In a tense exchange with reporters, White House Press Secretary Caroline Leavitt responded to growing controversy surrounding President Biden’s recent decision to federalize the National Guard and deploy U.S. Marines to aid in domestic immigration enforcement operations—specifically, in response to a letter from South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem. The move, while legally backed under Title 10 of the U.S. Code, has sparked alarm over the legality and optics of using active military forces in roles traditionally reserved for civilian law enforcement.
Over the weekend, Governor Noem sent a memo to the Pentagon urging Secretary Lloyd Austin to direct ground forces in Louisiana to “arrest and detain lawbreakers,” allegedly referring to undocumented migrants and individuals involved in border protests. Her memo raised eyebrows not only for its tone but for its apparent misunderstanding—or disregard—of federal law regarding military powers on U.S. soil.
When asked directly if President Biden supported the request made by Governor Noem, Leavitt sidestepped the memo’s specifics, stating firmly, “I can’t speak for a letter that came from the Department of Homeland Security.” She emphasized that the president had not acted on Governor Noem’s memo, but instead invoked his own constitutional authority to federalize the National Guard under Title 10, which allows him to take command of state Guard units when national interests are deemed at risk.
According to Leavitt, U.S. Marines and National Guard troops have been deployed to “create a peaceful environment” for ICE and Border Patrol officers, who have faced “violent and vicious attacks” from protestors and migrants. The spokesperson described the situation on the ground as chaotic, requiring immediate federal reinforcements to stabilize areas overwhelmed by unrest and confrontations at immigration facilities.
Still, reporters pressed Leavitt on one critical legal point: Under what authority are these federalized troops allowed to arrest people within the United States?
That’s where the controversy thickens.
Leavitt acknowledged the legal boundary: “They can’t actually arrest people unless he [the president] invokes the Insurrection Act.” This law, which dates back to the early 1800s, allows the president to use the military for domestic law enforcement only under extreme circumstances—such as civil disorder, insurrection, or rebellion. Notably, Governor Noem’s memo made no reference to the Insurrection Act, a glaring omission that raised both legal and constitutional concerns among lawmakers and civil rights advocates.
Leavitt avoided saying whether the Insurrection Act was being considered or if the president was even entertaining the idea. Instead, she repeated that Governor Noem’s memo should not be conflated with the president’s current legal course of action.
Still, the optics of deploying Marines and National Guard units in civilian spaces—without the ability to detain or arrest—create an uneasy picture. Their presence, as Leavitt insisted, is limited to assisting with crowd control and ensuring a safe perimeter for ICE operations.
When asked about the criteria for deploying federalized National Guard troops to various states, Leavitt cited the president’s own words: “He wants to see an end to the chaos and the violence.” She emphasized that the president’s primary goal is to “protect law-abiding Americans”—especially Californians, who have been caught in the crossfire of immigration tensions and protest clashes. According to Leavitt, the president’s actions are a direct response to images of law enforcement officers being assaulted and communities overwhelmed by disorder.
“He doesn’t want to see law enforcement officers being attacked. He wants to see peace,” she reiterated. “He wants Californians to be able to bring their kids to school, to be able to go to work, without seeing violence in the streets.”
But critics aren’t buying the administration’s explanation so easily. Several legal experts warn that even the optics of military personnel in domestic operations can cross ethical lines—especially without clear oversight or defined limitations. Civil rights groups are already demanding greater transparency from the White House and the Pentagon, fearing a slippery slope toward militarized immigration enforcement.
Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security has not issued a public response to Governor Noem’s memo, nor has Secretary Austin indicated whether he acknowledges or intends to act on her requests. The administration appears eager to distance itself from the controversial communication, focusing instead on its own justification for federal military involvement.
Whether President Biden’s decision will reduce tensions or stoke further legal challenges remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: as military boots hit American streets, the line between public safety and government overreach has never felt thinner.
