] [5].