06 12 25 US Rep Jason Crow talks about the use of National Guard and Marines in LA

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
The protests in Los Angeles continue, and President of Trump's
calling up the California National Guard and eventually the Marines
to support immigration and customs enforcement is not sitting well
with many of those who have served in some of
Colorado's congressional delegation.

Speaker 2 (00:12):
One of those is Colorado Congressman Jason Crow, who also
served as an army ranger, and he joins us now, Congressman,
your initial reaction to the President calling up the National
Guard and then the Marines to Los Angeles, Well, local.

Speaker 3 (00:26):
Law enforcement has the responsibility to fix this and to
impose law and order and to make sure people are safe,
and that's what they're doing. The president can federalize the
National Guard and send an active duty there's a foreign
invasion or of local law enforcement can't handle it at
the invitation of the governor and mayor, which hasn't happened here.

(00:47):
The governor mayor have been clear that they have things
under control and they want local law enforcement to deal
with it. But listen, in my experience, I've served in
the National Guard, I served in active duty. I was
an elite active duty units. I understand that when you
put these units into a civil disturbance situation. It rarely,
rarely de escalates it right, and it's hard on the soldiers,

(01:08):
it's hard on the civilians and protesters. It rarely is
a situation that ends well. I mean, there are certain
circumstances where it's appropriate, but certainly not when you don't
have the support of local officials and local law enforcement.

Speaker 1 (01:20):
Congressman, does the President have the authority without Congress to
deploy troops on US soil and superseded governor and states
in the States rules? Or does he have to declare
what is it the Insurrection Act to do that? Or
can he just do it by fiat?

Speaker 3 (01:33):
Well, there's three circumstances that the president can do it.
One is a foreign invasion, which clearly is not the
case here. In fact, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff testified before Congress yesterday and he said there
is no foreign invasion. The section is the second is
a rebellion and again a top officials and the administration
testified before Congress and said there is no rebellion. And
the third is when local law enforcement can't handle the

(01:56):
situation and when they invite the military and to help
them also, which has not happened in this case. So
none of those three have occurred here. But you know,
my larger concern, there's a larger concern at play the
president's executive order that he issued for this. This is
something that should concern everybody, regardless of political affiliation, whether

(02:16):
you're a Republican or a Democrat or an independent. His
executive order never mentions California once, never is his LA once.
It says he can deploy troops anywhere, anytime, any place,
for any amount of time. Now, that's never happened before,
and I don't think any president, whether you're a Democrat

(02:37):
or a Republican president, no president should have that unilateral
authority that has never been taken by a president before.
I think it's just a really big slippery slope.

Speaker 2 (02:47):
So what can Congress do, the Senate, the House to
maybe kind of stop this and take this to the courts.
In terms of the legality side of it, well.

Speaker 3 (03:00):
You know, we're not taking things to the courts. We're
in Congress, so we don't. We're not suing the administration.
But we're going through oversight and we're going through the
budgeting process. In fact, today this morning, Secretary of hegsas
and the Chairman of the Joint Chief is testifying before
me and the Armed Services Committee, So we're going to
ask them really tough questions about, you know, the use
of money, the use of authority, what law are you

(03:21):
relying on? And for me as a as a former soldier,
I really want to know, how is this in the
best interest of our military? You know, you're spending fifty
million dollars for a big parade that we've never done before.
That that's a way overkill. You know, I'm all about
celebrating the birthday of the Army. You know, I'm again,
I'm an Army guy, and I'm really proud this is

(03:43):
the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the Army on Saturday,
But spending fifty million dollars to do it, and then
another one hundred and forty million dollars for this mobilization
to LA and then another twenty five billion dollars for
this Golden Dome air defense system that nobody's asked for
and nobody knows how it's going to work. Then another
one hundred and fifty billion dollars slush fund that was
given to the d D just a couple of months

(04:04):
ago that the d D didn't even ask for. I mean,
it's like they're printing money over there. We don't know
where this money is coming from. I mean, it's coming
from the taxpayers, that much we know, but they there
Robin Peter to pay Paul for all this stuff. And
it's really a really bad situation.

Speaker 1 (04:20):
Congressman, does this issue, like having again the National Guard
in the Marines they're in LA, does this fall along
the political party lines that we see so often with this?
Are your fellow vets in the Republican side trouble by this?
And I preface this by saying, apparently somebody you've had
an engagement with, if you will, Tom Cotton is apparently
not bothered by this.

Speaker 3 (04:39):
Yeah. I think the issue where there's some bipartisan consternation
and people are bothered is this issue of the executive order, right.
I mean, obviously there's debate about whether or not National
Guard should go in. I'm pretty adamant that active duty
certainly shouldn't go in. And they put an active duty
Marines on the streets of an American city is I
think a recipe for things to end poorly. But look

(05:02):
at this executive order. I mean, if you're a conservative,
do you really want a president to have this type
of authority? I mean project out, you know, five years,
ten years, fifteen years, different president is in office. Like,
do we really want to set a precedent that we're
giving the president the authority limitless authority, no time limit,
no place limit, no consultation with Congress to do this.

(05:26):
I just don't think this is right, and it's certainly
not I think a power we want to grant presidents.

Speaker 2 (05:32):
That's Congressman Jason Crow joining us here on Colorado's Morning News.
Thank you, Congressman, Thank you,