Few words are as frequently misused to garner attention as the phrase “unprecedented.” Contrary to the way liberal media likes to throw the word around, everything you disagree with is not considered unprecedented. There is, of course, quite a bit of precedent for news stations like PBS using their platform to complain about “unprecedented” Republican politics.
During PBS NewsHour’s coverage of the Los Angeles riots Monday, host Geoff Bennett emphasized the unprecedented nature of both President Trump’s disregard of Governor Newsom’s rejection of National Guard support and his deployment of Marines to the city to keep the peace. Naturally, there was actually precedent for both these actions.
That didn’t matter to Bennett or his guest, Juliette Kayyem, former Obama homeland-security official and CNN pundit. When asked about the implications of Trump’s supposedly unprecedented decisions, she responded:
There's not only no precedent to this. There's no sort of check on it. We don't know if this is the standard, if what happened in L.A. is the standard now for federalizing the National Guard and deployment of active military. The Trump administration has so lowered the floor and the distinction between civil and military actions, that they appear now to be one and the same.
As unprecedented as Kayyem might like to consider the situation, most other news stations at least acknowledged President Lyndon B. Johnson’s similar superseding of a governor’s wishes to federalize the National Guard in 1965. In that situation, Johnson sent the National Guard to Alabama to protect civil rights activists whom Democrat Governor George Wallace refused to support.
In a similar vein, Trump’s decision was made in order to protect ICE agents whom Newsom would not support himself, but because Kayyem disagreed with the decision, it was therefore "unprecedented."
Kayyem would once again hold to this buzzword as she answered a question from Bennett about Trump’s decision to send in 700 Marines to help keep the peace:
We will now have active military on the streets with a mission we don't know, under legal authority that has not yet been invoked yet, with no training, no communication capacity with the other first responders, and no clear chain of command that integrates into what's already been built.
(...)
So this is a second shoe to drop within 48 hours. And I will say we have never seen this before. I don't care what you think about immigration or immigration enforcement. This is a different play, and the floor has fallen if President Trump does this.
This, too, was something we had seen before now. During the Rodney King riots of 1992, President George H. W. Bush sent in over 3000 members of the Army and Marine Corps to reinforce the National Guard. In fact, it was not all that uncommon for the military to be deployed to cities during periods of civil unrest.
No matter how PBS tried to spin it, President Trump’s actions were not lawless, they were not expected to become the norm, and they were far from unprecedented.
The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read.
PBS NewsHour
June 9, 2025
7:08 p.m. EST
GEOFF BENNETT: For a closer look, we're joined now by Juliette Kayyem, a former assistant secretary at the Department of Homeland Security. She's now at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. Juliette, it's great to have you here.
So, historically, presidents, as we just heard, they federalized the National Guard at a governor's request during a time of crisis, like after Hurricane Katrina, or to enforce court orders, as was the case in Little Rock back in 1957 to enforce integration. What happened over the weekend is without precedent, the president deploying the Guard over the governor's objection. What are the implications?
JULIETTE KAYYEM: Well, they are huge. I mean, there's really no — there's not only no precedent to this. There's no sort of check on it. We don't know if this is the standard, if what happened in L.A. is the standard now for federalizing the National Guard and deployment of active military.
The Trump administration has so lowered the floor and the distinction between civil and military actions, that they appear now to be one and the same. It's important to remember there's two distinct issues here, and I'm not even going to talk about immigration.
The first is, what are the standards for deployment of a federalized National Guard? To just put it in context, the last time this was done, as you said, the governors, both — in both instances, the governors wanted it — was 1992, the L.A. riots. By then, by the time that they were called, over 60 people had died, had been killed in a city that was literally on fire everywhere throughout Los Angeles.
And then again in 2005, with Hurricane Katrina response, by then 1,400 Americans were dead. There is protests. There is violent protests in L.A. There are cars on fire. There's name-calling. There's agitation. But there is nothing that satisfies the standards that we saw in '92 and 2005.
The second thing I want to say is the deployment of active military into a very complicated web of first responders who are training and working together all the time is not always beneficial. And there's a lot of challenges in terms of the introduction of a militarized force into civilian law enforcement, firefighters, emergency managers. And in the past, it has not worked very well.
BENNETT: I want to ask you more about the Marine deployment in a moment.But, first, for the National Guard, practically, does the National Guard operate differently, whether it's under state or federal leadership?
KAYYEM: Yes.
BENNETT: I mean, what does that mean for command and control?
KAYYEM: Yes, so National Guard, just think of it as dual-hatted. So, the same person — I'm in the National Guard. So, under state National Guard, I report to my governor. The president, as he did on Saturday, then could federalize me, essentially under Title 10. I now report to any command that president is going to give me, regardless of what I have been trained to, my understanding of the community, my integration into the community.
That's the beauty of state National Guards is that they're us. I mean, they're here. They're not off at some camp in another state. They understand the communities. They understand the geography. So, for example, in 1992 with the L.A. riots, the state National Guard were also deployed. That was viewed as pretty successful, although delayed and complicated. They did things like help with traffic control, protect buildings, as we're talking about, support law enforcement in terms of just giving them sort of a little bit of bandwidth, given where the riots were. They helped protect shopping malls.
That's the kind of thing that you want your sort of — your local military asset to do under the president. They can do almost anything under Title 10, except, under the Posse Comitatus act, they cannot serve in a law enforcement function. In other words, ICE would still need to come in and deport people. But unless you have trained for that, unless you know what the rules of engagement are, I wouldn't have a lot of confidence in the military understanding that distinction under this president.
BENNETT: Well, late today, we learned that 700 Marines in California from the 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines at Twentynine Palms, they have been ordered to assist in Los Angeles. They're expected to arrive within 24 hours. The big question now, among many, is whether President Trump will invoke the Insurrection Act, which would give these troops the ability to directly participate in civil law enforcement.
KAYYEM: Yes.
BENNETT: And this was the thing, Juliette, as you well know, that many Trump officials during the first term were pushing back against because it sets up potentially volatile interactions between U.S. troops and civilians on U.S. soil. What questions does this raise?
KAYYEM: That's right. They also — U.S. troops against first responders. I mean, look, if people want to complain about the rioters or the paid rioters or the outside agitators, sure, you now — we will now have active military on the streets with a mission we don't know, under legal authority that has not yet been invoked yet, with no training, no communication capacity with the other first responders, and no clear chain of command that integrates into what's already been built.
And let's just — I want to say this again, and out in the street operationally not necessary. I mean, this is — we're not at the kind of crisis that the president and Secretary Hegseth and Homan, who talked about essentially mean language towards ICE officials.
So this is a second shoe to drop within 48 hours. And I will say we have never seen this before. I don't care what you think about immigration or immigration enforcement. This is a different play, and the floor has fallen if President Trump does this.BENNETT: Juliette Kayyem, thank you for your time and for your perspective this evening. We appreciate it.
KAYYEM: Thank you.