When Presidents Bypass Governors: A Rare Exercise of Federal Power Over the National Guard

In the complex tapestry of American federalism, the balance of power between the states and the federal government is constantly negotiated, particularly in times of crisis or civil unrest. One of the most striking examples of this dynamic involves the National Guard, a unique military force with a dual identity, serving under both state governors and the President of the United States. While the vast majority of National Guard deployments occur at the request and under the command of state governors, there exists a rare, potent authority allowing the president to federalize and deploy Guard troops within a state, even over the governor's objections. This power has been invoked sparingly throughout history, typically reserved for moments of profound national significance or when state authorities are deemed unwilling or unable to uphold federal law or protect constitutional rights.

Before a recent deployment in Los Angeles, the last time a U.S. president bypassed a state governor to deploy the National Guard in response to civil unrest was in 1965. The circumstances surrounding that historical moment, the civil rights struggle in Selma, Alabama, offer a critical lens through which to understand the gravity and implications of such a presidential action. Comparing the 1965 event with the recent situation in Los Angeles reveals enduring tensions between federal authority and state sovereignty, the evolving nature of civil protest, and the president's ultimate role as guarantor of domestic tranquility and constitutional rights.

The Historical Precedent: Selma, 1965

The spring of 1965 was a pivotal moment in the American Civil Rights Movement. Activists were focused on securing voting rights for African Americans in the South, where systemic disenfranchisement through poll taxes, literacy tests, and intimidation remained rampant. Selma, Alabama, became a focal point for this struggle, culminating in planned marches from Selma to the state capital in Montgomery.

The first attempt to march, on March 7, 1965, became known as "Bloody Sunday." State troopers and local law enforcement brutally attacked peaceful marchers as they crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge, shocking the nation and the world with televised images of the violence. This event galvanized support for federal intervention and the passage of voting rights legislation.

Following "Bloody Sunday," civil rights leaders, including Martin Luther King Jr., called for a second march. However, the threat of further violence loomed large, and the state government, led by Governor George Wallace, a staunch segregationist, offered no assurance of protection for the marchers. Wallace had famously declared "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" in his 1963 inaugural address and was deeply resistant to federal efforts to dismantle segregation and protect Black citizens' rights.

President Lyndon B. Johnson, who had championed civil rights legislation, found himself in a direct confrontation with Governor Wallace. Johnson was determined to ensure the marchers could exercise their constitutional right to protest peacefully and petition their government, particularly in the context of seeking the fundamental right to vote. Wallace, however, refused to use state resources, including the Alabama National Guard, to protect the marchers, arguing that he could not guarantee their safety and even suggesting the march itself was an unlawful provocation.

Faced with a governor unwilling to protect citizens engaged in constitutionally protected activity and the potential for further bloodshed, President Johnson made a momentous decision. He chose to invoke his authority under federal law to take control of the Alabama National Guard and deploy them to protect the marchers. This was a direct bypass of Governor Wallace's command.

On March 20, 1965, President Johnson issued Executive Order 11207, federalizing the Alabama National Guard. He also ordered regular U.S. Army troops to Alabama. In a televised address to a joint session of Congress on March 15, just days before the federalization order, Johnson had already forcefully articulated the moral and legal imperative for federal action, declaring, "Their cause must be our cause too. Because it is not just Negroes, but really it is all of us, who must overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice. And we shall overcome." (Source: White House Historical Association)

Johnson's decision was rooted in the president's constitutional duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" and specific statutory authority, primarily the Insurrection Act of 1807. This act, among other things, allows the president to use the military (including the federalized National Guard) to suppress insurrection, enforce federal laws, or put down rebellion when state authorities are unable or unwilling to do so, particularly when such actions impede the rights of citizens under the Constitution and laws of the United States.

With the federalized National Guard and regular Army troops providing protection, the third march from Selma to Montgomery proceeded from March 21 to March 25, 1965, largely without the violence that had marred the previous attempts. The successful completion of the march was a powerful symbol and a significant factor in the swift passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, signed into law by President Johnson on August 6, 1965.

The Selma intervention remains a landmark case illustrating the president's power to override a governor's authority over the National Guard when necessary to protect fundamental federal rights. It underscored that while the Guard is primarily a state force, it is also a federal reserve, subject to presidential command under specific, legally defined circumstances.

The Dual Nature of the National Guard and Presidential Authority

To understand the significance of a presidential bypass, it's crucial to grasp the unique status of the National Guard. Unlike the active-duty Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines, which are purely federal forces, the National Guard operates under a dual state and federal status. Guardsmen are typically commanded by the governor of their state or territory and serve their state unless called into federal service by the president.

Under state command (often referred to as Title 32 status, referring to Title 32 of the U.S. Code), the Guard performs missions such as disaster relief, assisting law enforcement during civil disturbances (at the governor's direction), and community support. In this capacity, they are state militia, funded by both state and federal governments but under state control.

The president can call the National Guard into federal service (Title 10 status, referring to Title 10 of the U.S. Code). This is commonly done for national emergencies, overseas deployments, or to supplement active-duty forces. When federalized under Title 10, the Guard acts as part of the U.S. armed forces and is under the direct command of the president, bypassing the governor's authority.

The power to federalize the Guard *within* a state for domestic law enforcement or to quell civil disturbance, particularly without the governor's consent, is primarily derived from the Insurrection Act of 1807. This act grants the president authority to deploy military forces, including the federalized National Guard, under specific conditions:

• To suppress an insurrection against a state government upon the request of the state's legislature or governor.
• To suppress rebellion or enforce federal laws when state authorities are unable or unwilling to do so, and the situation hinders the execution of laws or deprives people of their constitutional rights.
• To suppress insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combinations, or conspiracies that hinder the execution of state or federal law and deprive people of their constitutional rights, and where the state authorities are unable or unwilling to protect those rights.

The 1965 Selma case falls under the third category: protecting the constitutional rights of citizens (to march, to vote) when the state government (Governor Wallace) was unwilling to do so. The president's use of this power is subject to legal interpretation and political challenge, as it represents a significant assertion of federal power into matters typically handled by states.

Historically, presidents have been reluctant to invoke the Insurrection Act without gubernatorial consent, preferring to work with state authorities. Even in moments of intense civil unrest, like the 1992 Los Angeles riots following the Rodney King verdict, President George H.W. Bush federalized the California National Guard and sent in federal troops, but he did so at the request of California Governor Pete Wilson. This cooperation is the norm.

Another notable instance where a president considered but ultimately did not bypass a governor was after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Amidst the chaos and breakdown of order in New Orleans, there were calls for President George W. Bush to federalize the Louisiana National Guard and take control of the response. However, Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco objected to the idea of the president taking command of her state's Guard troops. President Bush ultimately decided against federalizing the Guard without her consent, highlighting the strong norm of gubernatorial control and the political sensitivity of overriding it. (Source: Government Executive)

These examples underscore that the president's power to bypass a governor is legally available but politically fraught and historically rare, making the 1965 Selma case, and any subsequent instance, particularly noteworthy.

The Modern Context: Los Angeles, 2025

Decades after Selma, the issue of a presidential bypass of a governor for National Guard deployment resurfaced in a dramatically different context: immigration protests in Los Angeles in 2025. The situation arose amidst heightened tensions surrounding federal immigration enforcement actions, specifically large-scale operations targeting undocumented immigrants in and around the Los Angeles area.

According to reports, these enforcement actions led to significant protests. Demonstrators opposing the federal operations reportedly engaged in actions that included surrounding federal immigration agents, attempting to block their vehicles, and in some instances, throwing objects. Federal authorities characterized these actions as hindering law enforcement and creating unsafe conditions for their personnel.

California's governor, Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, had been publicly critical of the federal administration's immigration policies and enforcement tactics. While state and local law enforcement were present during some protests, the federal government, under President Trump, argued that California authorities were not adequately protecting federal agents or ensuring their ability to carry out their duties.

A White House spokeswoman, Karoline Leavitt, stated that officials in California had "completely abdicated their responsibility to protect their citizens" and federal personnel. This mirrored, in rhetoric if not in specific circumstances, the federal government's position regarding Governor Wallace in 1965.

Citing the need to support federal law enforcement and restore order, President Trump directed the deployment of hundreds of California National Guard troops to Los Angeles. Crucially, this deployment was ordered by the president without the request or consent of Governor Newsom. This action immediately drew parallels to the 1965 Selma incident, highlighting the rarity of a president directly federalizing and deploying a state's Guard over the governor's head.

Governor Newsom sharply criticized the president's move, calling it an unnecessary provocation that could escalate tensions rather than defuse them. His reaction was the inverse of Governor Wallace's passive refusal in 1965; Newsom actively commanded the state Guard and disputed the premise that state authorities were failing in their duty.

The legal basis for President Trump's action would likely again rest on the Insurrection Act, specifically the provisions allowing the president to intervene when state authorities are unable or unwilling to enforce federal law or protect constitutional rights. In this case, the federal government's argument would center on the need to protect federal agents and ensure the execution of federal immigration laws, which they claimed was being impeded by the protests and inadequate state response.

However, the application of the Insurrection Act in this context is distinct from the 1965 case. In Selma, the federal intervention was framed as protecting the constitutional rights of citizens (voting, assembly) against state-sanctioned violence and disenfranchisement. In Los Angeles, the intervention was framed as protecting federal personnel and enforcing federal laws (immigration) against actions by protesters, even if those protesters were also arguably exercising constitutional rights (assembly, speech).

The Council on Foreign Relations notes the historical norm: "Presidents rarely federalize a state or territory’s guard without the consent of the governor." (Source: Council on Foreign Relations) The Los Angeles deployment under President Trump thus stands out as a significant departure from this norm, echoing the exceptional circumstances of 1965.

Comparing the Two Interventions

While both the 1965 Selma deployment and the 2025 Los Angeles deployment involved a president bypassing a governor to use the National Guard domestically, the contexts, motivations, and legal nuances present both striking similarities and crucial differences.

Similarities:

• **Presidential Bypass:** Both cases represent a rare instance of the president federalizing and deploying a state's National Guard without the governor's consent, overriding state command.
• **Federal-State Conflict:** Both occurred during periods of significant tension and disagreement between the federal administration and the state governor regarding how to handle a domestic crisis.
• **Civil Unrest:** Both interventions were a direct response to civil unrest and public demonstrations, albeit stemming from vastly different issues.
• **Assertion of Federal Authority:** Both demonstrated the president's willingness to use the ultimate federal authority provided by the Insurrection Act when they deemed state action insufficient or contrary to federal interests or constitutional rights.

Differences:

• **Underlying Issue:** Selma was fundamentally about protecting fundamental civil and voting rights against state-sponsored oppression and violence. Los Angeles was about enforcing federal immigration laws and protecting federal agents amidst protests against those laws.
• **Governor's Stance:** Governor Wallace in 1965 actively resisted the civil rights agenda and refused to protect the marchers, creating a vacuum that the federal government felt compelled to fill to protect constitutional rights. Governor Newsom in 2025 was critical of the federal action but was not necessarily refusing to deploy state resources to maintain order, framing the federal action as an overreach and provocation.
• **Legal Justification Nuance:** While both likely relied on the Insurrection Act, the specific clause and interpretation might differ – protecting constitutional rights of citizens (Selma) vs. enforcing federal law and protecting federal personnel (Los Angeles).
• **Political Climate:** The 1965 intervention occurred during the height of the Civil Rights Movement with broad national attention and moral urgency, leading to landmark legislation. The 2025 intervention took place in a highly polarized political environment with intense debate surrounding immigration policy.
• **Nature of the Threat:** In Selma, the threat was state-sanctioned violence against peaceful protesters. In Los Angeles, the threat, as framed by the federal government, was disruption and potential harm to federal agents carrying out enforcement duties by protesters.

The Selma intervention is widely viewed through the lens of protecting fundamental human and civil rights against a recalcitrant state government actively impeding those rights. It is often cited as a necessary, albeit extraordinary, use of federal power to uphold the Constitution's guarantees. The Los Angeles intervention, conversely, is viewed through the lens of federal law enforcement and immigration policy, sparking debate about the appropriate use of military-like force in domestic law enforcement contexts and the balance between protest rights and order.

Implications and Future Considerations

The rarity of a presidential bypass of a governor for National Guard deployment underscores the principle of state control over domestic order. The National Guard's primary role is to serve the states, and federal intervention is meant to be an exception, not the rule.

When a president does choose this path, it signals a significant breakdown in federal-state relations regarding the handling of a crisis. It implies that the president believes the state is either unwilling or unable to fulfill its basic responsibilities, or is actively obstructing federal law or constitutional rights.

Such actions also raise important questions about the use of military forces in domestic situations. While the National Guard is distinct from the active-duty military (which is generally prohibited from domestic law enforcement by the Posse Comitatus Act, with exceptions), federalizing the Guard for domestic purposes places armed troops under direct presidential command within U.S. borders, a scenario the Insurrection Act permits under specific, limited conditions.

The political ramifications are also considerable. Bypassing a governor is a direct challenge to their authority and can exacerbate political divisions between the federal government and state leadership, particularly when they belong to different parties, as was the case with Johnson and Wallace, and Trump and Newsom.

The historical context of the Insurrection Act itself is important. It was enacted in a different era to deal with issues like post-Civil War reconstruction and the enforcement of federal authority in states that had been in rebellion. Its application in modern civil unrest or law enforcement scenarios is subject to ongoing legal and political debate.

The Los Angeles deployment in 2025, by echoing the procedural rarity of the 1965 Selma intervention, highlights that the legal authority for a presidential bypass remains available. However, the vastly different circumstances of the two events demonstrate that this power can be contemplated and used in response to a wide range of domestic situations, from protecting civil rights to enforcing federal laws amidst protest.

Each instance forces a national conversation about the appropriate boundaries of federal power, the role of the National Guard, and the delicate balance between maintaining public order and protecting the rights of assembly and speech. While the Selma intervention is largely remembered as a necessary step to advance civil rights, the legacy and interpretation of the Los Angeles deployment will likely be debated for years to come, shaped by perspectives on immigration policy, federalism, and the use of force in domestic contexts.

Ultimately, the power of the president to bypass a governor and deploy the National Guard is a potent tool, reserved for moments when the executive branch determines that state authority is insufficient to uphold federal law or protect fundamental rights. Its rare use in 1965 and again in 2025 serves as a stark reminder of the potential for federal intervention in state affairs and the enduring tensions inherent in the American system of government.

Understanding the history, particularly the landmark case of Selma, is crucial for evaluating future instances where a president might consider this extraordinary measure. It provides a benchmark against which to measure the circumstances, justifications, and potential consequences of overriding state control over its own militia forces.

The National Guard's role will continue to be debated as the nation faces various forms of civil unrest, natural disasters, and security challenges. The question of who commands these troops, and under what circumstances the federal government can assert control over state forces, remains a vital aspect of American constitutional law and political practice. The events of 1965 and 2025 serve as powerful case studies in this ongoing negotiation of power.