Pelosi’s Misstep Over Constitution Sparks Debate as Trump Deploys Troops to Los Angeles

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi faced significant criticism this week after making inaccurate references to the U.S. Constitution during remarks condemning President Donald Trump’s recent deployment of National Guard troops and U.S. Marines to Los Angeles amid widespread riots.

Speaking to reporters while flanked by fellow Democratic lawmakers, Pelosi pointed to what she called “Article 10” of the Constitution, claiming it restricted the president’s authority to activate the National Guard without a governor’s permission.

“I hope the president would read Article 10 of the Constitution, and I urge all of you to do that, as well,” Pelosi said. “Because section 12046 of Article 10 says that the National Guard cannot be called up by the president without the consent of the governor.”

However, there is no Article 10 in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution consists of only seven articles, each defining the powers and structure of the federal government. Pelosi’s misstatement quickly went viral, with many suggesting she meant to reference Title 10 of the U.S. Code, a federal statute that outlines the president’s authority to use the National Guard in a federal capacity.

Despite the confusion in terminology, Pelosi’s interpretation of the law also came under scrutiny. Legal experts and historians pointed out that Title 10 does, in fact, allow the president to federalize National Guard units without needing approval from state governors. This authority has been used by previous presidents in moments of crisis. For instance, President Lyndon B. Johnson famously used it during the civil rights era to intervene in southern states.

According to legal analysts, the law allows the president to issue orders through the governors, but that process is procedural—not dependent on their consent. The president’s powers in this area have been reaffirmed by the courts over the years, underscoring the federal government’s ability to act unilaterally in certain national emergencies.

Political commentator Matt Margolis wrote, “Federal law has long acknowledged the president’s right to federalize the National Guard, and the Supreme Court has affirmed this authority without requiring gubernatorial consent multiple times.”

Adding to the controversy, Pelosi also made claims during the same press conference about the events leading up to the January 6 Capitol riot. She stated that she and other congressional leaders had requested the deployment of the National Guard prior to the riot, but claimed that Trump refused.

However, that narrative has been contradicted by former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund. Sund clarified on social media that federal law prohibited him from calling in outside assistance, including the National Guard, without approval from the Capitol Police Board—a three-member panel that included officials who reported directly to Speaker Pelosi and then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

“FACT: On January 6, I was restricted by Federal Law (2US1970) from bringing in ANY federal support, including the National Guard, without first receiving permission from the Capitol Police Board,” Sund posted.

Former President Trump has maintained that he offered to authorize National Guard troops prior to January 6 but that his offer was declined by congressional leadership. Critics argue that the issue remains politically charged and continues to be debated, even years later.

Meanwhile, Trump’s latest decision to send 4,000 National Guard members and 700 active-duty Marines to Los Angeles in response to escalating violence during anti-ICE protests has received mixed but majority support among voters.

According to a new poll conducted by RMG Research and reported by The Daily Signal, 52% of registered voters surveyed said they either strongly or somewhat approve of the decision to deploy military forces to stabilize the city. Around 42% disapproved, while 7% remained undecided.

The unrest began late last week following federal immigration enforcement operations in Los Angeles. Protesters clashed with authorities, and the demonstrations quickly turned violent in some areas, resulting in property damage, injuries, and over 100 arrests.

The same poll also found that 57% of voters support efforts by immigration officials to arrest undocumented immigrants in Los Angeles. Only 35% opposed those actions, with 9% unsure.

Trump’s supporters argue that the federal government has a duty to maintain law and order when local authorities are overwhelmed or unwilling to act decisively. Critics, however, see the deployment as a political move designed to energize Trump’s base ahead of the election season.

Despite the debate, the facts surrounding federal authority in times of civil unrest remain legally clear. And while political leaders may disagree on strategy and policy, their public statements are increasingly under scrutiny—especially when they involve fundamental misunderstandings of the Constitution.

As Pelosi’s remarks continue to circulate, the episode serves as a reminder of the importance of clarity and accuracy in the nation’s most heated political moments.