Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

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

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.

Read More

America’s Child Care System Relies on Immigrants. Without Them, It Could Collapse

Maggi, a child care provider in New Mexico, works on an art project with a preschooler in her care. Parents have pulled children out of Maggi’s child care program as immigration enforcement has ramped up.

JACKIE MADER/THE HECHINGER REPORT

America’s Child Care System Relies on Immigrants. Without Them, It Could Collapse

This story about immigrants in New Mexico was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — Maggi’s home in a suburban neighborhood here is a haven for local families. It’s a place where after just a few weeks in Maggi’s family-run child care program this spring, one preschooler started calling Maggi “mama” and Maggi’s husband “papa.” Children who have graduated from Maggi’s program still beg their parents to take them to her home instead of school.

Keep ReadingShow less
Former President Donald Trump

While the 870-page bill covers a whole host of issues and federal programs, there are four big takeaways from the BBB.

The Washington Post/Getty Images

The Big Beautiful Bill Reflects the Trump Administration’s Priorities, Not America’s

If a budget is a mirror of values, what does the “Big Beautiful Bill” (BBB) say about America?

On July 4, President Donald Trump signed into law Congressional Republicans’ “Big Beautiful Bill.” If you held up the bill to a mirror, most Americans would probably say that what they saw in the reflection was anything but beautiful.

Keep ReadingShow less
The $2 Billion a Day Problem of Polarization
A person holding a stack of dollar bills that are flying away.
Getty Images, PM Images

The $2 Billion a Day Problem of Polarization

What do a sausage maker and an insurance giant have in common? A growing concern about the divisions fracturing American society — and a willingness to do something about it.

At Johnsonville, recent research with The Harris Poll found that 82% of Americans agree there’s too much outrage in the country and wish we could “turn down the temperature.” The company’s “Keep It Juicy” campaign, voiced by actor Vince Vaughn, encourages Americans to reclaim everyday joy and civility. Meanwhile, Allstate, one of the nation’s largest insurers, has launched a three-year initiative with the Aspen Institute to strengthen trust in communities. Their message is clear: “Strong communities, businesses, and relationships are built on trust.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Beyond Thoughts and Prayers: Climate Catastrophes As Teachable Moments
File:Flooding of the Guadalupe River near Kerrville, Texas in 2025 ...

Beyond Thoughts and Prayers: Climate Catastrophes As Teachable Moments

The deadly Texas floods have receded, leaving lost and shattered lives. Donald Trump tells us not to politicize the moment, with spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt calling the floods “an act of God,” meaning no one is responsible. However, because the floods and the climate disasters that follow them make the costs heart-wrenchingly visible, they give us the chance to discuss root causes and the choices we face. If we don’t have these conversations, these teachable moments will quickly fade.

Democratic pushback has focused primarily on cutbacks to the National Weather Service and FEMA, leaving critical offices understaffed and undermining the ability to plan effectively. But the pushback has focused less on climate change, even as, the day before the floods, the Republicans paid for massive tax breaks for the wealthiest in part by slashing federal support for wind, solar, battery, and electric vehicles, energy efficiency, and other investments that gave us a chance to join China and Europe in leading the technologies of the future. So we need to discuss the choices presented to us by this tragedy — and all the others that will come.

Keep ReadingShow less