section_path: Analysis/Legality of National Guard and military deployment
section_name: Legality of National Guard and military deployment
paragraph_text: Legality of National Guard and military deployment
  
  The New York Times reported that multiple legal scholars described Trump's legal rationale for deploying the National Guard as not authorized by his cited statutes, and that he instead appeared to be declaring dubious emergencies to amass executive power. Politico described Trump's stated legal rationale as "a flimsy and even contrived basis for such a rare and dramatic step" according to several legal scholars and potentially fueling a cycle of increasing unrest.
  
  Analysts stated it was unclear under what authority Trump had deployed active-duty Marines to LA, and The Associated Press reported the Pentagon was "scrambling" to create rules of engagement for Marines who would be armed with their standard service weapons. Law professor Steve Vladeck questioned the legality of actions undertaken by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth during the response, which Vladeck believed exceed the limited proclamation by President Trump to protect property and personnel.
  
  The Military Times reported that the military deployments raised significant legal and political concerns by experts and former defense officials, who noted its official orders to protect federal property placed the military in an "awkward and potentially hazardous mission" that "risks making the units look as though they are conducting law enforcement" and dragging it into partisan politics. It further described Trump's executive order to deploy the military in cities where protests were "likely to occur" as broad and potentially allowing forces to operate in other cities. Former Major General Paul Eaton described the deployment as an example of politicization of the military and a possible prelude to use of the Insurrection Act.