The Brief

As President Donald Trump expands the use of the military in immigration enforcement, this nearly 150-year-old law has come into sharp focus.

The Posse Comitatus Act was designed to limit the use of federal troops in law enforcement activities on American soil. The rule has its exceptions and loopholes, but Trump's second term and his crackdown on immigration are shaping up to be a major test of the law.

Today, thousands of active-duty troops are deployed to the U.S.-Mexico border. What the military is allowed to do there has also dramatically shifted — going beyond the typical roles of supporting the Border Patrol.

Among the most significant developments came last month, when Trump designated a 170-mile stretch of federal land along the southern border — which spans through California, Arizona, and New Mexico — as a military installation, or a national defense area.

On Thursday, the Department of Defense announced that a second section in Texas will be marked as a military installation.

At least 82 people have been federally charged for "unauthorized entry" into the newly created National Defense Area in New Mexico as a result.

Here's what to know.

What are the restrictions under the Posse Comitatus Act?

The federal law was enacted in 1878 following the Civil War, when former Confederate states were either unwilling or unable to enforce civil laws. In response, the federal government stepped in and deployed active-duty troops to maintain order. That led to concerns of potential military overreach.

While the law came after the Civil War, it's rooted in one of the country's founding principals — which is the rejection of military involvement in civilian affairs. The ideal was a key grievance in the Declaration of Independence, which was later reflected in the Articles of Confederation and the Bill of Rights.

In practice, the law prohibits federal armed forces from taking part in civilian law enforcement, like conducting searches, seizures and arrests on American streets, except when "expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress."

This restriction applies to the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and Space Force. On the other hand, the Coast Guard is exempt. The same goes for the National Guard, as it typically operates under state authority. However, Guard units become bound to the Posse Comitatus Act when they are called into federal service.

In some cases, the National Guard have served federal interests on state orders. For instance, in 2020, 11 states sent their National Guard troops to Washington D.C. to help respond to the protests over George Floyd's murder.

What about the new national defense area?

National Guard and federal military forces have been deployed to the U.S.-Mexico Border under previous administrations, generally in support roles to the Border Patrol, such as providing equipment, logistics and surveillance.

Now, federal military personnel will be allowed to temporarily detain and search people who are considered trespassing on the newly-established national defense area at the southern border — effectively bypassing the Posse Comitatus Act.

" By doing this, he's sort of supercharging or empowering the military to be heavily involved in the immigration enforcement mission in ways they weren't before," said Mark Nevitt, a professor at Emory University School of Law who served as an attorney with the U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General's Corps (JAG).

Nevitt added that typically a president would need congressional approval to designate a military zone. But Trump was able to sidestep this requirement because he had declared a national emergency at the southern border on his first day in office, which thereby authorizes military construction projects, Nevitt wrote in Just Security.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth addresses service members at Fort Bliss, Texas, and Joint Task Force Southern Border, to discuss the efforts they are undertaking to establish the New Mexico National Defense Area on April 25.

(

Army Pfc. Sean Hoch

/

U.S. Department of Defense

)

Dan Maurer,  a retired lieutenant colonel in the Army JAG, also raised concerns about the lack of clarity on how much force troops will be allowed to use against people trespassing the new military installation. In the White House's memorandum NSPM-4 regarding the new designation, it states that armed forces will "follow rules for the use of force."

In Lawfare, Maurer wrote that while those rules usually align with domestic law enforcement standards and the Constitution, they also allow deadly force to protect sensitive property. The situation is further complicated by Trump's framing that the border is facing an "invasion" and "under attack."

"Hence the blurring of law enforcement and military operations can lead to ambiguity as to what role they're serving in and thus what force is truly authorized, legal, and reasonable," Maurer told NPR.

Nevitt worries that blurring the line between military and law enforcement roles could also undermine military readiness, as well as hurt military recruitment and retention.

"Most people join the military to fight and defend this country, defend their national security interests, deploy overseas," he said. "Not (to) be a domestic law enforcer."

The sweeping exception that Trump has not used yet

A convoy of U.S. Marines (right) make there way to the U.S. Marine Corps Air Station in Tustin, California on May 1, 1992 amid the Los Angeles riots.

(

Paul Sakuma

/

AP

)

A key exception to the Posse Comitatus Act is the Insurrection Act, which gives the president the authority to call on the military during an emergency to curb unrest or rebellion within the U.S.

The Insurrection Act has been used about 30 times in American history, largely to quell civil unrest. It was last invoked in 1992, when President George H.W. Bush sent Army and Marine troops to Los Angeles to help quell the violence following the acquittal of the police officers who beat Rodney King. It has never been used for immigration enforcement.

The Insurrection Act can be more concerning than the Alien Enemies Act, which Trump has invoked to detain and deport Venezuelan immigrants, according to Maurer, who is now a professor at the Ohio Northern University Pettit College of Law.

Last week, a federal judge in Texas ruled that the president's use of the Alien Enemies Act was "unlawful." Meanwhile, in 1827, the Supreme Court established that the president has the sole authority to invoke the Insurrection Act.

" But with the Insurrection Act, we already have case law that says courts can't really second guess the decision," he said.
Copyright 2025 NPR

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

Since 1977, Richard Santillan has been to every Opening Day game at Dodger Stadium. 

“The tradition goes from my father, to me, to my children and grandchildren. Some of my best memories are with my father and children here at Dodger Stadium,” Santillan told The LA Local, smiling under the shade of palm trees near the entrance to the ballpark Wednesday morning. He was there to protest the team less than 24 hours before Opening Day.

Santillan, like countless other loyal Dodgers fans, is grappling with his fan identity over the team’s decision to accept an invitation to the White House and owner Mark Walter’s ties to ICE detention facilities.

More than 30 people joined Santillan on Wednesday morning for a press conference held near 1000 Vin Scully Drive to convey a message directly to the team. 

“We are demanding the Dodgers stop participating in funding of inhumane treatment of families and do not go to the White House to celebrate with the criminal in chief,” Evelyn Escatiola told the crowd. “Together, we have the power to make a change.”

Escatiola, a former dean of East Los Angeles College and longtime community organizer, urged fans to flex their economic power by “letting the Dodgers know that we do not support repression.”

Jorge “Coqui” Rodriguez, a lifelong Dodgers fan, spoke to the crowd and called on Dodgers ownership to divest from immigration detention centers owned and operated by GEO Group and CoreCivic.

Jorge Coqui H Rodriguez speaks at a press conference outside Dodger Stadium on March 25, 2026, to demand the Dodgers not to visit the White House following their 2025 World Series win.

(

J.W. Hendricks

/

The LA Local

)

In a phone interview a day before the protest, Rodriguez told The LA Local he did not want the Dodgers using his “cheve” or beer money to fund detention centers. 

“They can’t take our parking money, our cacahuate money, our cheve money, our Dodger Dog money and invest those funds into corporations that are imprisoning people. It’s wrong,” Rodriguez said. 

Rodriguez considers the Dodgers one of the most racially diverse teams and said the players need to support fans at a time when heightened immigration enforcement has become more common across L.A.

The team’s 2025’s visit to the White House drew ire from the largely Latino fan base, citing the Trump administration’s ongoing attacks on immigrants. 

In June, the team came under further scrutiny when rumors swirled online that federal immigration agents were using the stadium’s parking, which immigration authorities later denied in statements posted on social media accounts.

The team again came under fire after not releasing a statement on the impacts of ICE raids on its mostly Latino fan base at the height of immigration enforcement last summer. The team later agreed to invest $1 million to support families affected by immigration enforcement.

When he learned the Dodgers were pledging only $1 million to families in need, Rodriguez called the amount a  “slap in the face.” 

“These guys just bought the Lakers for billions of dollars and they give a million dollars to fight for legal services? That’s a joke,” Rodriguez said. “They need to have a moral backbone and not be investing in those companies.”

According to reporting from the Los Angeles Times, former Dodgers pitcher Clayton Kershawsaid last week that he is looking forward to the trip.

“I went when President [Joe] Biden was in office. I’m going to go when President [Donald] Trump is in office,” Kershaw said. “To me, it’s just about getting to go to the White House. You don’t get that opportunity every day, so I’m excited to go.”

The Dodgers have yet to announce when their planned visit will take place. 

Santillan sometimes laments his decision to give up his season tickets in protest of the team. His connection to the stadium and the memories he has made there with family and friends will last a lifetime, he said. On Thursday, he will uphold his tradition and be there for the first pitch of the season, but with a heavy heart.

“It’s a family tradition, but the Dodgers have a lot of work to do,” he said.

A local favorite mom-and-pop bookshop in Eagle Rock is facing displacement due to a steep rent hike. The owners say theirs is just one of several small businesses along Eagle Rock Boulevard struggling to keep up with lease increases.

Over the past 19 years, many in the neighborhood have come to love READ Books for its eclectic collection of used titles and shop dog Florence.

Co-owner Jeremy Kaplan said it’s been a delight to grow with the community over the years.

“Like seeing kids come back in, who were in grade school and now they’re in college,” Kaplan said.

But the building where Kaplan and wife Debbie rent was recently sold, and the rent increased by more than 130% to $2,805 a month, Kaplan said. He told LAist it was an increase his small business simply could not absorb.

Kaplan said he originally was given 30 days notice of the rent increase. After some research, assistance from Councilmember Ysabel Jurado’s office and some pro-bono legal help, Kaplan said he pushed back and got the 90-day notice he’s afforded by state law.

California Senate Bill 1103 requires landlords to give businesses with five or less employees 90 days’ notice for rent increases exceeding 10%, among other protections.

Systems Real Estate, the property management company, did not immediately respond to LAist’s request for comment.

What can small businesses do? 

Nadia Segura, directing attorney of the Small Business Program at pro bono legal aid non-profit Bet Tzedek said California law does not currently allow for rent control for commercial tenancies.

Outside of the protections under SB 1103, Segura said small businesses like READ Books don’t have much other recourse. And even then, commercial landlords are not required to inform their tenants of their protections under the law.

“There’s still a lot of people that don’t know about SB 1103. And then it’s very sad that they tell them they have these rent increases and within a month they have to leave,” Segura said.

She said her group is seeing steep rent hikes like this for commercial tenants across the city.

“We are seeing this even more with the World Cup coming up, the Olympics coming up. And I will say it was very sad to see that also after the wildfires,” Segura said.

Part of Bet Tzedek’s ongoing work is to advocate for small businesses, working with landlords who are increasing rents to see if they are willing to give business owners longer leases that lock in rents.

What’s next 

After READ Books posted about their situation on social media, commenters chimed in to express their outrage and love for the little shop.

While he looks for a new spot, Kaplan says he’s forming a coalition of local businesses and activist groups to see what can be done to help other small businesses facing similar displacement. He wants to address the displacement issue for businesses like his, which have made Eagle Rock the distinctive neighborhood that it is today.

Owl Talk, a longtime Eagle Rock staple selling clothing and accessories in a unit in the same building as READ Books, is facing a “more than double” rent increase, according to a post on their Instagram account.

Kaplan said he’s been in touch with the office of state Assemblywoman Jessica Caloza and wants to explore the possibility of introducing legislation to set up protections for small businesses like his, including rent-control measures or a vacancy tax for landlords. Kaplan said he also reached out to the office of state Sen. Maria Durazo.

By his count, Kaplan said there are about a dozen businesses within surrounding blocks that are at risk of closing their doors or have shuttered due to rent increases or other struggles.

When READ Books was founded during the Great Recession, Kaplan said he knew it was a longshot to open a bookstore at the same time so many were struggling to stay in business.

“It was kind of interesting to be doing something that neighborhoods needed. That was important to me growing up, that was important to my children, that was important to my wife growing up,” Kaplan said.

“And then somebody comes in and says, ‘We’re gonna over double your rent.”

Topline:

Frozen budget: Most of the city’s Bureau of Street Lighting budget comes from an assessment that people who own property illuminated by lights pay on their county property tax bill. The amount people pay depends on the kind of property they own and how much they benefit from lighting. A typical single-family home currently pays $53 annually, and in total, the assessments bring in about $45 million annually for the city to repair and maintain streetlights. Changing the amount the Bureau of Street Lighting gets from the assessment requires a vote among property owners who benefit from the lights.

Ballots: L.A. City Council’s vote gives city staff the green light to prepare and send out those ballots. Miguel Sangalang, who oversees the bureau, said at a committee meeting earlier this month that he expects to send out ballots by April 17. Notices about the ballots will be sent out prior to the ballots themselves.

Near unanimous vote: L.A. City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez was the only “No” vote Tuesday, saying she wanted to see a more current strategic plan for the bureau. Sangalang said the bureau developed a plan in 2022 that lays out how money will be spent. Councilmember Imelda Padilla was absent for the vote.

Vote count: Votes will be weighted according to the assessment amount. Basically, the more you’re asked to pay yearly to maintain streetlights, the more your vote will count. Ballots received before June 2 will be tabulated by the L.A. City Clerk.

How much more money: According to a report, the amount needed in assessments from property owners to meet the repair and maintenance needs of the city’s streetlighting in the next fiscal year is nearly $112 million.

Use of the money: Sangalang said at a March 11 committee meeting that the extra funds would be used to double the number of staff to handle repairs and procure solar streetlights, which don’t face the threat of copper wire theft. That would all potentially reduce the time it takes to repair simple fixes down to a week. Currently, city residents wait for months to see broken streetlights repaired. The assessment would come with a three-year auditing mechanism.