President Trump has deployed federal law enforcement officers and the National Guard in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., and threatened to take over predominantly Black Democratic cities by decree. The presidential orders are conducted on the pretext of fighting crime, but critics condemn them as nefarious acts of political provocation and racial intimidation.

The deployments have spurred a debate over the legality of the administration’s use of federal police and the National Guard generally — and the role of Black cops and troops in carrying them out in particular. Should they follow orders of questionable legality or, instead, disobey and protest through the appropriate channels?

All federal police and soldiers swear an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution and not blindly follow orders of superiors. The right of refusal to either deploy or follow an order considered illegal is protected under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Army Field Manual and federal laws and regulations.

According to legal experts, law enforcement officers and soldiers have the right to refuse an order based on their training and understanding of the law. That’s because the consequences of following an unlawful order, especially one that directs a criminal act, could make them subject to criminal and civil liability. They have a right to dissent and report the issue to appropriate channels, including as protected whistleblowers.

The extent to which young members of the military would prevail on the regulations is open to question, however. A recent poll found that four of five soldiers understood the duty to disobey an illegal order, but such defiance can cause ostracism in their unit and harsh punishment.

History does not suggest a widespread practice by Black soldiers or officers to refuse to carry out orders. However, it does record episodes of courageous dissent during times of racial tensions — such as the Vietnam War and urban rebellions in the 1960s, and the protests over the murder of George Floyd in 2020.

In August 1968, for instance, Black soldiers in the U.S. Army’s First Armored Division stationed at Fort Hood, Texas, refused to deploy to Chicago for riot-control duty. Only months after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., 60 soldiers engaged in a protest over orders to police Black neighborhoods during the Democratic National Convention. They engaged in a sit-in on the base, but 17 of the protesting soldiers were persuaded to board the plane for Chicago.

The other 43 soldiers were arrested for failing to report and became infamous as the “Fort Hood 43.” The refusal to deploy was one of the largest acts of Black dissent in modern military history. As a consequence, they were placed in the stockade, court-martialed and sentenced to six months of hard labor, a forfeiture of two-thirds of their wages, and reductions in rank. Within the Black community, however, the men were championed for their courageous act of dissent.

During the Vietnam War, Black soldiers and National Guard troops found creative ways to express their dissent with racial conditions in the armed forces and the deployments to police urban communities. For example, they wore fashions to emphasize pride and empowerment, created Black-themed flags, developed ritualized handshakes and formed support groups, among others, chronicled by Wallace Terry in his book “Bloods: Black Veterans of the Vietnam War.”

Meanwhile, federal law enforcement agents swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and are entrusted with power and obligations to act within the law. They are required to use their own judgment in deciding when to refuse to obey unlawful orders. In general, Black federal police have resisted questionable orders by opposing, within the organization, racial profiling and advocating greater police accountability and more community-based solutions, among others. The innovations have played a role in the steep drop in serious crimes in major cities.

The National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE) has criticized systemic racism in law enforcement, called for de-escalation training, the abolition of chokeholds and the quick intervention of officers to stop another from using excessive force. Such reforms are crucial for building trust between the police and community.

Federal law offers some protection from U.S. Army and militia policing of civilians. However, the Trump administration has found loopholes to exploit such as the use of the Insurrection Act of 1807 to deploy soldiers without state authorization, as in Los Angeles. Another involved the oversight of the District of Columbia National Guard which, unlike all other states and territories, is always under presidential control.

Yet another is a federal law for the National Guard known as “Title 32 status,” which allows a president to urge the governor of one state to deploy its National Guard to another state — even against the objections of that state’s governor. It enables Trump to approach the Republican governors of other states to send their Guard personnel to Washington.

Black law enforcement must not abandon their obligations to the U.S. Constitution and the people. History suggests that now is the time for courageous push back against federal policing actions of questionable legality in Black communities.

Roger House is professor emeritus of American Studies at Emerson College and the author “South End Shout: Boston’s Forgotten Music Scene in the Jazz Age.”