June 17, 2025

Permission to republish original opeds and cartoons granted.

Poll: 56 Percent Support Deploying National Guard To Suppress Anti-ICE Riots, 55 Percent Think President Trump Should Act When States Won’t As No Kings Fizzles 

By Robert Romano 

56 percent of voters say they support deploying the National Guard to quell the anti-Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) riots in Los Angeles according to the latest polling taken by Harvard-Harris on June 11 and June 12. 

That includes 29 percent of Democrats, 55 percent of independents and 83 percent of Republicans and comes as the No Kings rallies, the latest of which came on June 14, face increasing public rejection as protesters and rioters block traffic and attack local police, which began on June 6 in Los Angeles, Calif. 

Critically, Harvard-Harris also asked under what conditions the National Guard should be deployed, with 55 percent saying that President Trump should be able to do so when states and cities won’t act to quell riots, with only 45 percent saying the Guard should only be deployed when states request it. 

At issue in the second question was Trump’s invocation of 10 U.S. Code Sec. 12406 via proclamation on June 7 in Los Angeles, which allows the President to activate the National Guard when states will not and states: “Whenever… the United States, or any of the Commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation; … there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or… the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States; the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws. Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.” 

National Guard on the ground now numbers 4,000, and the Marines, now 700, are securing federal buildings in Los Angeles and assisting with the enforcement of federal authority and immigration laws. 

In the proclamation, Trump called the riots a “rebellion,” stating, “Numerous incidents of violence and disorder have recently occurred and threaten to continue in response to the enforcement of Federal law by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other United States Government personnel who are performing Federal functions and supporting the faithful execution of Federal immigration laws.  In addition, violent protests threaten the security of and significant damage to Federal immigration detention facilities and other Federal property.  To the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.” 

The mission is to protect federal agents enforcing immigration and other federal laws: “[to] temporarily protect ICE and other United States Government personnel who are performing Federal functions, including the enforcement of Federal law, and to protect Federal property, at locations where protests against these functions are occurring or are likely to occur based on current threat assessments and planned operations.” 

The polling comes on the heels of a June 12 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision to allow the National Guard to remain under federal authority over the weekend — notably overlapping with the June 14 No Kings rallies — and allowing more time for the federal government and states to make their case.  

In a June 16 filing with the Ninth Circuit, the Justice Department argued that the state of California’s interpretation of the law would only allow federalization of the National Guard in the event of an attempt to “overthrow” the government: “under plaintiffs' and the district court's textual interpretation of Section 12406(2), the President would be unable to call up the Guard to respond to a violent uprising no matter how widespread and dangerous, unless the mob was dedicated to the ‘overthrow’ of ‘the government as a whole.’”  

In addition, that California was attempting to create a state “veto” over federal deployments by “turn[ing] a procedure intended to ensure orderly transfer of command authority into a gubernatorial veto, contrary to Congress' vesting of the mobilization decision…” Surely, the Confederacy would have loved such a ruling during the Civil War, which was fought by then-President Abraham Lincoln under the very similarly constructed Insurrection Act, which Trump has yet to invoke. The South could have just told Lincoln to go home. Who knew? 

In any event, it certainly has never been necessary for a rebellion to be actively seeking the overthrow of the government in order to justify the federalization of troops, whether under the Insurrection Act or some other statute, with 30 such federalizations of the military in the American republic’s history, including to compel states to comply with federal civil rights laws. The first such invocation was by then-President George Washington in 1794 “to enforce the laws” in the Whiskey Rebellion, which was sparked by opposition to the federal collection of the 1791 excise tax on whiskey. In it, there was no attempt to overthrow the government, just the local refusal in Pennsylvania to cooperate with tax collectors.  

Well, if the military can be federalized to collect taxes, then surely it can be federalized to deal with the local refusal in California — a sanctuary state — to enforce immigration laws, or as 10 U.S. Code Sec. 12406 states, “[w]henever… the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States…”  

The key question, and the one where the American people are siding with President Trump, is in the exercise of federal authority and upholding the supreme law of the land under Article VI of Constitution, and the President’s explicit executive authority under Article II “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed…” and as the commander-in-chief: “[t]he President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.”  

The American people are right. All that is necessary under the law and the Constitution is that the President call the militia of the states into service of the United States. It’s right in the Constitution. How could courts rule any other way? 

Robert Romano is the Executive Director of Americans for Limited Government Foundation. 

To view online: https://dailytorch.com/2025/06/poll-56-percent-support-deploying-national-guard-to-suppress-anti-ice-riots-55-percent-think-president-trump-should-act-when-states-wont-as-no-kings-fizzles/  

Cartoon: Media TDS 

By A.F. Branco 

Click here for a higher level resolution version. 

To view online: https://dailytorch.com/2025/06/cartoon-media-tds/