With the marshals facing opposition, Kennedy first called in the Mississippi National Guard and then deployed thousands of federal troops as well. This military operation, codenamed RAPID ROAD, marked the first and only time during the Cold War that the military activated plans specifically to manage civil disturbances following a nuclear attack. In 1963, Kennedy again turned to the National Guard for assistance during the integration of the University of Alabama. His successor, Lyndon Johnson, relied on marshals and the National Guard to protect civil rights marchers in Selma after Alabama state troopers violently attacked them at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in an event that became known as “Bloody Sunday.”
During the 1960s, presidents increasingly used military troops, including the National Guard, in American cities. In the wake of summer riots spurred by police brutality in Detroit in 1967, President Johnson sent elements of the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions into the city, while Michigan Governor George Romney activated the Michigan National Guard. Over 40 people lost their lives in the unrest, many at the hands of Detroit police. Tragically, National Guard troops were responsible for the deaths of 11 individuals, including a four-year-old girl, Tanya Blanding, who was killed when a guard member mistakenly fired a tank-mounted .50-caliber machine gun into her apartment, believing there was a sniper inside.
Troops were deployed again during the 1968 riots following Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination. However, the dangers of such deployments were starkly illustrated two years later at Kent State University, where National Guard troops fired on students protesting the Vietnam War, resulting in four deaths and nine injuries. Since then, the domestic use of federal troops has been extremely limited, with the Los Angeles riots of 1992 being one prominent exception. Typically, presidents and attorneys general—until the Trump administration—have sought to coordinate federal law enforcement efforts prior to deploying troops to cities or states.
Even during intensive marshals and troop deployments to the South amid the civil rights movement, presidents took action only after state officials either refused to stop violence against Americans exercising their constitutional rights or, as in the case of the Alabama state troopers, instigated the violence themselves. A president often acted in response to defiance of lawful court orders, maintaining a check-and-balance system through a second government branch that prompted such federal action.
Trump has framed his immigration enforcement efforts in Minneapolis—similar to past initiatives in cities like Los Angeles, Washington, DC, Chicago, Charlotte, Portland, and most recently, Maine—as efforts to maintain “law and order.” However, there seems to be no clear justification for these deployments beyond political motives.
Today’s actions by Trump represent an unprecedented shift away from historical norms in the U.S.: the aggressive use of federal forces against a state led by political opponents without any substantial justification. One of the foundational principles of American government asserts that military forces should not be used against American citizens except in extreme circumstances.
By deploying immigration officers and border security agents from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) instead of deputy U.S. marshals from the Department of Justice—who have historically protected civil rights and court orders—Trump is altering the nature and conduct of federal law enforcement. Marshals are trained to uphold constitutional rights and wield significant federal policing authority. In contrast, agents from Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have different roles. They’re not trained to standard federal law enforcement protocols aimed at public engagement and are generally expected to enforce immigration laws with limited authority, not broader federal laws. CBP agents, in particular, function less like typical law enforcement officers and more as a paramilitary force designed for border operations, originally intended to minimize interaction with U.S. citizens and civilians.
Over the past year, Trump has also attempted similar crackdowns involving troops but faced obstacles from federal courts, which have blocked efforts like his attempt to federalize the California National Guard.
