Thursday night’s edition of the PBS News Hour turned to a leftist group the Brennan Center for Justice and a liberal mayor as their experts to criticize President Trump’s use of the National Guard and U.S. Marines in Los Angeles and other cities to quell violence at protests against ICE’s arrest of illegal immigrants. Any mention of the actual violence and rioting in Los Angeles within the two stories was limited to hypothetical talk of "civil unrest."
Co-anchor Amna Nawaz quoted California Governor Gavin Newsom calling the White House's order a "power grab" that violates the U.S. Constitution before turning to her remote guest Liza Goitein, the senior director at the Brennan Center for Justice's Liberty and National Security Program. Goitein strained to make Trump's actions against civil disorder sound unprecedented.
Elizabeth Goitein, Brennan Center for Justice: So, the administration is relying on an obscure statute that has actually never before been used as a stand-alone authority to quell civil unrest. That's a law that requires, in order to quell civil unrest, that there be a rebellion against government authority or that it be impossible for the president to execute the law without deploying the military. Now, those conditions don't really seem to have been met here, but what the government is arguing is that the court cannot review whether the president's findings were correct or not, that as long as the president says that there was a rebellion, there was a rebellion. So that's really the main argument....
After Nawaz asked Goitein “about the potential for troops to be deployed in even more cities across the country....how do you look at that?” Her guest dutifully delivered left-wing fear.
Goitein: Well, one of the most alarming things about all of this is that President Trump's memorandum authorizing the deployment of troops is not limited to Los Angeles. In fact, it doesn't mention Los Angeles. It authorizes deployment of federal forces anywhere in the country where protests against ICE activity are occurring, regardless of whether those protests involve any violence, and also in places where protests are likely to occur. That kind of preemptive nationwide deployment is absolutely unprecedented in our history. That doesn't happen in the United States of America.
Nawaz’s co-host Geoff Bennett segued into another remote interview, with San Antonio Democrat Mayor Ron Nirenberg, who has a liberal history on masking up kids during Covid and transgender bathroom issues. The PBS online headline was
‘We stand up for our neighbors,’ San Antonio mayor says of protests against ICE raids
Once again, the Left paints illegal immigrants as "our neighbors," which basically implies no one should be deported, for any reason. Bennett relayed the news that Texas Governor Greg Abbott said 5,000 National Guard members had been deployed in his state ahead of planned protests and that “Several mayors are pushing back on that move, including San Antonio Mayor Ron Nirenberg….”
Ron Nirenberg, Mayor of San Antonio, Texas: It was a peaceful demonstration in opposition to very cruel and inhumane ways that the Trump administration is carrying out its interpretations of immigration law. Once again, San Antonio has demonstrated that we have a long tradition of peaceful demonstrations and protests in support of human rights and civil rights….
When Bennett asked how ICE raids have affected San Antonio, Nirenberg got mawkish.
Nirenberg: Well, San Antonio is an international city. We are a binational community by heritage. We are a community that's the largest Latino majority in the country. And so we treat people with dignity and respect and compassion, and that goes for immigrants too. And so the kind of really cruel and inhumane approach to immigration policy that you have seen from the Trump administration really rips at the fabric of families here. And that's why you're seeing the resistance and the opposition out in the street.
We stand up for our neighbors. We stand up for the people that we work with and go to school with and who fight our battles in the military for us. And that's going to continue.
These slanted segments were brought to you in part by BNSF Railway.
A transcript is available, click “Expand.”
PBS News Hour
6/12/25
7:34:10 p.m. (ET)
Geoff Bennett: Today, a federal judge in California heard the state's challenge to President Trump's deployment of the National Guard and U.S. Marines to Los Angeles to assist with enforcing federal immigration laws.
Amna Nawaz: The administration argues that the president had discretion to deploy the troops and they're in the city to protect law enforcement.
Meanwhile, California Governor Gavin Newsom, who filed the temporary restraining order earlier this week, has said the White House's actions are a — quote — "power grab" that violates the U.S. Constitution.
Joining me now to discuss this further is Liza Goitein. She's senior director at the Brennan Center for Justice's Liberty and National Security Program.
Liza, welcome back to the program and thanks for joining us.
Let's start with this legal fight now over the federal deployment of troops in response to those protests against immigration raids. Walk us through the administration's legal main argument here. How are they justifying the deployment of those troops?
Elizabeth Goitein, Brennan Center for Justice: So, the administration is relying on an obscure statute that has actually never before been used as a stand-alone authority to quell civil unrest.
That's a law that requires, in order to quell civil unrest, that there be a rebellion against government authority or that it be impossible for the president to execute the law without deploying the military.
Now, those conditions don't really seem to have been met here, but what the government is arguing is that the court cannot review whether the president's findings were correct or not, that as long as the president says that there was a rebellion, there was a rebellion.
So that's really the main argument. The government is also claiming a vast inherent constitutional authority to deploy federal troops to protect federal property and functions. This is a longstanding executive branch theory, but it really hasn't been tested in the courts yet.
Amna Nawaz: And, in challenging that federal deployment of troops, we saw in Governor Newsom's lawsuit the claim that the administration didn't have the authority to federalize the National Guard without the state's consent. He claims they violated the 10th Amendment.
And they also argued that this kind of civil unrest that they're seeing can be handled and contained by state and local authorities. What do you make of that argument?
Elizabeth Goitein: Well, quelling civil unrest is a responsibility that is entrusted to state and local law enforcement, state and local officers under the Constitution, except in the most extreme circumstances.
And the Department of Justice has historically taken the position that federal troops should be deployed for this purpose only if the state requests assistance, if there is outright defiance of a federal court order, or if state and local law enforcement are completely overwhelmed.
And, once again, none of these conditions are present here. The last time that a president federalized the National Guard and deployed them to a state to quell civil unrest over the objection of a governor was in 1965, during the civil rights era, to protect civil rights marchers who are marching from Montgomery to Selma, Alabama.
So that has happened really in the in circumstances where state and local law enforcement were not willing to take action against threats of violence or violence against civil rights marchers, African Americans who were trying to attend school, or in cases where state and local law enforcement were in open defiance of court orders.
Amna Nawaz: Liza, one important distinction I want to get your take on here. We have heard that the National Guard is saying the officers have been accompanying ICE on immigration raids, that the federal officers there are not enforcing arrests yet there.
What would have to happen legally for those troops to act in that way?
Elizabeth Goitein: So the Posse Comitatus Act, which is an extremely important law in our country, prohibits federal forces from engaging in core law enforcement activities such as arrests, searches, and seizures unless expressly authorized by Congress.
And what the administration is saying is,our forces right now on the ground are not actually engaging in those activities. And, as of now, that does seem to be the case. However, reportedly, the troops have been authorized to detain civilians. That is a core law enforcement activity under the Posse Comitatus Act.
So if and when that starts to happen — and, frankly, it's hard to see how that doesn't happen if they're going to do more than just stand in A line outside of these federal buildings. Then we're going to see this claim of inherent constitutional authority butting up against one of the most important laws that Congress has passed, the Posse Comitatus Act, which is a vital safeguard for liberty and democracy.
Amna Nawaz: I have just got about 30 seconds left, but I want to ask you about the potential for troops to be deployed in even more cities across the country. As a legal expert tracking the use of this emergency power, how do you look at that?
Elizabeth Goitein: Well, one of the most alarming things about all of this is that President Trump's memorandum authorizing the deployment of troops is not limited to Los Angeles. In fact, it doesn't mention Los Angeles.
It authorizes deployment of federal forces anywhere in the country where protests against ICE activity are occurring, regardless of whether those protests involve any violence, and also in places where protests are likely to occur. That kind of preemptive nationwide deployment is absolutely unprecedented in our history. That doesn't happen in the United States of America.
Amna Nawaz: Liza Goitein of the Brennan Center for Justice, thank you for joining us tonight.
Elizabeth Goitein: My pleasure.
