As immigration enforcement protests spread across the country, attention is turning to how governors will respond.
President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have hinted in the last few days that they may call in the National Guard to handle protests over the objections of governors, like they did in Los Angeles without the request of Gov. Gavin Newsom.
With immigration enforcement protests spreading across the country and millions of Americans expected to protest at nearly 2,000 locations on June 14, governors are having to weigh calling in the National Guard in case of violence versus chancing having Trump do it for them.
Though at least one state has activated its National Guard ahead of the planned weekend protests, none of the more than a half dozen Republican and Democratic governors who communicated with USA TODAY directly said they will have the National Guard on standby. Most made a point of saying they support peaceful protests, but will ensure public safety if violence occurs.
The “No Kings” protests scheduled to take place in big and small towns nationwide have been planned for weeks, but organizers expect to see participation swell in response to recent immigration raids and Trump’s response to protests in Los Angeles.
Protests began in Los Angeles on June 6 in response to federal immigration enforcement raids enacted in several central neighborhoods. Since then, more than 45 cities across dozens of states held their own demonstrations over Trump’s immigration crackdown and decision to send the National Guard and Marines into Los Angeles.
Newsom has sued Trump for calling out the National Guard over his objections to help quell the mostly peaceful protests over immigration enforcement in Los Angeles. Localized violence has occurred in the central part of the city. Late on June 12, a federal judge ruled Trump unlawfully federalized the California National Guard and ordered control back to the governor. But the judge gave the Trump administration time to appeal.
On June 10, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, preemptively called up the Texas National Guard to be present at immigration protests in San Antonio, which remained peaceful overnight. On June 12, Abbott deployed over 5,000 Texas National Guard troops ahead of planned “No Kings” protests, one of the largest state deployments there in recent memory.
Local law enforcement and immigration enforcement protesters clashed overnight in Tuscan, Seattle, Spokane, New York and Las Vegas.
Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson, a Democrat, said in a statement June 11 that “we expect that local law enforcement will manage all protests with professionalism, and without interference from the federal government.”
‘Getting ahead of a problem,’ defense secretary says
The upcoming protests are intended to be peaceful, but governors would likely receive broad criticism if they aren’t prepared if the protests become violent.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth threw down a gauntlet June 11, telling members of Congress that the federal government’s deployment of National Guard troops could expand beyond Los Angeles and California.
“Part of it is getting ahead of a problem, so that if in other places, if there are other riots in places where law enforcement officers are threatened, we would have the capability to surge the National Guard there if necessary,” Hegseth said during his second day of hearings on Capitol Hill.
“Thankfully, in most of those states you have a governor that recognizes the need for it, supports it, mobilizes it for himself or herself,” Hegseth added. “In California, unfortunately, the governor wants to play politics with it.”
Currently, the National Guard and Marines in Los Angeles are protecting federal property and personnel. If U.S. troops are regularly deployed on immigration raids in American cities and take a more active role, it would mark a significant shift.
Traditionally, National Guard involvement in immigration enforcement has been limited to border security. But the Trump administration’s decision to deploy 4,000 California Guard troops in Los Angeles without Newsom’s consent approaches a new frontier: military immigration enforcement alongside agencies like ICE in the U.S. interior.
While the presidential authority used to put troops in Los Angeles does not permit them to make arrests, they are providing security for federal agents in the area amid anti-immigration enforcement protests. Trump and Hegseth said they will order similar deployments in states that, in their judgment, fail to crack down sufficiently on such protests.
More: Trump wants 20,000 troops to hunt, transport immigrants. Cost estimate: $3.6 billion
Beyond California, the Pentagon is weighing a request from the Department of Homeland Security to deploy more than 20,000 National Guard members to join immigration task forces in various roles with law enforcement powers.
The proposed legal authority — under Title 32, derived from the Guard’s state militia roots — requires governors to consent to using their troops in such a manner. It remains unclear, though, whether Title 32 Guardsmen from Trump-supporting states can legally operate in states whose governors don’t want them there, such as if Texas’ troops were to assist immigration authorities in Los Angeles.
And if the blue state governors who testified to Congress June 12 are any indication, the administration will receive little cooperation from Democratic Party-controlled states.
‘Overreach of epic proportions,’ New York governor says
Democratic governors from Illinois, New York and Minnesota repeatedly took swings at Trump for calling in the California National Guard during a House Oversight Committee hearing on June 12.
Illinois Gov. Jay Pritzker said calling in the National Guard needs to be based on a request from local or state law enforcement and that the governor is better suited than the president to know when they are needed.
“We … expect this administration to respect the traditions and legal precedent that dictate how and when our National Guard and military are deployed,” he said. “It’s wrong to deploy the National Guard and active duty Marines into an American city over the objection of local law enforcement just to inflame a situation and create a crisis.”
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul decried that an “American city has been militarized over the objections of their governor,” which she called a “flagrant abuse of power and nothing short of an assault on our American values” and an “overreach of epic proportions.”
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz said calling in the National Guard without notifying the governor or local law enforcement hurts the ability to coordinate law enforcement and “creates a chaotic situation.”
New Mexico governor: ‘I don’t arm them against citizens’
New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Democrat, told USA TODAY that Democratic governors are speaking with one another about being prepared if Trump deploys their state National Guard over their objections.
She said she’s told her Guard officials that any orders need to come in writing and that she is prepared to sue the federal government the way California has.
“This is not constitutional. This is stoking fear. This is using our Guards against American citizens and states,” she said. “This is a state’s rights issue. This is bad and we need to call it out for what it is, and people should expect that governors like me will not take our foot off the gas here and aren’t going to tolerate this to the highest degree.”
Lujan Grisham said she expects the New Mexico protests to be peaceful and managed by local law enforcement. She isn’t preparing the Guard in case protests turn violent because that isn’t their job.
Even if local officials ask for support, the Guard would be called to help with traffic control, escorting people through barricades, setting up blockades and making deliveries far from where local police are interacting with crowds.
“When my Guard are involved in those activities, they’re not armed. I don’t arm them against citizens of New Mexico ever. They are not trained to be doing that and they don’t want to do it. They want to help,” she said.
California Nation Guard members in Los Angeles are carrying rifles.
Will more Republicans follow Texas?
So far, Republican governors haven’t jumped to follow Abbott’s lead and staged the National Guard in anticipation of violence, but several have indicated they are prepared to do so.
Georgia Republican Gov. Brian Kemp posted on social media June 11 that his office respects “the constitutional right to peaceful assembly” but warned about violence, saying it would be “met with quick and heavy accountability.” Kemp’s statement doesn’t mention the National Guard.
Asked if Kemp is considering deploying the Guard, spokesperson Garrison Douglas said he didn’t have anything to add beyond the governor’s statement, but noted it reads Kemp will “take whatever appropriate action is needed to safeguard our communities.”
Dan Tierney, deputy director of media relations for Ohio GOP Gov. Mike DeWine, said local governments take the lead in responding to most protests.
“Local law enforcement are always welcome to request state assistance, and we have provided past support when necessary and requested,” Tierney said, ignoring questions about whether DeWine is considering mobilizing the National Guard in Ohio.
Missouri National Guard members are participating in a “unified command” with the state’s Department of Public Safety and Highway Patrol to monitor protests, Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe said in a statement.
“We are prepared to assist local law enforcement in protecting our communities,” Kehoe said on social media. “We respect, and will defend, the right to peacefully protest, but we will not tolerate violence or lawlessness.”
The Missouri National Guard hasn’t been mobilized, though, which would require an executive order, said Gabby Picard, Kehoe’s communications director.
“They are currently not mobilized for this mission, however, Guard leaders are participating in the Unified Command,” Picard said.
More: Trump’s battle with Newsom, California expands beyond immigration
The National Guard has long been used by governors to help police protests.
When George Floyd, an unarmed Black man, was murdered by a Minneapolis police officer on May 25, 2020, governors in 28 states had deployed the National Guard by June 3, 2020 to help contain demonstrations that erupted across the country, according to the Department of Defense. Among them was Newsom in California.
Meanwhile, governors nationwide are not unified on what to do.
The National Governors Association, the bipartisan organization representing the nation’s governors, hasn’t weighed in on Trump calling in the National Guard over Newsom’s objections. When asked for an interview to understand why, a spokesperson didn’t respond to the request.
More: Hegseth won’t say he’ll respect ruling on LA deployment as hearing looms: Live updates
The 22 governors who make up the Democratic Governors Association backed Newsom’s objections in a statement June 7, stressing the importance of respecting “the executive authority of our country’s governors to manage their National Guards.” The Republican Governors Association did not respond to a request for comment.
But the bipartisan U.S. Conference of Mayors has taken a stand.
“The streets of American cities are no place for the U.S. military. Law enforcement is a local responsibility,” their statement said, adding that they have faith in Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass. “Protest, carried out peacefully, is a bedrock of our democracy. However, violence, theft, and destruction of property can never be tolerated. We have every confidence that Mayor Bass and state officials can manage the situation.”
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Will governors use National Guard for ‘No Kings’ protests?
