National Guard Troop Reduction in Los Angeles Sparks Debate on Federal Overreach

Nearly six weeks into a contentious military deployment, the Pentagon announced on Tuesday a significant reduction, releasing half of the almost 4,000 National Guard soldiers stationed in the Los Angeles area. This decision follows a prolonged legal battle over the Trump administration’s authority to deploy troops and strong criticism from state and local leaders who argued the military presence was unnecessary for managing protests related to immigration raids, which had led to approximately 3,000 arrests.

President Trump had justified the deployment by citing initial unrest during the immigration sweeps. However, protests quickly subsided, largely managed by local police, with the National Guard primarily focused on protecting federal buildings. Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell confirmed that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered 2,000 National Guard troops released from what was termed a “federal protection mission.” The initial deployment orders were set for 60 days, potentially extending into early August.

“Thanks to our troops who stepped up to answer the call, the lawlessness in Los Angeles is subsiding,” Parnell stated. The federalization of over 4,000 California National Guard soldiers by the Trump administration and Hegseth was an unprecedented display of force, which local leaders repeatedly contended only exacerbated the situation. Despite the 2,000 troops heading home, 2,000 National Guard members and 700 Marines remain activated in the area.

Upon learning of the reduction, Governor Gavin Newsom called for the complete withdrawal of all remaining military personnel from Los Angeles. “Thousands of members are still federalized in Los Angeles for no reason and unable to carry out their critical duties across the state,” Newsom posted on X, urging, “End this theater and send everyone home.” L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, a vocal critic of the deployment, celebrated the partial withdrawal, describing the troops as “unnecessarily deployed” and “used as props” by the Trump administration. “This is a victory and a victory that is a result of our city standing strong and standing united,” Bass declared at a Tuesday evening press conference, expressing hope for a full withdrawal.

While some deployed personnel assisted federal agents in immigration enforcement, military officials maintained that troops were restricted to security and crowd control, lacking law enforcement authority. The National Guard had roles in a convoy at MacArthur Park and raids on cannabis farms in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties. Earlier this month, 150 National Guard members were released from the L.A. mission to combat wildfires, a unit that had been operating at 40% staffing due to the deployment. Newsom lauded this as a victory, stating, “Our firefighters are finally returning to fight wildfires. Better late than never. Now — send the rest home.”

In June, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer of San Francisco ruled that Trump’s mobilization of California National Guard members against the state’s wishes was illegal, exceeding his authority and violating the 10th Amendment. Breyer expressed concern over the implication that protest could justify a finding of rebellion. However, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals paused this ruling, allowing troops to remain while the case proceeds, noting the president’s broad, though not unreviewable, authority to deploy the military in American cities.

阅读中文版 (Read Chinese Version)

Disclaimer: This content is aggregated from public sources online. Please verify information independently. If you believe your rights have been infringed, contact us for removal.