Back in November 2024, Donald Trump made a chilling promise: to unleash the U.S. military on our communities. This month, that threat was realized.

In a grotesque show of force, Trump and his allies in the Department of Defense mobilized 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 U.S. Marines to the streets of Los Angeles. Their mission? To retaliate against anti-ICE demonstrators and immigrant advocates standing against the illegal detention, disappearance, and deportation of our neighbors. This deployment is not about “restoring order.” It is a calculated act of political repression against a multiracial, immigrant-rich city that has long been at the heart of the fight for civil rights and human dignity.

Make no mistake. This is not law enforcement. It is the weaponization of military power against the people.

The reason behind this brutal show of force is as strategic as it is sinister. Trump is targeting migrant communities in sanctuary cities, where voters have explicitly chosen to protect their neighbors and keep families safe. The goal is not merely punishment. It is deterrence. Just like his infamous Bible photo op in Washington, D.C., in 2020, where federal agents violently cleared peaceful protesters with tear gas so he could pose in front of a church, this deployment is political theater with potentially deadly consequences. It is meant to chill protest, intimidate dissent, and test how far the military can be used as an invading force in American cities. This is not about protecting democracy. It is about breaking it.

The use of the military on U.S. soil has always existed in tension with democratic values. The Constitution allows for limited federal deployment in cases of insurrection or to protect constitutional rights, but the line between protection and suppression is thin. Under Trump, it has vanished.

To understand how grave this moment is, we must look to history not just for context, but for contrast.

One of the most pivotal uses of federal force occurred in 1957, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne Division to Little Rock, Arkansas. There, state authorities attempted to defy Brown v. Board of Education by blocking nine Black students from integrating Central High School. Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard and deployed Marines not to repress dissent, but to protect the students’ constitutional right to equal education. He acted to uphold the rule of law against state tyranny and what he called “demagogic extremists.”

Trump’s actions could not be more different.

Today, federal troops have been deployed not to protect rights, but to crush them. The military is being used to silence communities demanding due process, humane immigration policy, and human dignity. The military has always been a tool of the State, used in moments of both justice and injustice. The 1992 Los Angeles uprising after the acquittal of LAPD officers in the Rodney King beating is a case in point. Then, federal troops, including 1,500 U.S. Marines, were deployed after a formal request by the governor. Yet even under those conditions, the military caused harm. One tragic example is the infamous “cover me” incident, where Marines, trained for battlefield combat, misunderstood a routine command issued by a police officer. When the officer said “cover me,” intending to signal that he was about to move and needed visual surveillance support, the Marines interpreted it as a combat directive and opened fire. The result was the Marines firing over 200 bullets into a civilian home where children were present. This incident became emblematic of the dangers of deploying troops who are trained for war zones into American communities unprepared for that level of militarized force.

Trump did not follow any lawful statutory process to justify this occupation. He claimed authority under 10 U.S.C. § 12406, which allows the President to mobilize the National Guard during invasions, insurrections, or major emergencies. However, this statute only applies when a state cannot or refuses to enforce the law, and it does not permit the President to override a governor’s authority without consent. In this instance, Trump bypassed California Governor Gavin Newsom entirely and unilaterally deployed active-duty Marines. That action appears to be a clear abuse of executive power and outside the scope of the statute. This dangerous overreach distorts the law to fit an authoritarian agenda.

By contrast, the Insurrection Act of 1807, which has been invoked sparingly throughout American history, was used during the Reconstruction era to combat the Ku Klux Klan; in 1968 after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.; and during the 1992 Los Angeles uprising. Even in 1992, federal troops were deployed only after Governor Pete Wilson formally requested assistance.

Trump, however, went beyond merely federalizing the California National Guard. He bypassed state authority and directly deployed active-duty Marines without any formal request from the state — in fact, Newson objected and sued the Trump regime over it. This unprecedented escalation is not about quelling insurrection. It is about terrorizing dissenters. It is the clearest warning yet that we are moving toward de facto martial law.

We must also recognize the racialized and political nature of this repression. Immigrant communities — particularly Black, Brown, and undocumented — are the ones most often targeted by militarized police violence. But this is the same playbook used in the early 20th century to crush labor uprisings, such as the Battle of Blair Mountain in 1921, when federal troops were deployed to suppress coal miners organizing for basic rights. It is no coincidence that David Huerta, a prominent leader in SEIU’s labor and immigrant rights organizing, was among those injured and arrested during the current attacks. Then, as now, the State views labor, immigrants, and people of color as threats to be neutralized, not citizens to be protected.

Trump’s militarized response to peaceful protest is not just dangerous. It is unconstitutional. It violates the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which prohibits the use of federal troops in civilian law enforcement without explicit Congressional authorization. It is an abuse of executive power. 10 U.S.C. § 12406 — the law that grants the president limited power to activate a state national guard with the permission of the state governor — is being used as a fig leaf to justify what is essentially an authoritarian overreach. This is not about restoring peace. It is about crushing hope and scaring people into submission.

History shows us that when governments escalate repression, communities rise to resist. Each wave of State violence has been met by a wave of defiance, driven by people who refuse to be silenced.

From the sit-ins at segregated lunch counters to the Freedom Rides, from Kent State to Standing Rock, from COINTELPRO to the streets of Ferguson and Minneapolis, every generation has faced a moment when it was told to sit down, shut up, and accept injustice. And every generation has responded by rising.

Today’s protesters are confronting a new chapter of State violence. They are facing it not with complacency, but with conviction. Their resistance proves that the power of the people comes from the streets, the courts, and the collective refusal to be silent.

We must rise above these dark times not through despair, but through defiance. The arc of American history does not bend on its own. It bends because people force it to move, inch by inch, through protest, litigation, organizing, and truth-telling.

The Marines may be in Los Angeles, but they are not the final word. The people are.