It is this state of unrest in which United States National Guardsmen have been deployed by President Donald Trump to the streets of cities all across the country: currently Los Angeles, Memphis, Tennessee, Washington, D.C. and Portland, Oregon, with attempts to send guardsmen to Chicago.

But why? National Guard deployments — at least those ordered by Trump during his second term — have been to defend United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities and suppress the protests, riots and violence that have plagued America. This violence has arisen from attempts to interfere with or prevent ICE operations, primarily those that involve the deportation of those living in the United States illegally.

Although it may seem surprising, laws such as the Insurrection Act, Code § 12406 and Section 2 of the Militia Act, allow the president to federalize the normally state-controlled National Guard. However, this is only legal in unique circumstances such as open rebellion or when it is impossible or impractical to enforce the law via other means. 

Based on these laws, it is clear to see that the legality of President Trump’s deployments of the National Guard hinge on whether or not he is able to efficiently enforce the law with the resources traditionally available to him. 

Now, it is indisputable that ICE agents have faced remarkable amounts of violence and rioting in response to their operations, which, setting aside the ethics of said ICE operations, are impediments to the enforcement of the law. Armed rioters have attacked ICE facilities with varying levels of force. Some have used rocks or fireworks with others using firearms. Larger scale riots have also broken out in Los Angeles; involving arson, vandalism and attacks on police officers, although these particular riots have been for all intents and purposes quelled. The riots in Los Angeles lasted from June 6 to July 15, 2025.

It should go without saying that rioting, omnipresent agitators and consistent violence makes it almost impossible to properly and efficiently enforce the law. But the question still remains whether or not this violence is enough to invoke the Insurrection Act and similar provisions. 

However history gives a clear answer, in the form of the 1794 Whisky Rebellions. In response to the institution of an unwanted tax, numerous Americans responded to tax collectors with violence, and in response the federal government deployed thousands of militiamen — the historical equivalent of the National Guard — to quell the violence. 

There are numerous other similar examples from across US history, such as when the National Guard or historical equivalent (such as the aforementioned state militias) including in 1954 to enforce desegregation of schools, riots following the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968 and riots over police brutality in 1992 among others. 

One of the most recent examples of National Guard deployment as law enforcement and riot control was in Los Angeles in 1992. After a high speed car chase in an attempt to evade arrest, Rodney King was pulled over by four police officers and brutally beaten. 

In response to a video of the incident, people across Los Angeles rose up, attacking citizens and property with whatever improvised weapons they could, ranging from molotov cocktails to their fists. In order to end the riots, President George H.W. Bush invoked the Insurrection Act, deploying thousands of Guardsmen and other federal forces to restore order. All told, the riots lasted three days, with damages totalling more than 60 deaths and $1 billion in property damage. 

Although the 1992 Los Angeles riots and the current situation are not identical, the idea is similar, and the allowance of National Guard deployment can be used as a precedent for the moment at hand. And the precedent is for all intents and purposes the same, as they both involved use of the National Guard to counteract significant violence. Although the current violence is not quite as significant as that of past situations, it is still clear that President Trump is within his power to federalize the National Guard.

Of course, the ideal would be that the country isn’t in a place where National Guard deployments on domestic targets are even considered, but here we are. And although the thought of using the U.S. military on my fellow Americans rightfully leaves a foul taste in my mouth, we are a nation of laws, not one where violent rioters are the arbiters of justice, and if the military is the only way of enforcing this, then so be it.

The post The National Guard Has Been Deployed to American Cities. Here’s Why It’s Legal appeared first on Obsidian News | Oregon Youth Voices.

As a member of Gen Z, the generation born between the late 1990s and early 2010s, I have grown up amid near-constant crises: a post-9/11 surveillance state, financial recession, climate change, mass shootings, political upheaval, a global pandemic and escalating global tensions, including renewed fears of military conflict. It’s no wonder our default coping mechanism has become a brand of humor that leans heavily on absurdism, detachment and fatalism.

This isn’t simply a quirk of internet culture. Dark or ironic humor can be a defense mechanism for anxiety or a sense of powerlessness.  However—or perhaps because of—our immersion in global events via digital media, Gen Z embodies a paradox: high awareness but inconsistent civic action. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, only 44% of 18 to 24-year-olds voted in the 2022 midterms, compared to approximately 67.6% of voters over 40. While Gen Z’s number was higher than in previous years, the gap highlights a generational divide between awareness and mobilization.

It’s undeniable that my generation has been flooded with information, and our propensity to peruse online platforms has made us highly opinionated on a wide range of topics. So, if we’re so passionate about the issues around us, why are we not voting? 

Gen Z’s lack of civil engagement can lead to what some call “performative nihilism,” a mindset where serious issues are acknowledged but treated as inevitable and unsolvable. This response may be shaped by years of watching institutions fail to meet challenges, from stalled climate policy to deepening economic inequality. 

The result is a kind of learned helplessness. Gen Z is politically literate, highly connected and fluent in the language of critique, but often skeptical of traditional forms of engagement. Online discourse becomes the outlet, but without coordinated offline action, the energy dissipates into apathy. We could make a thousand TikToks about why an issue matters, and although we may be spreading the word, it’s not making much of a difference. 

This is not to say Gen Z is politically inert. Many of us have participated in protests, and youth-led movements like March for Our Lives and the Sunrise Movement show that when activated, Gen Z can be a powerful force. But these efforts remain fragmented, often disconnected from broader political infrastructures and voter participation.

The challenge ahead is not only about registering more young voters or coaxing them into political parties. It’s about rebuilding trust, creating tangible pathways for agency—real, accessible steps for activism, from volunteering with impactful organizations to attending community meetings or protests—and bridging the gap between online consciousness and real-world impact. 

Our humor is not inherently a bad thing. Laughter has always been important. But if we want to shape the world we inherit—rather than merely survive it—it’s time to turn away from joking about global conflicts and start working to prevent them. The stakes are no longer theoretical, and the future will be decided by those who show up.

The post Gen Z Laughs in the Face of War appeared first on Obsidian News | Oregon Youth Voices.