National Guard troops stand outside the Metropolitan Detention Center, MDC on June 08, in Los Angeles.
Spencer Platt/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Spencer Platt/Getty Images
Top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee Adam Smith said he fears President Trump wants to use the U.S. military as his “personal police force.”
“President Trump wants this confrontation partially because he wants to emphasize the issue of immigration enforcement,” Smith told Morning Edition. “But more, I fear, because he wants to politicize the U.S. military and legitimize using it as a law enforcement tool, which is incredibly dangerous.”
In Los Angeles last week, and stretching into the weekend, Immigration and Customs Enforcement launched operations detaining and arresting more than 100 people across the city. In response to the raids, people demonstrated and organized protests, clashing with police in the city and surrounding areas. During the clashes, law enforcement met protesters with pepper spray, tear gas and rubber bullets.
On Saturday, Trump signed an order to deploy 2,000 National Guardsmen to LA, without the consent of California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Newsom and California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, accusing the president of violating a federal statute by deploying the National Guard over the governor’s objections and violating the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which gives states rights.
Newsom went on to describe the administration’s actions as a “blatant abuse of power,” to which Smith said he agrees.
“The president has created an incredibly dangerous situation with the risk of even further escalation,” Smith said.
Though protests on Monday were not as rowdy, that night, Trump authorized the deployment of an additional 2,000 National Guard troops to the city, hours after the Pentagon deployed 700 Marines in the same direction.
The administration says that the deployment is to protect federal property and immigration detention facilities from “violent mobs” and ensure the safety of federal immigration officers and agents.
Smith, of Washington state, spoke to NPR’s Michel Martin about Trump’s use of the military to end anti-immigration enforcement protests.
House Armed Services Committee ranking member Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) questions witnesses during a hearing in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill April 12, 2018 in Washington, DC.
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images/Getty Images North America
hide caption
toggle caption
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images/Getty Images North America
The following excerpt has been edited for length and clarity.
Michel Martin: So given your role in Armed Services, and you’re also a lawyer by training, do you believe the president is acting legally in calling up active duty military?
Rep. Adam Smith: I do not. I mean, the statute that he’s using technically gives him the authority to use troops in this manner, but only in the case that there is the risk of a rebellion. And that is certainly not the case here. So, as he has done in a number of areas, he’s taking emergency authority that was meant for very narrow, specific circumstances and just broadening it beyond all recognition. I think the courts would strike down this authority if the court case got there. But President Trump’s not particularly interested in following the law.
President Trump wants this confrontation partially because he wants to emphasize the issue of immigration enforcement, but more, I fear, because he wants to politicize the U.S. military and legitimize using it as a law enforcement tool, which is incredibly dangerous.
Martin: I can imagine that it is somewhat galling to someone like yourself who was trapped on Capitol Hill during the January 6th mob attack on the Capitol, when President Trump took many hours to condemn the violence or call for reinforcements for the law enforcement officers who are trying to hold the Capitol and protect people like yourself then. But having said that, your Democratic senator, John Fetterman, on his X account, described the scenes in L.A. as “anarchy and true chaos.” And he said that Democrats lose the moral high ground when members refuse to condemn the violence from protesters. What do you say to that?
Smith: First of all, absolutely. I mean, we had an actual insurrection on January 6th here at the Capitol. People were actually trying to stop the election of a president. They were threatening to kill elected officials, including Vice President Pence. That was an actual insurrection that the president chose to ignore. And to this day, he has pardoned all of the people involved and downplayed that event. So, that is completely unacceptable.
Second, what was going on in Los Angeles? There was a protest. The protest was fine. The violence that erupted out of it was not fine. But again, local law enforcement could have handled that. Now, I think Senator Fetterman has a point. We should condemn protests when they violate the law. […] Both things can be true. It can be true that protesters should not damage property, threaten people. And it can also be true that the president, calling in the U.S. military […] is attempting to use the military and exercise a level of control over this country that our Constitution has clearly said no president should do. We should be worried about the authoritarian approach President Trump has taken.
Martin: What should happen now in your opinion?
Smith: What should happen now is the court should rule that the president is again abusing his emergency power. This is not an emergency as defined in the statute. You cannot simply say ‘well in case of an emergency’ and then allow the president to define the emergency any way he wants to. The courts should strike down his authority to bring in those troops. The president should de-escalate and the protesters should de-escalate as well.
