I posted thus article at 07.36 am local time here in Indonesia/ Hopefully you and the whole of your family are in the best of health. I have just watched one of the videos shared by Al Jazeera English regading the clash between Protestester and Police in Los Angeles. I have my own opinion aboout what unfolded
the U.S. President Overstep in the LA Riots? Lately, I watched a powerful video about the recent riots in Los Angeles. It showed angry crowds, clashing with police, and chaos in the streets. What caught my attention most was the fact that the President of the United States didn’t send the National Guard to help calm things down. At first, I thought, “Why not? Isn’t that their job?” But the more I dug into it, the more I realized it’s not that simple.
![]() |
Trump sends Marines to Los Angeles, doubles number of National Guard as anti-ICE protests continue Image from Al Jazeera English |
Let me break it down for you in plain terms.
Who's Actually in Charge of the National Guard?
You might think the President has all the power when it comes to the military, and that's true but only up to a point. The National Guard is like a special team that answers to both the state governor and the federal government. Think of it like a teenager with two parents: sometimes the state (governor) is in charge, and sometimes the federal parent (President) steps in.
"Without the approval of California Governor Gavin Newsom, United States President Donald Trump ordered nearly 5,000 troops to the state. U.S. law strictly regulates the deployment of troops for civil affairs domestically..
Do you think the President Do the Right Thing?
In this case, it seems the President chose not to interfere, which surprised many people. Some say it was a smart move keeping the federal government out of local issues and avoiding more tension. Others see it as weak leadership, allowing violence to spread while innocent people and businesses suffered.
But here’s the twist: if the President had sent in troops without the governor’s request, it might have looked like political harassment or an abuse of power. After all, the U.S. is built on federalism which means local issues should be handled by local leaders unless there’s no other choice.
Is It Legal for the President to Send Troops Anyway?
Yes, under a very old law called the Insurrection Act of 1807, the President can send in troops if there's a rebellion or if state leaders can't control the situation. So technically, it’s not illegal. But let’s be honest it’s a risky move that can create more problems than it solves.
Imagine troops rolling through Los Angeles streets while people are protesting injustice. That could make things worse, not better.
My Take on the Whole Situation
To be honest, I don’t think there’s a perfect answer here. If the President stays out, people blame him for doing nothing. If he steps in, people accuse him of being a dictator. This is the reality of leadership in a democracy especially one as complex as the United States.
Personally, I think the President tried to avoid making a bad situation worse. But that also means the pressure is on the local government to handle things effectively. If they don’t, people lose faith in the system and that’s dangerous.
My Thoughts on Federal Power vs. Local Control
This whole situation makes me wonder: how should governments respond to crisis? Do we want fast action, even if it means stepping on local toes? Or careful decision-making, even if it takes more time?
No matter which side you’re on, one thing is clear violence and chaos aren’t the answer. What we need are open conversations, responsible leadership, and long-term solutions that go beyond just sending in troops.
Thanks for reading. What’s your take? Let me know in the comments..
A Message From Asep Haryono
"Thank you so much for your time here. I really appreciate your precious moment here as well. Please leave any comment down below. Let me hear from you. Greetings from Indonesia"
Glad you enjoyed it! Unfortunately, I don't live in the Netherlands or I'd send you ...