Who Gets the National Guard and Why? A closer look at how federal responses to protest movements reflect political priorities—not public safety

In moments of national unrest, the deployment of the National Guard is often framed as a question of law and order. But a closer look at recent events—in Washington D.C. (2021), Minneapolis (2020), and now Los Angeles (2025)—reveals a more unsettling pattern. The federal government’s decision to send in troops isn’t applied consistently. Instead, these responses often reflect political bias, racial dynamics, and selective outrage—rather than purely security-driven calculations.

So: Who gets the National Guard? And perhaps more importantly, why?

January 6, 2021: A Hesitant Response to Right-Wing Violence

On January 6, 2021, a violent mob of Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol in an effort to overturn the results of a democratic election. Armed, organized, and determined, they breached security barriers, assaulted law enforcement, and halted the certification of President Joe Biden’s victory.

As chaos unfolded in real time, Capitol Police and D.C. officials pleaded for federal support. The National Guard, however, did not arrive until nearly six hours after the Capitol had been breached. By that time, lawmakers had been evacuated, significant damage had been done, and five people were dead.

The delay was no accident. According to multiple reports, President Trump actively resisted early calls to deploy the Guard. Some officials cited concerns about the “optics” of military force in front of the Capitol. Ultimately, it was Vice President Mike Pence—not Trump—who gave the final approval for mobilization.

And even after the dust had settled, Trump’s message to the insurrectionists was not condemnation, but compassion:

“Go home. We love you. You’re very special.”

The federal response to one of the most serious threats to American democracy in modern history was marked by hesitation and restraint—revealing a troubling tolerance for far-right violence.

June 2025: Aggressive Action in Los Angeles

Fast forward to today.

In June 2025, federal immigration agents conducted sweeping ICE raids across Los Angeles—detaining over 100 immigrants, many of them outside factories, on sidewalks, and in locations where day laborers often gather. In response, community members took to the streets to protest.

While many of these protests began peacefully, tensions increased after videos surfaced showing aggressive detentions and federal buses transporting detainees. But before any major unrest occurred, the federal government had already escalated its response.

Within hours, 2,000 National Guard troops were dispatched to Los Angeles. High-ranking officials labeled the demonstrations “insurrectionist” and “Marxist,” invoking national security language typically reserved for armed rebellion. The Defense Secretary even considered deploying Marines—against civilians, on American soil.

Local leaders swiftly condemned the move. California Governor Gavin Newsom called the deployment “purposefully inflammatory,” while Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass dismissed it as “purely political.”

Their criticism underscored a growing concern; this wasn’t about maintaining order. It was about sending a message— one aimed at immigrant communities, their allies, and the broader movement for immigration justice.

May 2020: A Tale of Two Narratives in Minneapolis

In the summer of 2020, Minneapolis became the epicenter of global protests following the murder of George Floyd by then-Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin. The footage was horrifying. The outrage was widespread. Demonstrations erupted not only across Minneapolis, but throughout the U.S. and beyond.

Some protests turned into confrontations. Property was damaged. Police used tear gas and rubber bullets. The nation watched in real time.

President Trump quickly condemned the unrest—publicly accusing Minnesota Governor Tim Walz of weakness and failure. He claimed, falsely, that he had to step in and deploy the National Guard himself.

In fact, Governor Walz activated the Minnesota National Guard by executive order seven hours before Trump’s public statement. A 24-year National Guard veteran himself, Walz acknowledged shortcomings in the local response but firmly resisted federal troop intervention.

Walz maintained that civil unrest driven by civilian grievances should be handled through civilian institutions—not military force. While he worked to restore peace, he also pursued police reform, including a ban on chokeholds and expanded training requirements.

Trump, meanwhile, posted a now-infamous tweet:

“When the looting starts, the shooting starts.”

That one sentence reflected the stark contrast in leadership priorities and a disregard for the lived experiences of Black Americans demanding justice.

What the Patterns Reveal

When viewed side by side, these three moments illustrate a clear and deeply troubling pattern. The differences aren’t just operational—they’re ideological.

• At the Capitol, an armed, pro-Trump insurrection faced delayed and reluctant intervention.

• In Los Angeles, immigrant communities and allies protesting detentions were met with immediate militarization.

• In Minneapolis, Black-led demonstrations against police violence prompted aggressive rhetoric and threats of escalation.

The Real Question: Who Is Allowed to Protest?

The common denominator isn’t violence or property damage. It’s who is protesting, what they’re protesting, and how much political power they hold.

When right-wing extremists storm federal buildings, they are met with caution. When marginalized communities demand justice, they are treated as threats to national stability.

This isn’t just a law enforcement issue. It’s a reflection of selective outrage, institutional bias, and a broader effort to silence dissent—especially when that dissent threatens existing power structures.

From Public Safety to Political Control

If you remember the grief and urgency of Minneapolis in 2020… If you’re watching what’s unfolding now in Los Angeles… Then you understand this isn't only about National Guard protocols.

It’s about how power responds to protest. It’s about whose voices are deemed legitimate. And it’s about whether our democratic institutions protect dissent—or punish it.

We cannot allow these disparities to go unexamined. Because this isn’t just a story about protests.

It’s a story about power.