‘Trump has plenary authority…’: Stephen Miller's ‘awkward silence’ on Guard deployment to Oregon
Stephen Miller faced criticism after suggesting that President Donald Trump has absolute authority to deploy National Guard troops to Oregon. A federal judge blocked the move, citing concerns over state sovereignty, leading to a legal battle involving governors from Oregon and California.
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller faced criticism on 7 October during a CNN interview, in which he claimed that US President Donald Trump has “plenary authority” to deploy National Guard troops to Oregon.
Miller seemed to suggest the president possessed absolute power over such decisions.
He said, “Well, the administration filed an appeal this morning with the Ninth Circuit,” and pointed out that the administration had previously won a similar case involving the federalisation of the California National Guard under Title 10 of the US Code.
When Trump sent the National Guard to Los Angeles and other cities this summer, he relied on a different legal basis, Section 12406 of Title 10 of the US Code, that allows the president to bring the guard into federal service.
Miller then began to say, “The president has plenary authority…” but cut himself off mid-sentence, leaving his statement incomplete and drawing further scrutiny.
Watch the video here:
What's happening in Oregon?
In Oregon, a federal judge issued a temporary block on the deployment of National Guard troops on Sunday, just hours after the state's governor announced that California National Guard members had already arrived, with more en route to Portland.
The move followed a protest on Saturday, where around 400 demonstrators marched to a Portland ICE detention centre. According to The Oregonian, federal agents responded with crowd control tactics, deploying tear gas canisters and less-lethal weapons that fired pepper balls.
Trump’s National Guard Deployment Triggers Mass Protests Across Portland | Watch
US District Judge Karin Immergut halted the deployment of Oregon National Guard troops on Saturday, ruling that the relatively small scale of the protests did not warrant the use of federalised state forces and warning that such a move could infringe on Oregon's state sovereignty.
In response, the Trump administration attempted to bring in National Guard troops from California and Texas. This led Oregon Governor Tina Kotek and California Governor Gavin Newsom, both Democrats, to return to court on Sunday.
Judge Immergut then extended the block, prohibiting the deployment of any National Guard troops to Oregon for the next 14 days.
Trump has repeatedly described cities like Portland and Chicago as plagued by crime and unrest. Since beginning his second term, he has either deployed or discussed deploying troops to 10 cities, including Baltimore, Memphis, Washington, DC, New Orleans, and the California cities of Oakland, San Francisco, and Los Angeles.
During the summer, Trump sent both National Guard soldiers and active-duty Marines to Los Angeles, despite objections from Governor Gavin Newsom. Newsom sued the administration and initially won a temporary block, after a federal judge ruled that the president's use of the Guard was likely unlawful.
Trump threatens to use Insurrection Act
Trump on Monday said he might use the Insurrection Act, a law authorising the president to deploy military forces on US soil, if courts and governors continue to block his deployment of National Guard troops in Democratic-led cities.
The Insurrection Act is a federal law that grants the US president the authority to deploy the military or federalise National Guard troops within the United States to suppress domestic uprisings or unrest.
Often referred to as the Insurrection Act of 1807—after President Thomas Jefferson signed the original law that year—the current version is actually a combination of several statutes passed between 1792 and 1871. These laws collectively define the role of US military forces in domestic law enforcement situations.
Can a court strike down Trump's application of the law?
Courts have historically been very reluctant to second-guess a president's military declarations, and the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals recently said that the president's decision to send in the military is entitled to a “great level of deference.”
However, some legal experts have argued that this deference does not completely stop courts from reviewing the president's decisions, AP reported.
An Oregon federal judge recently ruled against Trump's decision to send troops to protests in Portland, Oregon, by invoking Section 12406, writing that "'a great level of deference' is not equivalent to ignoring the facts on the ground."
(With inputs from agencies)
- The Insurrection Act allows the president to deploy military forces domestically.
- Legal challenges can arise against presidential military decisions, emphasizing the balance of power.
- State governors have the right to contest federal military actions within their jurisdictions.