Top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee Adam Smith said he fears President Trump wants to use the U.S. military as his “personal police force.”
“President Trump wants this confrontation partially because he wants to emphasize the issue of immigration enforcement,” Smith told Morning Edition. “But more, I fear, because he wants to politicize the U.S. military and legitimize using it as a law enforcement tool, which is incredibly dangerous.”
In Los Angeles last week, and stretching into the weekend, Immigration and Customs Enforcement launched operations detaining and arresting more than 100 people across the city. In response to the raids, people demonstrated and organized protests, clashing with police in the city and surrounding areas. During the clashes, law enforcement met protesters with pepper spray, tear gas and rubber bullets.
On Saturday, Trump signed an order to deploy 2,000 National Guardsmen to LA, without the consent of California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Newsom and California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, accusing the president of violating a federal statute by deploying the National Guard over the governor’s objections and violating the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which gives states rights.
Newsom went on to describe the administration’s actions as a “blatant abuse of power,” to which Smith said he agrees.
“The president has created an incredibly dangerous situation with the risk of even further escalation,” Smith said.
Though protests on Monday were not as rowdy, that night, Trump authorized the deployment of an additional 2,000 National Guard troops to the city, hours after the Pentagon deployed 700 Marines in the same direction.
The administration says that the deployment is to protect federal property and immigration detention facilities from “violent mobs” and ensure the safety of federal immigration officers and agents.
Smith, of Washington state, spoke to NPR’s Michel Martin about Trump’s use of the military to end anti-immigration enforcement protests.
The following excerpt has been edited for length and clarity.Â
Michel Martin: So given your role in Armed Services, and you’re also a lawyer by training, do you believe the president is acting legally in calling up active duty military?
Rep. Adam Smith: I do not. I mean, the statute that he’s using technically gives him the authority to use troops in this manner, but only in the case that there is the risk of a rebellion. And that is certainly not the case here. So, as he has done in a number of areas, he’s taking emergency authority that was meant for very narrow, specific circumstances and just broadening it beyond all recognition. I think the courts would strike down this authority if the court case got there. But President Trump’s not particularly interested in following the law.
President Trump wants this confrontation partially because he wants to emphasize the issue of immigration enforcement, but more, I fear, because he wants to politicize the U.S. military and legitimize using it as a law enforcement tool, which is incredibly dangerous.
Martin: I can imagine that it is somewhat galling to someone like yourself who was trapped on Capitol Hill during the January 6th mob attack on the Capitol, when President Trump took many hours to condemn the violence or call for reinforcements for the law enforcement officers who are trying to hold the Capitol and protect people like yourself then. But having said that, your Democratic senator, John Fetterman, on his X account, described the scenes in L.A. as “anarchy and true chaos.” And he said that Democrats lose the moral high ground when members refuse to condemn the violence from protesters. What do you say to that?
Smith: First of all, absolutely. I mean, we had an actual insurrection on January 6th here at the Capitol. People were actually trying to stop the election of a president. They were threatening to kill elected officials, including Vice President Pence. That was an actual insurrection that the president chose to ignore. And to this day, he has pardoned all of the people involved and downplayed that event. So, that is completely unacceptable.
Second, what was going on in Los Angeles? There was a protest. The protest was fine. The violence that erupted out of it was not fine. But again, local law enforcement could have handled that. Now, I think Senator Fetterman has a point. We should condemn protests when they violate the law. […] Both things can be true. It can be true that protesters should not damage property, threaten people. And it can also be true that the president, calling in the U.S. military […] is attempting to use the military and exercise a level of control over this country that our Constitution has clearly said no president should do. We should be worried about the authoritarian approach President Trump has taken.
Martin: What should happen now in your opinion?
Smith: What should happen now is the court should rule that the president is again abusing his emergency power. This is not an emergency as defined in the statute. You cannot simply say ‘well in case of an emergency’ and then allow the president to define the emergency any way he wants to. The courts should strike down his authority to bring in those troops. The president should de-escalate and the protesters should de-escalate as well.
Transcript:
MICHEL MARTIN, HOST:
We’ve been getting reaction to these events from a range of voices. Now we’re going to hear from Congressman Adam Smith of Washington state. He is the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee. Good morning, Congressman. Thanks for joining us.
ADAM SMITH: Good morning. Thanks for having me on.
MARTIN: So given your role in armed services and you’re also a lawyer by training, do you believe the president is acting legally in calling up active-duty military?
SMITH: I do not. I mean, the statute that he is using technically gives him the authority to use troops in this manner, but only in the case that there’s the risk of a rebellion, and that is certainly not the case here. So as he has done in a number of areas, he’s taking emergency authority that was meant for very narrow, specific circumstances and just broadening it beyond all recognition. I think the courts would strike down this authority if the court case got there, but President Trump is not particularly interested in following the law. I agree with Senator Reed. I agree with Governor Newsom. President Trump wants this confrontation, partially because he wants to emphasize the issue of immigration enforcement, but more, I fear, because he wants to politicize the U.S. military and legitimize using it as a, you know, as a law enforcement tool, which is incredibly dangerous.
MARTIN: So you’re from Washington state, not California, but you’ve said it was clear to you that the LAPD had the situation under control. The White House says it observed what it called, quote, “violent rioters,” unquote, that were being enabled by California’s governor. Why do you think you’re looking at the same thing, but coming to such different conclusions?
SMITH: Yeah. I forget exactly what I said in my statement, but what I would say, the situation was not out of control. It was not to the point where there was, you know, widespread violence. The local law enforcement clearly had the ability to handle what was in front of them, and that’s not even really debatable. So why did the president choose to bring in troops in a situation where it was not necessary? And I think that gets to the larger effort here of President Trump wanting to use the military as sort of his personal police force, and he wants to legitimize those actions. So I don’t think anyone – there have been protests in a variety of different places on a variety of different issues. I mean, this was incredibly minor compared to a lot of different protests that have gone on at different places, and yet the president chose to escalate in this way. And you’re seeing people respond. The president has created an incredibly dangerous situation with the risk of even further escalation.
MARTIN: So I can imagine that it is somewhat galling to someone like yourself, who was trapped on Capitol Hill during the January 6 mob attack on the Capitol when the president – President Trump took many hours to condemn the violence or call for reinforcements for the law enforcement officers who were trying to hold the Capitol and protect people like yourself then. But having said that, your…
SMITH: Yes.
MARTIN: …Democratic Senator John Fetterman on his X account described the scenes in LA as, quote, “anarchy and true chaos.” And he said that Democrats lose the moral high ground when members refuse to condemn the violence from protesters. What do you say to that?
SMITH: Two quick points on that. First of all, absolutely. I mean, we had an actual insurrection on January 6 here at the Capitol. People were actually trying to stop the election of a president. They were threatening to kill elected officials, including Vice President Pence. That was an actual insurrection that the president chose to ignore. And to this day, he has pardoned all of the people involved and downplayed that event. So that is completely unacceptable. Second, what was going on in Los Angeles, there was a protest. I don’t – you know, the protest was fine. The violence that erupted out of it was not fine. But again, local law enforcement could have handled that. Now, I think Senator Fetterman has a point. You know, we should condemn protests when they violate the law. If you’re setting things on fire, if you’re damaging property, you can do that.
But you can say what Senator Fetterman said about that stuff getting out of control, and still recognize that the president’s reaction, using the U.S. military for domestic law enforcement, both things can be true. It can be true that protesters should not damage property, threaten people, and it can also be true that the president calling in the U.S. military for something like this, given his history and what he has said, threatening to arrest the governor of California, it is clear the president is attempting to use the military to exercise a level of control over this country that our Constitution has clearly said no president should do. We should be worried about the authoritarian approach President Trump has taken.
MARTIN: So if you have a couple more minutes for me, are you hearing concerns from other than Democrats at this point? Are any of your Republican colleagues concerned about the president’s use of active-duty military to address a domestic situation?
SMITH: Well, if they are, they’re keeping it to themselves as they often have. I mean, they’ve let President Trump get away with absolutely everything. Things they said they completely opposed, didn’t support, Trump does it – they don’t say a thing. You know, look, the Republicans in Congress need to start standing up for law and the Constitution and stop simply bowing to whatever Donald Trump says he wants to do.
MARTIN: But if this is, in fact, a concern of governance, of appropriate governments and, in fact, in your opinion, represents sort of another constitutional question as it were, wouldn’t you think that some Republicans would be concerned about that? They have institutional authority, as well, that they would be interested in defending. You don’t think…
SMITH: I would think they would be concerned about that, but again, you’ve seen the pattern on a whole series of issues. I mean, we’ve had Republicans who have been passionate advocates for foreign aid standby while the president completely shut down the entire program. You know, we’ve had, you know, Republicans who have consistently supported scientific research standby while the president guts all of the scientific research. We’ve had – we’ve certainly had Republicans who believe in the power of Congress to appropriate funds stand by while the president simply unilaterally decides not to spend money that Congress has lawfully told him to spend.
So how far Republicans are willing to simply ignore their own principles because of the fear they have for President Trump politically, I don’t think we’ve plumbed those depths just yet. But let’s get back to the central issue here. You know, yes, Senator Fetterman is right. We should not passively allow people to riot and set things on fire and damage property, but that is entirely different than the president of the United States calling in U.S. military, in this case, the active-duty U.S. military, not even the Guard, to enforce something that was a relatively small protest when it started. President Trump is escalating this, I think, to enhance his own power, and we should be concerned about it.
MARTIN: So what should happen now, in your opinion? We have about 30 seconds.
SMITH: Yeah, what should happen now is the courts should rule that the president is again abusing his emergency power. This is not an emergency as defined in the statute. You cannot simply say, you know, well, in case of an emergency, and then allow the president to define the emergency any way he wants to. The courts should strike down his authority to bring in those troops. The president should de-escalate, and the protesters should de-escalate as well.
MARTIN: That is Congressman Adam Smith of Washington state. He’s a Democrat and the ranking member on the House Armed Services Committee. Congressman Smith, thank you so much for your time.
SMITH: Thank you.
(SOUNDBITE OF MICHAEL NYMAN BAND’S “FISH BEACH”)
