Skip to content
Project 2025
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories
Is Bill Maher Right About a “Slow-Moving Coup”? Trump’s Federal Moves Stir Alarm

Is Bill Maher Right About a “Slow-Moving Coup”? Trump’s Federal Moves Stir Alarm

The Political Non-Profit Sector Is Failing Us

The Political Non-Profit Sector Is Failing Us

Texas Democrats and Talarico Fight Back

Texas Democrats and Talarico Fight Back

Veterans’ Care at Risk Under Trump As Hundreds of Doctors and Nurses Reject Working at VA Hospitals

Veterans’ Care at Risk Under Trump As Hundreds of Doctors and Nurses Reject Working at VA Hospitals

Is Trump Normalizing Military Occupation of American Cities?

Is Trump Normalizing Military Occupation of American Cities?

Just the Facts: Has the U.S. Military Ever Been Used to Stop Protests? A Look at History and Law

Just the Facts: Has the U.S. Military Ever Been Used to Stop Protests? A Look at History and Law

National Guard

File footage
David L. Nevins
By David L. NevinsJun 12, 2025
David L. Nevins
David L. Nevins serves as publisher of The Fulcrum. Additionally, Nevins serves as co-founder and Board Chairman of the Bridge Alliance. Nevins brings business acumen, vision and a tireless this-must-and-can-be-done zeal to the burgeoning movement to bridge divides to transform the political process. As a business leader, Nevins excels at building bridges between people and organizations from the right, left and center for civilized conversation and then action. He co-founded the Bridge Alliance because, as he says, “No matter how well managed and how well funded anyone organization is, significant political reform will not happen without an alliance to further collaborative interactions. Together we can and will raise the collective impact of all.” He is a member of the Aspen Institute Society of Fellows, with a focus on the Aspen Rodel Fellowship in Public Leadership, he established and continues to work with The Nevins Democracy Leaders program at Penn State University. Nevins graduated with honors in economics from Penn State in 1969 and received an M.B.A. in finance from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania in 1971.
See More Writings by author

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.

Before President Trump called up the military to stop the L.A. riots this week, has the military ever been called upon to stop protests in the United States?

The military has been deployed to quell protests in the U.S. multiple times throughout history. Some notable instances include:

  • The New York City Draft Riots (1863): Federal troops, including battle-hardened veterans from Gettysburg, were sent to restore order during violent protests against the Civil War draft.
  • The Bonus Army (1932): President Herbert Hoover ordered the military, led by General Douglas MacArthur, to disperse World War I veterans demanding early payment of promised bonuses.
  • The Civil Rights Movement (1950s-1960s): Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy deployed federal troops and the National Guard to enforce desegregation and protect civil rights activists.
  • The Rodney King Riots (1992): President George H.W. Bush invoked the Insurrection Act to send federal troops to Los Angeles after riots erupted following the acquittal of police officers who had beaten Rodney King.
  • Hurricane Hugo (1989): Federal troops were deployed under the Insurrection Act to assist in riot control and looting prevention in the aftermath of the hurricane.

What is the legal framework that allows the President to deploy the military? :

The legal framework governing military deployment in U.S. protests is shaped by several key laws:

  • The Posse Comitatus Act (1878): This law generally prohibits the use of federal military forces for domestic law enforcement unless explicitly authorized by Congress or the Constitution.
  • The Insurrection Act (1807): This allows the president to deploy federal troops to suppress insurrections, enforce federal laws, or restore order when state authorities are unable or unwilling to do so.
  • Title 10 of the U.S. Code: This grants the president authority to federalize the National Guard in cases of rebellion or when regular law enforcement is insufficient.
  • 10 U.S.C. § 12406: This provision allows the president to call up the National Guard if there is a rebellion or if federal laws cannot be enforced with existing resources.
  • The Protective Power Doctrine: Some administrations have argued that the president has inherent constitutional authority to deploy troops to protect federal personnel and property, even without invoking the Insurrection Act.

Is the legal framework that allows the President to use the National Guard to stop protests different then the framework for using the military?

The legal framework for the use of the National Guard versus the military in response to domestic unrest is different.

  • National Guard Deployment: The president can activate the National Guard under Title 10 of the U.S. Code, placing them under federal control. This is often done to enforce federal laws or respond to emergencies. However, governors typically control their state’s National Guard under Title 32, meaning they must request federal assistance unless the president overrides them.
  • Military Deployment: The Posse Comitatus Act (1878) generally prohibits the use of federal military forces (Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Space Force) for domestic law enforcement unless expressly authorized by Congress or the Constitution. The Insurrection Act (1807) is an exception that allows the president to deploy active-duty military personnel if there is an insurrection or widespread violence that state authorities cannot control.

Are the scale of the protests and the commensurate damage and violence much less today than in the other historical examples

The scale of the current unrest in Los Angeles appears to be less destructive than some of the historical examples, but tensions remain high. Reports indicate that protests against federal immigration enforcement have led to vandalism, clashes with law enforcement, and the destruction of property, including five self-driving Waymo vehicles. National Guard troops have been deployed, marking the first federal intervention in Los Angeles without a governor’s request since 1965.

While the damage is significant, it does not yet match the widespread destruction seen in events like the Rodney King riots (1992) where there were 63 deaths and 12,000 arrests or the New York City Draft Riots (1863). However, concerns remain about escalation, as residents fear further violence. Would you like a deeper comparison of the economic impact or law enforcement response across these events?

Where the previous examples were with the support of the Governor of the State

In many cases, governors requested federal assistance, but there have been instances where the president deployed troops without state approval:

Requested by Governors:

  • Little Rock, Arkansas (1957): Governor Orval Faubus initially resisted desegregation, but after federal intervention, troops were sent to enforce court orders.
  • Los Angeles Riots (1992): California Governor Pete Wilson requested federal troops to restore order after widespread violence.
  • Hurricane Katrina (2005): Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco requested federal military assistance for disaster relief.

Without Governor Support:

  • The Bonus Army (1932): President Hoover ordered the military to disperse protesting veterans in Washington, D.C. without a governor’s request.
  • Recent Los Angeles Protests (2025): President Trump federalized the California National Guard and deployed Marines despite objections from Governor Gavin Newsom.
David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

Latest news

Trump’s Imperial Presidency: Putting Local Democracy at Risk
Ethics & Leadership

Trump’s Imperial Presidency: Putting Local Democracy at Risk

Read More

When Politicians Draw Their Own Victories: Why and How To End Gerrymandering

Alyssa West from Austin holds up a sign during the Fight the Trump Takeover rally at the Texas Capitol on Saturday, August. 16, 2025.

(Aaron E. Martinez/Austin American-Statesman via Getty Images)

When Politicians Draw Their Own Victories: Why and How To End Gerrymandering

From MAGA Republicans to progressive Democrats to those of us in the middle, Americans want real change – and they’re tired of politics as usual. They’re craving authenticity, real reform, and an end to the status quo. More and more, voters seem to be embracing disruption over the empty promises of establishment politicians, who too often live by the creed that “one bad idea deserves a bigger one.” Just look at how both parties are handling gerrymandering in Texas and California, and it’s difficult to see it as anything other than both parties trying to rig elections in their favor.

Instead of fixing the system, politicians are fueling a turbocharged redistricting arms race ahead of high-stakes midterm 2026 elections that will determine control of the U.S. Congress. In Texas, Republicans just redrew congressional lines, likely guaranteeing five new Republican seats, which has sparked Democratic strongholds like California and New York to threaten their own gerrymandered counterattacks.

Keep ReadingShow less
Declaration of Independence
When, in 2026, the United States marks the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, we should take pride in our collective journey.
Douglas Sacha/Getty Images

What Exactly Does "All Men Are Created Equal" Mean in the Declaration of Independence?

I used to think the answer was obvious; it was self-evident. But it's not, at least not in today's political context. MAGA Republicans and Democrats have a very different take on the meaning of this phrase in the Declaration.

I said in my book, We Still Hold These Truths: An America Manifesto, that it is in the interpretation of our founding documents that both the liberal and conservative ideologies that have run throughout our history can be found. This is a perfect example.

Keep ReadingShow less
Washington, DC, skyline
A country in crisis needs to call a truce with its government
Michael Lee/Getty Images

Defending Democracy in the Heart of Democracy - Washington, D.C.

The Crisis in Our Capital

Washington, D.C. is at the center of American democracy. Yet today, its residents — taxpayers, veterans, workers, families, people like you an I, American citizens — are being stripped of their right to self-government. The recent surge of out-of-state National Guard troops into the District under federal order has highlighted a deep flaw in our system: D.C. does not have the same authority to govern itself that the 50 states enjoy.Keith

We are told this militarization is about “public safety,” but violent crime in D.C. is near a 30-year low . What we are witnessing is not a crime-fighting measure, but an unprecedented encroachment on local authority. The consent of the people — the foundation of democracy — is being sidelined to pursue a political or even personal agenda.

The Ethical and Constitutional Problem

Legally, a president can request National Guard support through interstate compacts. But legality is not the same as legitimacy. True democracy requires consent, not unilateral fiat. Under the Home Rule Act, federal control over D.C. is only supposed to last 30 days in emergencies. Yet the use of state-based National Guard units circumvents this safeguard and seems to demonstrate a hidden agenda. This is a loophole — one that undermines D.C.’s right to self-governance and sets a dangerous precedent for federal overreach.

An Urgent Legislative Answer

It is not enough to critique the abuse of power — we must fix it. That is why I have drafted the D.C. Defense of Self-Government Act, which closes this loophole and restores constitutional balance. The draft bill is now available for public review on my congressional campaign website:

Read the D.C. Defense of Self-Government Act here

This legislation would require explicit, expedited approval from Congress before federal or state National Guard troops can be deployed into the District. It ensures no president — Republican. Democrat or Independent — can bypass the will of the people of Washington, D.C.

This moment also reminds us of a deeper injustice that has lingered for generations: the people of Washington, D.C., remain without full representation in Congress. Over 700,000 Americans—more than the populations of several states—are denied a voting voice in the very body that holds sway over their lives. This lack of representation makes it easier for their self-government to be undermined, as we see today. That must change. We will need to revisit serious legislation to finally fix this injustice and secure for D.C. residents the same democratic rights every other American enjoys.

The Bigger Picture

This fight is not about partisan politics. It is about whether America will live up to its founding ideals of self-rule and accountability. Every voter, regardless of party, should ask: if the capital of our democracy can be militarized without the consent of the people, what stops it from happening in other cities across America?

A Call to Action

When I ran for president, my wife told me I was going to make history. I told her making history didn’t matter to me — what mattered to me then and what matters to me now is making a difference. I'm not in office yet so I have no legal authority to act. But, I am still a citizen of the United States, a veteran of the United States Air Force, someone who has taken the oath of office, many times since 1973. That oath has no expiration date. Today, that difference is about ensuring the residents of D.C. — and every American city — are protected from unchecked federal overreach.

I urge every reader to share this bill with your representatives. Demand that Congress act now. We can’t wait until the mid-terms. Demand that they defend democracy where it matters most — in the heart of our capital — because FBI and DEA agents patrolling the streets of our nation's capital does not demonstrate democracy. Quite the contrary, it clearly demonstrates autocracy.

Davenport is a candidate for U.S. Congress, NC-06.
© Copyright 2025