deployment

Here’s TWZ’s weekly carrier tracker monitoring America’s flattop fleet, including deployed Carrier Strike Groups (CSG) and Amphibious Ready Groups (ARG), using publicly available open-source information. Check out last week’s report here.

Amphibious assault ship USS Iwo Jima returned to Naval Station Norfolk on Saturday, wrapping a nearly 10-month deployment to the U.S. Southern Command-4th Fleet area of responsibility (AOR). During the 296-day deployment, the Iwo Jima ARG launched over 6,000 sorties, flew 1,850 flight hours, and transited more than 130,000 combined nautical miles. The ARG was the first group of expeditionary naval assets deployed to support Operation Southern Spear, which involved enhanced counter narcotics operations, and played a key role in Operation Absolute Resolve to exfiltrate ex-President Nicolas Maduro from Venezuela.

Here’s TWZ’s weekly carrier tracker monitoring America’s flattop fleet, including Carrier Strike Groups (CSG) and Amphibious Ready Groups (ARG), using publicly available open-source information. Given the carrier picture is largely unchanged compared to last week, this week’s tracker highlights the big-deck amphibious fleet.

Much of America’s fleet of nine amphibious assault ships is hard at work as the U.S. opts to replace the Iwo Jima ARG in Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) with a “sub-optimized” Littoral Combat Force (LCF). The LCF appears to be the first deployment that embodies the Navy’s new more flexible deployment strategy, which could have wider impacts across the fleet in the future. “It’s the way to have force multiplication, to punch bigger than yourself, and that’s done through tailored offsets,” Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle said at SNA earlier this year about the new tailored deployments concept. “That whole thing builds a way to present forces to allow me to do more with less.”

The 24th MEU, operating under the designation LCF-24, deployed to SOUTHCOM and replaced the Iwo Jima ARG. “Distinct from a standard Amphibious Ready Group/MEU deployment, LCF-24 is a purpose-built MAGTF engineered for distributed operations,” SOUTHCOM explained in a statement. The Marine Air-Ground Task Force, with more than 1,300 Marines and Sailors, will operate from both shore-based nodes and aboard Fort Lauderdale, and is certified to “execute a wide array of mission essential tasks, including but not limited to Quick Reaction Force operations such as embassy reinforcement and the tactical recovery of aircraft [and] personnel, while standing ready to support disaster relief activities.”

May 26 (Asia Today) — The South Korean government said Tuesday it aims to launch its first nuclear-powered submarine by the mid-2030s and deploy the vessel to the Navy in the late 2030s.

The plan was presented during the first meeting of the Future Defense Strategy Committee in Jinhae, South Gyeongsang Province, attended by President Lee Jae-myung.

According to the government, South Korea plans to domestically develop and build the submarines to strengthen the independence and stability of its military procurement, maintenance and operational systems.

The submarines are expected to use low-enriched uranium fuel enriched below 20%, allowing for long operational cycles without frequent refueling.

Defense Minister Ahn Gyu-back briefed Lee on the government’s basic plan for developing nuclear-powered submarines.

The announcement came seven months after Lee said he received support from President Donald Trump during a bilateral summit in October for South Korea’s submarine program.

“Based on the strong South Korea-U.S. alliance, the nuclear-powered submarines we will build symbolize our determination to take responsibility for peace and security on the Korean Peninsula ourselves,” Lee said.

He added that the project would also contribute significantly to strengthening South Korea’s defense industry capabilities.

Lee also emphasized the importance of regaining wartime operational control, known as OPCON, from the United States.

“The recovery of wartime operational control is a core element of self-reliant national defense,” Lee said. “It will serve as an opportunity for South Korea to more clearly establish itself as the main actor in defending the Korean Peninsula.”

He said Seoul and Washington would continue close consultations to finalize a roadmap for the transfer, including the timing of the transition.

Lee also called for integrating advanced science and technology into national defense to build what he described as a “smart military” capable of dominating future warfare.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260527010007660

May 24 (Asia Today) — South Korea is preparing to publicly unveil a development roadmap for a nuclear-powered attack submarine program after the successful Pacific deployment of the domestically built Dosan Ahn Chang-ho submarine, according to military and defense officials.

The move signals Seoul’s effort to strengthen what officials describe as the strongest conventional strategic deterrence available to a non-nuclear weapons state in response to North Korea’s advancing nuclear and missile capabilities and growing maritime competition in the region.

Senior military officials said the Ministry of National Defense and the Defense Acquisition Program Administration have completed technical reviews for a South Korean nuclear-powered submarine program and are now coordinating with related ministries, including the Foreign Ministry, on a diplomatic and regulatory strategy.

The report follows the recent Pacific deployment of the 3,000-ton Dosan Ahn Chang-ho submarine, which sailed about 14,000 kilometers, or 8,700 miles, from Jinhae through Guam and Hawaii using only domestically developed lead-acid batteries, diesel engines and an air-independent propulsion system.

South Korean officials said the deployment significantly reduced the need for snorkeling operations, in which submarines surface or raise air intake masts to recharge batteries, and demonstrated the vessel’s long-duration underwater operational capability and hull durability.

Officials also said the submarine successfully demonstrated stable operation of its submarine-launched ballistic missile vertical launch system in rough Pacific conditions. The Dosan Ahn Chang-ho class is the world’s first diesel-electric submarine class equipped with vertical launch tubes for submarine-launched ballistic missiles.

Defense experts said the mission simultaneously highlighted the operational limitations of conventional diesel submarines and the strategic advantages of nuclear propulsion.

While diesel-electric submarines must operate at relatively slow underwater speeds to maintain endurance, nuclear-powered submarines can remain submerged for much longer periods and travel underwater at speeds exceeding 40 kilometers per hour, allowing broader operational flexibility, officials said.

The foreign affairs and security publication The Diplomat reported Thursday that South Korea’s pursuit of a nuclear-powered submarine would become “a major test case of non-nuclear deterrence” for a country that does not possess nuclear weapons.

Chung Sung-chang, head of the Korea Nuclear Strategy Forum and a senior researcher at the Sejong Institute, said the submarine under discussion would be a non-nuclear attack submarine that would not carry nuclear weapons.

Chung said South Korea plans to retain the hull design and submarine-launched ballistic missile strike capability proven through the Dosan Ahn Chang-ho program while replacing the diesel propulsion system with a small nuclear reactor.

He said South Korea should first publicly present its nuclear submarine development roadmap before negotiating a bilateral nuclear submarine cooperation agreement with the United States and securing approval from the U.S. Congress.

Chung also said Seoul would need a separate agreement with Washington to secure low-enriched uranium fuel for naval reactors derived from downgraded highly enriched uranium.

Officials are reportedly studying the AUKUS security partnership among the United States, Britain and Australia, under which Australia received access to nuclear-powered submarine technology while remaining within the international nonproliferation framework.

South Korean officials said the success of the Dosan Ahn Chang-ho deployment demonstrated that the country’s technical preparations for a future nuclear-powered submarine program had reached a mature stage, shifting the focus toward diplomatic negotiations and international coordination.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260524010006872

South Korea on Friday finalized a plan to acquire U.S. Standard Missile-6 (SM-6) shipborne missile interceptors and field them by 2034, in a bid to boost its missile defense capabilities, the state arms procurement agency said.

The Defense Project Promotion Committee, a decision-making body for arms procurement under the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA), approved the 530 billion-won (US$351.5 million) project to acquire the SM-6 long-range ship-to-air missile interceptors and related equipment, the agency said.

An SM-6 interceptor is an advanced defense missile interceptor for warships that can track and destroy a wide range of incoming threats.

It has a maximum range of 460 kilometers, with an altitude of up to 36 km, and is built to directly track targets with its own radar, allowing ships to deal with multiple threats at the same time.

The military plans to equip the 8,200-ton Aegis destroyer ROKS Dasan Jeong Yakyong, which is scheduled to enter service later this year, as well as the ROKS Daeho Kim Jong Seo, another vessel of the same class, with the SM-6 interceptors.

The SM-6 interceptors will also be installed on the already-deployed ROKS Jeongjo the Great through future capability upgrades.

“The project is expected to enhance ship-to-air defense capabilities of Aegis destroyers against enemy anti-ship ballistic missiles, aircraft and cruise missiles, as well as improve their anti-ballistic missile defense,” the DAPA said.

In November 2023, the United States approved a $650 million sale of up to 38 SM-6 missiles and related equipment to South Korea through the government-to-government Foreign Military Sales program.

Friday’s announcement by DAPA suggests that the acquisition may have been scaled back from the earlier plan. The timeline for the acquisition has also been revised to 2023-34, from the original 2023-31 schedule.

“The negotiation process took time even though we have been pushing ahead with the project since 2023,” a DAPA official said. “The system will be rolled out in stages in accordance with the schedule agreed upon with the U.S. side.”

The committee also approved a research and development (R&D) plan for a new military communications satellite system to replace older satellite and ground equipment.

The plan calls for developing and acquiring a dedicated geostationary military communications satellite and related ground infrastructure through an R&D program led by the Agency for Defense Development.

The project will run from this year through 2032, with an estimated cost of about 1.27 trillion won. DAPA plans to sign a contract agreement with a prototype developer by March next year.

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.

United States President Donald Trump has announced plans to deploy an additional 5,000 troops to Poland.

Trump announced the surprise deployment on social media late on Thursday, citing his friendship with right-wing Polish President Karol Nawrocki.

The move came days after a planned deployment to Poland was apparently scrapped and will deepen uncertainty surrounding the Trump administration’s approach to NATO allies and its long-term commitment to maintaining a military presence in Europe. It leaves European partners increasingly unclear about which areas they should prioritise as they formulate defence strategies.

“Based on the successful Election of the now President ⁠of Poland, Karol Nawrocki, who I was proud to Endorse, and our relationship with him, I am pleased to announce that the United States will be sending an additional 5,000 Troops to Poland,” Trump wrote.

Nawrocki welcomed the announcement on social media.

“Good alliances are those based on cooperation, mutual respect, and a commitment to our shared ‌security,” he wrote on Thursday evening.

Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski also welcomed the news on Friday, saying it ensures that “the presence of American troops in Poland will be maintained more or less at previous levels”.

About-face

The announced deployment is a sudden about-face from US declarations of plans to reduce military support to Europe under Trump’s “America First” doctrine.

The US president has for years been lambasting European NATO partners for failing to spend enough on defence. His opprobrium has risen in recent weeks as European states have criticised the US-Israeli war on Iran and refused to join the conflict.

The Pentagon abruptly announced a week ago that it was scrapping the planned deployment of 4,000 troops to Poland.

Earlier this month, Trump announced he was withdrawing 5,000 troops from Germany following a spat with Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who said Washington had been “humiliated” by Iranian negotiators.

The US president later said that he would be “cutting a lot further than 5,000”.

Polish officials have noted that Warsaw pays significant sums towards the cost of US troop deployments. The suggestion of a pullback has caused concern over security in Poland and elsewhere in Europe, as Russia’s war on neighbouring Ukraine continues, with the Trump administration largely ceasing efforts to mediate a ceasefire.

European states report that they are getting to grips with the need to replace US defence capabilities, albeit slowly. However, sources suggest that the erratic policies emerging from the White House are creating confusion over which elements should be prioritised.

“It is confusing indeed, and not always easy to navigate,” Swedish Foreign Minister Maria Malmer Stenergard told reporters ahead of hosting a meeting of NATO foreign ministers on Friday, which will be attended by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

US defence officials are also confused, according to the AP news agency.

“We just spent the better part of two weeks reacting to the first announcement. We don’t know what this means either,” said one official.

‘America First’

The US president has lashed out at fellow NATO members in recent months for failing to support the US-Israeli war on Iran, suggesting Washington could withdraw from the military alliance as a result.

State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott said Rubio would discuss the need for NATO allies to increase defence spending and shoulder greater responsibility at Friday’s meeting of NATO foreign ministers.

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, who has worked hard in recent months to attempt to soothe the US president’s displeasure with his alliance peers, welcomed Trump’s deployment to Poland and cautioned that Europe must become less reliant on the US.

Rubio said before meeting his NATO counterparts in Sweden: “Like any alliance, it ⁠has to be good ⁠for everyone who’s involved. There has to be a clear ⁠understanding of what the expectations are.” ⁠

He also suggested, however, that the meeting is likely to prove less than comfortable.

“The president’s views, frankly disappointment, at some of our NATO allies and their response to our operations in the Middle East – they’re well documented – that will have to be addressed,” he insisted, before adding “that won’t be solved or addressed today”.

While Rubio meets with NATO counterparts, senior Pentagon officials will brief partners at the alliance’s headquarters in Brussels about Washington’s commitment to European defence.

On Tuesday, the Pentagon announced it plans to reduce the number of combat brigades based in Europe from four to three.

Many of Washington’s allies in Europe remain frustrated with Trump’s handling of the war with Iran, which has damaged their economies and prompted some European leaders to question the reliability of the US.

European NATO countries also remain concerned about Trump’s threats to annex Greenland, which is an autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark, a NATO ally.

It remains unclear whether the deployment to Poland announced on Thursday includes the same soldiers as those the Pentagon said would no longer be deployed to the Central European country, or if they will include redeployments from Germany.

Workers represented by a local union say ICE presence would create a climate of fear during the FIFA World Cup 2026.

Workers at the SoFi Stadium in Los Angeles have decided to go on strike if federal immigration enforcement agents are deployed at the venue when it hosts FIFA World Cup matches in June and July.

The UNITE HERE Local 11 – a labour union representing some 2,000 hospitality employees – on Monday demanded federal guarantees that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) would not be used during the matches scheduled at the stadium.

The venue, which will be known as the Los Angeles Stadium during the tournament, will host eight World Cup games, including the opening fixture for the United States on June 12.

Workers at the world’s most expensive sports arena say the ICE presence would create a climate of fear for themselves and for fans.

“ICE should have no role in these games,” said Isaac Martinez, a stadium cook, at a protest outside the venue.

“We do not want to live in fear coming to work, or fear being detained going home.”

“If we do not reach an agreement, my colleagues and I are ready to strike,” Martinez added, speaking on behalf of a workforce composed largely of food and beverage concession staff.

ICE has led the charge in President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown.

Human rights groups have condemned the agency for its conduct during raids in several US cities, including Los Angeles last year.

In early 2026, ICE agents fatally shot two American protesters in Minneapolis.

Workers on Monday also raised alarms over FIFA’s accreditation process, which requires employees to submit personal data before the tournament, which runs from June 11 to July 19 across the US, Canada and Mexico.

“We ask FIFA not to share our information with ICE agencies, foreign countries, or intelligence services,” worker Yolanda Fierro said.

Protesters carrying plastic balls and signs reading “Kick ICE Out of the World Cup” drew support from Tom Steyer, a Democratic candidate in California’s gubernatorial race.

ICE’s mandate is border control, the financier-turned-politician said.

“Can anyone explain what that has to do with the World Cup? Nothing,” Steyer said.

“How is it possible that this is the agency that is going to be here when we know in fact they’re an absolute threat, a lawless threat, to workers in California?”

May 15 (UPI) — Representatives of both parties in the House on Friday demanded to know why the Department of Defense stopped deployment of troops to Poland, and top Army leaders didn’t have clear answers.

House Armed Services Committee members said the halting of troop deployment with no notice was a surprise to Congress, Politico reported. They had a hearing Friday with top Army leaders who gave them few answers.

“I just want to say this is a slap in the face to Poland; it’s a slap in the face to our Baltic friends,” Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., said. “It’s a slap to the face of this committee.”

The deployment was a long-planned rotation of 4,000 troops based in Texas, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth put a sudden stop to it.

Rep. Austin Scott, R-Ga., on Friday questioned Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, who said the rotation was canceled “just a couple days ago,” though acting Army Chief of Staff Gen. Christopher LaNeve said the decision was made in the “last two weeks.”

Neither man gave an explanation for the decision.

“We don’t know what’s going on here, but I can just tell you we’re not happy with what’s being talked about, particularly since there’s been no statutory consultation with us,” committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Ala., told Driscoll and LaNeve.

On Thursday, acting Pentagon press secretary Joel Valdez said the decision was “not an unexpected, last-minute decision.”

“I don’t see how [the Pentagon] statement can be true,” Scott said.

LaNeve confirmed that some equipment was already in Europe or en route when Hegseth canceled the deployment.

Driscoll said the Army can adjust its plans based on the preferences of regional commanders or the secretary of defense.

“This is not meant to hide the ball; this is to say this type of conversation is going on throughout the year every single year,” he said.

On April 30, President Donald Trump decided to remove 5,000 troops from Germany after German Chancellor Friederich Merz said the United States was “humiliated” by Iran.

Trump has often complained about NATO, but he has called Poland a “model ally” for its move to spend more on defense. In September, Trump said he would support Poland and stand with Warsaw “all the way” after the candidate he backed, Karol Nawrocki, won the election for president.

Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., said Army leaders should be able to give a straight answer to Congress.

“The only answer I’ve got is, ‘Well, that’s what they told us to do.’ OK, why?” Smith asked the Army leaders. “If there’s some strategy behind it, then you guys ought to know and you ought to be able to communicate it to us.”

Bacon said that Polish officials were “blindsided” by the move, which he learned from a phone call from Poland.

“They called me yesterday, they did not know, they were blindsided,” The Hill reported Bacon told Driscoll and LaNeve. “These are some of our best allies, and they had no idea. They still don’t know what the plan is.”

Bacon said he knew the Army leaders didn’t make the decision, but he called it “reprehensible” and “an embarrassment to our country … what we just did to Poland.”

He added, “I know I may not represent 100% of people in this committee, but I think I represent the views of the vast majority. We disagree. … We’re sending a terrible message to Russia and to our allies.”

Rep. Marilyn Strickland, D-Wash., said, “When we take that many troops away, it says that we are not a reliable ally.

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon is drawing down thousands of troops in Europe by canceling deployments to Poland and Germany as opposed to yanking forces already stationed there, U.S. officials say, as President Trump has tussled with allies over the Iran war and called for changes.

Several U.S. officials confirmed that 4,000 troops from the Army’s 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division were no longer en route to Poland this week. The Trump administration had previously said it was cutting U.S. forces only in Germany, and the decision spurred questions and criticism in both Warsaw and Washington.

Two officials told the Associated Press that the deployments were canceled after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth signed a memo directing the Joint Chiefs of Staff to move a brigade combat team out of Europe. One of them said the choice of which unit was left to military leaders.

Besides the Army combat team based in Fort Hood, Texas, the memo also led to the cancellation of an upcoming deployment to Germany of a battalion trained in firing long-range rockets and missiles, according to the two officials, who like the others spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive military operations.

Three U.S. officials said the changes were part of an effort to comply with a presidential order issued at the beginning of May to reduce the number of troops in Europe by about 5,000. The reasoning does not appear to have been well communicated because others based in Europe said they did not know if the halted deployment to Poland was part of the previously announced reduction.

Trump and the Pentagon have said in recent weeks that they were cutting at least 5,000 troops to Germany after Chancellor Friedrich Merz said the U.S. was being “humiliated” by the Iranian leadership and criticized Washington’s lack of strategy in the war.

The drawdown reflects a growing rift between the administration and traditional European allies, with the U.S. leader repeatedly criticizing fellow NATO members for a lack of support for the Iran war.

Polish officials on Friday insisted that the U.S. withdrawal was not targeted directly at Poland but was a consequence of Trump’s decision to reduce the number of troops in Germany.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said he “received assurances” that the decision was of a logistical nature and said it does not directly affect deterrence capabilities and Poland’s security.

Military officials say the decision to halt unit to Poland made recently

Joel Valdez, a Pentagon spokesman, said, “the decision to withdraw troops follows a comprehensive, multilayered process” and he argued that it was “not an unexpected, last-minute decision.”

Speaking to Congress in a hearing Friday, Army Secretary Dan Driscoll and Gen. Christopher LaNeve, the Army’s chief of staff, told lawmakers that discussions around the halted deployment occurred over the last two weeks but noted the decision itself was made in the last couple days.

Republican Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska said he spoke with Polish officials on Thursday and they noted they were “blindsided.”

The move also left many U.S. military personnel in Europe in the dark about how the Trump administration was reducing forces. A U.S. official based in Europe said a meeting was called with 20 minutes’ notice on Monday to discuss the cancellation of the deployment to Poland.

At that time, troops had already been sent to Poland and some, still in the U.S., were told shortly before departure not to travel to the airport, that official said. Another official said most of the Army unit’s equipment had already made it to Europe and was sitting in ports.

Change to troop deployment to Poland draws bipartisan criticism

The reductions drew criticism from Democratic and Republican lawmakers about the move sending the wrong signal both to allies and Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose forces this week have launched one of the deadliest attacks on the Ukrainian capital in the 4-year-old war.

At the House Armed Services Committee hearing Friday, LaNeve said he worked with U.S. Gen. Alexus Grynkewich, commander in Europe of both U.S. and NATO forces, after Grynkewich received the instructions for the force reduction.

“I’ve worked with him in close consultation of what that force unit would be, and it made the most sense for that brigade to not do its deployment in theater,” LaNeve said.

Bacon called the decision “reprehensible” and said it was “an embarrassment to our country what we just did to Poland.”

Republican Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama, who chairs the committee, said the military is required to consult with lawmakers and that did not happen.

“So we don’t know what’s going on here,” Rogers said. “But I can just tell you we’re not happy with what’s being talked about.”

A State Department official said Friday at a security conference in Tallinn, Estonia, that the U.S. reductions in Europe were “right there in black and white” but also noted that “the U.S. isn’t going anywhere.”

“We’ll continue to work with the Pentagon and work with our partners to make sure we get the right fit and right mix of what’s happening here on the ground,” said Thomas G. DiNanno, U.S. undersecretary of state for arms control and international security.

NATO says the change in Poland won’t affect defense

With the halted deployments, the U.S. military presence in Europe will now be at pre-2022 levels, before Russia commenced its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, one U.S. official said.

European countries have been bracing for a U.S. reduction since Trump returned to the White House, with the administration warning that Europe would have to look after its own security, including Ukraine’s, in the future.

A NATO official said the U.S. decision to cancel its rotational deployment to Poland would not impact NATO’s deterrence and defense plans. Canada and Germany have increased their presence on the alliance’s eastern flank, which contributes to NATO’s overall strength, the official said, insisting on anonymity in line with NATO regulations.

Ben Hodges, former commanding general of U.S. Army Europe, said the move “reinforces the perception that the United States just does things without consultation with allies,” which ultimately “damages cohesion inside the alliance.” The decision would in the long run harm the U.S. defense industry as it reduces the trust of partners, he said.

Around 10,000 U.S. troops are typically stationed in Poland, the majority of them present in the country on a rotational basis. Only about 300 troops are permanently stationed in the country, according to the U.S. Congressional Research Service.

Polish officials had hoped they would be spared from any cuts as Poland spends the most in NATO on defense as a proportion of its economy — around 4.7% in 2025. Hegseth has called it a “model ally” in NATO for spending so much on defense.

When Poland’s conservative president, Karol Nawrocki, visited the White House in September, Trump said he didn’t intend to pull U.S. troops out of Poland. “We’ll put more there if they want,” Trump said at the time.

Toropin, Burrows, Finley and Ciobanu write for the Associated Press. Burrows reported from Tallinn, Estonia, and Ciobanu from Warsaw.

WASHINGTON — Before being deployed to Los Angeles during anti-ICE protests last summer, U.S. Marines were given 12 rules for engaging with protesters, and Rule 1 was clear: Force “of any kind” was allowed only as a last resort.

If force were used, the rule stated, it “should be the minimum necessary to accomplish the mission.”

That detail is among 178 pages of federal documents released by the Marine Corps to the nonprofit watchdog group American Oversight through the Freedom of Information Act and shared exclusively with The Times.

The documents paint a thorough picture of how Marines prepared to deploy in Southern California, where they stood alongside National Guard members and agents with the Department of Homeland Security.

The documents also illuminate a glaring contrast between the training of Marines and that of immigration agents, who have been accused repeatedly of using unnecessary force against peaceful protesters, bystanders and immigrants during enforcement operations.

“Ironically, I would’ve felt much safer with Marine engagement than with DHS because of the depth of training,” said Ryan Schwank, a former instructor for Immigration and Customs Enforcement recruits at the ICE Academy within the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Georgia.

Schwank is a whistleblower who resigned in February after revealing that the Trump administration had slashed immigration officer training. After reviewing the documents obtained by American Oversight, he said the training given to Marines on crowd control was “significantly more in-depth and longer than training given to an ICE officer, even under the best of circumstances.”

An ICE agent walks through tear gas that was fired to push protesters back during a raid on Atlantic Boulevard in the city of Bell on June 20, 2025.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to questions and instead pointed to a February news release that said training has not been cut back and that new hires receive additional training after leaving the academy.

“ICE law enforcement officers are trained to use the minimum amount of force necessary to resolve dangerous situations to prioritize the safety of the public and our officers,” said Lauren Bis, a department spokesperson. “Officers are highly trained in de-escalation tactics and regularly receive ongoing use of force training.”

Schwank noted that the Marines and ICE officers came to Southern California with different objectives: As protectors of people and property, the Marines had a more limited, reactive mission, while ICE officers were charged with making arrests, a confrontational role.

“We’re giving [ICE officers] less training on it and fewer refreshers than the Marines are getting and yet we’re putting them in a situation where they’re taking the more confrontational actions to where they’re more likely to have to make split-second decisions,” Schwank said.

For most of history, he added, ICE agents detained people who were already in the custody of another law enforcement agency. He said ICE was never meant to act as riot police.

“The real fundamental problem isn’t ICE agents using force,” Schwank said. “It’s ICE agents using force in an environment they are not trained for.”

The training of Marines, and the lead-up to their deployment, is outlined in the documents reviewed by The Times.

On June 6, a commanding general emailed other generals to say that “national-level leadership” had directed Marines to assume an “alert posture” and be ready to support the Los Angeles Police Department, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and ICE officers who were already responding to civil unrest in downtown Los Angeles.

The Marines would safeguard federal facilities and thus “protect lives and property through the restoration of civil order,” the email said.

The Trump administration directed 4,200 California National Guard soldiers and 700 Marines to Southern California starting June 7.

Marines push back anti-ICE protesters in front of the Federal Building during a “No Kings Day” in downtown Los Angeles last June.

(Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)

First, though, they needed to be trained.

The five-day course reviewed use-of-force policies, less-lethal weapons and handling of civil disturbances.

Overall, the 12 rules emphasized safety, urging Marines to be reasonable, to de-escalate tensions and to avoid confrontations with individuals who posed no threat.

Marines could use non-deadly force, if necessary, to control a situation or protect themselves or other federal personnel, and deadly force “only when all lesser means have failed.”

“Exercise due regard for the safety of innocent bystanders when using any type of force,” the rules state.

Schwank said there is no equivalent to the Marines course at Homeland Security. When he left the academy in February, he said, “there was no crowd control training, period.”

Crowd control was briefly added to the curriculum in 2021 for experienced law enforcement officers, he said, but it was later removed. ICE recruits may also have gotten lessons on crowd control after leaving the academy and joining their respective field offices, he said.

When Schwank left the agency, a six-hour class called “Public Order Public Safety” was in development for the 2026 curriculum, according to documents he provided to Congress. Homeland Security did not respond when asked if the class had started.

“I wouldn’t assume that any of the ICE officers on scene in L.A. had received any sort of actual crowd control class,” Schwank said. “They might have gotten a one-to-two-hour PowerPoint slideshow, but that would’ve been it.”

Marine Col. Beth R. Smith confirmed that the entire 2nd Battalion 7th Marines received academic and practical training before deploying to Los Angeles.

Managing civil disturbances has been an issue for Homeland Security since at least 2021, according to an audit conducted by the agency’s internal watchdog review of a 2020 deployment to Portland, Ore.

That year, President Trump mobilized federal power against the protests that spilled into Portland streets after the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer. Trump sent 755 Homeland Security agents to defend federal property in what would come to be seen as a dry run for much larger operations of his second term.

A protester damages a Waymo vehicle at Los Angeles Street and Arcadia Street in L.A. on June 8, 2025.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

Nested on rooftops, agents launched chemical weapons against protesters. Ground forces fired less-lethal rounds at point-blank range and forced participants into unmarked vans without explanation.

The audit by the Homeland Security inspector general found that only seven of 63 officers reviewed had received any level of riot and crowd control training. Some officers told investigators that they needed additional training, and many “questioned their involvement in the operation” due to the lack of preparation.

”Without the necessary policies, training, and equipment, DHS will continue to face challenges securing Federal facilities during periods of civil disturbance that could result in injury, death, and liability,” the audit concluded.

As of spring 2025, Homeland Security records show, the department had not corrected the training failures flagged in the audit years earlier.

Schwank agreed that the concerns raised in the inspector general’s report were never addressed.

Liz Hempowicz, deputy executive director of American Oversight, said the Marine Corps’ emphasis on de-escalation and on using force only as a last resort stands in stark contrast to what happened on the ground in Los Angeles with immigration agents.

The practices outlined in the documents “differ from positions taken by senior DHS leadership, whose separate internal communications revealed a mindset that appeared far more encouraging of violence,” she said.

Internal Homeland Security emails also obtained by American Oversight revealed that the agency’s lead attorney said federal agents in Los Angeles should have “just started hitting the rioters and arresting everyone that couldn’t get away.”

“These records underscore that the difference between disciplined restraint and unnecessary harm can come down to the tone set at the top — and when that tone shifts toward hostility, the human cost can be devastating,” Hempowicz said.

Jennifer Kavanagh, director of military analysis at Defense Priorities, a military research group, said that for Homeland Security, the issue is partly a training deficiency and partly a cultural shift against agent accountability.

“Trump talks about ‘the enemy within’ — this is what he’s talking about,” she said. “To some at DHS, the enemy within is all immigrants, it’s cartels — it’s also groups that are protesting the government.”

Conversely, the Marines’ documents emphasized personal liability and responsibility. For example, one page said that “if you either use more force than is necessary, or respond with DEADLY-force to a NON-deadly threat — You will likely lose your right to self-defense, and you will be viewed, under the law, as the ‘Aggressor.’”

Marines were told to immediately report anyone violating the 12 rules of engagement.

The high level of training for Marines shows that command considered the optics of military personnel harming or even killing civilians, Kavanagh said. But just because the deployment worked out last year doesn’t make it a good idea in the long run, she said.

Kavanagh, alongside Gov. Gavin Newsom, Mayor Karen Bass, and LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell, opposed the military deployments to Los Angeles last year, maintaining that Marines are trained for foreign combat, not domestic crowd control.

“I see these deployments as a recipe for disaster,” she said.

Schwank said ICE’s training touches on personal liability but not in as much depth. Last fall, Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy chief of staff, said ICE officers “have federal immunity in the conduct of your duties, and anybody who lays a hand on you or tries to stop you or tries to obstruct you is committing a felony.”

On the ground in Los Angeles, ICE agents and other local law enforcement fired a range of less-lethal weapons at protesters, such as pepper balls, hard foam rounds or canisters delivering flash-bang grenades and tear gas.

At a June 12 protest, a federal agent shoved freelance journalist Anna Sophia Moltke to the ground, causing sprains on her left arm and leg and deep scrapes to her hip and knee that have since scarred. She was carrying a camera, she said, and wore clear press credentials and a helmet that said “PRESS.”

“I remember distinctly there being no violence at all until police and ICE showed up,” she said. “We saw them firing rubber bullets into the crowd. People started running away. I was halfway turned around when they started rushing the crowd, and a tall, 6-foot-4 masked man used both hands to push me onto the concrete.”

Moltke said she recalled a large group of protesters gathered near the Marines stationed at the northern end of the detention center, just before police and ICE swept through and forced her to the ground. To her knowledge, she said the Marines remained at their post and didn’t participate in street skirmishes.

May 1 (Asia Today) — Japan considered deploying its Self-Defense Forces to the Strait of Hormuz ahead of a summit with U.S. President Donald Trump but ultimately held back due to constitutional and legal constraints, reports said Friday.

Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi reviewed options in March to send naval assets to the region amid heightened tensions in the Middle East, according to Japanese media.

Two proposals were examined: dispatching minesweepers under Japan’s Self-Defense Forces law or sending destroyers and patrol aircraft for “survey and research” purposes under a separate legal framework. Both options were shelved due to concerns they could violate Japan’s pacifist constitution.

Article 9 of Japan’s constitution renounces war and prohibits the use of force to settle international disputes, placing strict limits on overseas military operations.

The discussions were prompted in part by U.S. requests for allied support in securing maritime routes. Trump warned in March that Iran could disrupt shipping in the Strait of Hormuz using drones, mines and short-range missiles, and called on countries including Japan, South Korea and European allies to contribute naval forces.

The Strait of Hormuz is a critical energy corridor for Japan, which depends heavily on Middle Eastern oil imports. Any prolonged disruption could affect supplies of crude oil, naphtha and petrochemical products.

Japanese officials acknowledged the urgency of ensuring maritime security but stressed legal limits. Defense Minister Shinjiro Koizumi said Japan must act within the bounds of its laws, while Takaichi told parliament she had explained constitutional constraints during talks with Trump.

Legal concerns centered on whether minesweeping operations in a conflict zone could be considered part of combat activities, potentially violating Article 9. Similarly, deploying naval vessels under the guise of research could be viewed as de facto joint operations with U.S. forces in a high-risk area.

Despite the decision, debate continues within Japan. Lawmakers from the ruling Liberal Democratic Party have suggested revisiting deployment options if maritime disruptions persist, emphasizing the importance of securing sea lanes.

The episode highlights Japan’s evolving security posture. While Tokyo has expanded defense spending and strengthened alliances, its ability to deploy forces abroad remains constrained by constitutional interpretation.

The issue also carries implications for South Korea, which relies on the same energy routes. If the United States increases pressure on allies to contribute to maritime security, both Seoul and Tokyo may face similar dilemmas balancing energy security with military involvement.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260501010000010

Deliveries of the CH-53K King Stallion to the U.S. Marine Corps are starting to ramp up, with the planned 16-aircraft annual milestone now expected for Fiscal Year 2029. The Marine Corps also says that, for the future, they are open to developing a mine countermeasures version, something that would be able to replace the current MH-53E.

Updates on the latest developments within the Marine Corps’ CH-53K program were today provided by Col. Kate Fleeger, a program manager for the H-53 Helicopters Program, at the annual Modern Day Marine conference in Washington, D.C., at which TWZ is in attendance.

Fleeger confirmed that, while the legacy CH-53E and MH-53E are “both still healthy and viable” and critical components of the Marine Corps fleet, the focus is now very much on the CH-53K as the future of heavy lift.

Currently, four Marine Corps squadrons have CH-53Ks as part of their stable, and Marine Heavy Helicopter Squadron 461 (HMH-461), which was the first fleet squadron, is fully outfitted with Kilos.

“We also have our training squadron, HMHT-302, which has received multiple CH-53Ks and will continue to be a dual type/model series training squadron throughout the transition from the Echo to the Kilo,” Fleeger explained. “We also have the CH-53K in our developmental test squadron, HX-21 at Patuxent River, and with our operational test squadron, VMX-1, in Yuma, Arizona.”

With the CH-53K “rocking and rolling across the board,” the 25th example off the Sikorsky production line in Stratford, Connecticut, was delivered earlier this week. Fleeger said that the service expects to add another eight aircraft for the rest of the year. This is part of a total Marine Corps program of record of 200 aircraft, a figure that has not changed. On top of this figure, Israel has procured 12 CH-53Ks, and Fleeger confirmed that the country is “in conversations” about the potential for additional aircraft.

As part of ongoing training work, HMH-461 has been putting the CH-53K through its paces “in every clime and place in CONUS,” Fleeger said. This has included taking the aircraft on detachments at the Weapons and Tactics Instructor (WTI) school in Yuma, and in exercises out of Twentynine Palms, California.

Fleeger said she is “extremely happy with how the aircraft is performing” with the operational fleet.

Meanwhile, the CH-53K is also still being tested, with the two units covering operational and developmental tests. “We are continuing to expand the envelope of the baseline aircraft that’s been delivered to the fleet, whether it’s expansion of the envelope with the existing equipment, or whether it’s modifications that allow for additional capability moving forward, and ultimately providing those modifications to fleet aircraft,” Fleeger explained.

Part of the recent mission expansion saw one CH-53K lifted by another example of the same type, to broaden options for the Tactical Recovery of Aircraft and Personnel, or TRAP mission. The aircraft that was lifted had its gear boxes and engines removed, but this is common practice, Fleeger said. The purpose of the test was not only to set up and document the flight characteristics, but also the rigging procedures. In the test, the aircraft that provided the sling load weighed about 28,000 pounds, which is well below the 36,000 pounds maximum external load for the CH-53K.

“When you talk to the pilots that lift something like that, even something that heavy, there’s very little ‘feel’ in the cockpit that you have a significant load underneath,” she added.

One of the other elements of additional testing has involved aviation ground fuel delivery. This involved a CH-53K landing with fuel and then providing this fuel to a V-22 tiltrotor that landed next to it.

At the same time, the transition to the CH-53K has involved training pilots with four Containerized Flight Training Devices (CFTD) now delivered. “They are state-of-the-art, fully immersive environments that have some of the highest fidelity visual databases and digital acuity that you’ll see in flight simulation today,” Fleeger said.

“The pilots have every opportunity to see exactly what’s going to happen in the aircraft before they even get in the aircraft. The idea here is the first time a pilot sits in that cockpit on the flight line is kind of a non-event, because he’s basically seen everything he needs to see along the way.”

These new CFTDs consist of a mobile box with the “guts of the simulator inside.” As Fleeger explained, “Gone are the days of the big dome, fully motion-based simulators that we’ve had previously. The motion platform is no longer a big portion of what provides the training fidelity. The majority of that fidelity actually comes from the visual systems, the realism of the visual system, and the haptic cueing to the pilots.

Another training aid is the Advanced Aviation Training Device, or AATD, new for the H-53 community, but loosely based on some of the early developmental training systems that arrived with the V-22, with its interactive cockpit learning environment.

“This is a lower fidelity,” Fleeger said, “There’s just screens, computer monitors, if you will, that show the pilot the outside visuals. But the pilot also has a see-through virtual-reality goggle set that he puts on. It’s absolutely amazing technology that really allows you, with very little additional cost, to be able to get that immersive and simulated environment.”

The AATD is designed primarily as a familiarization training device or for refresher-level training. “You got a few minutes, you go spend some time in here,” Fleeger explained. “You brush up on some stuff. It can also be used for some of the more advanced activities, like tactics, techniques, and procedures development. You can get in there and try some things out before you get to the aircraft and do it in the real world.”

The AATD has been so successful at its current location in New River, close to the training squadron, that the Marines expect to expand throughout the rest of the fleet as it works through the CH-53K transition.

Concurrently, Fleeger says the service has been “very forward-leaning with our Marines in the maintenance shed and making sure that they have the training tools that they need in order to prepare for a state-of-the-art, very data-intensive, data-rich aircraft.”

Maintenance of the fleet benefits from a fully condition-based maintenance model, at least for some of the CH-53K’s components.

“We can look at the vibratory signatures, the temperature signatures on gearboxes, for example, and we can understand when that gearbox might be approaching the end of its life.” The result is that the fleet is increasingly able to manage the maintenance rather than having the maintenance manage them. They can decide when they want to change that gearbox, for example, depending on operational commitments, the amount of flight time they may have planned, the criticality of that flight time, the availability of spares, and so on.

All of this training, including shipboard evolutions, is building up toward the first operational deployment, with the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit, in Fiscal Year 2027. Last month, the CH-53K fleet hit 10,000 fleet flight hours, a big milestone considering there are currently only 25 aircraft in the fleet.

At this stage, there are 12 aircraft sitting on the production line in Stratford, in various phases of completion.

“The fact that there are 12 aircraft is a big improvement as we move forward in the ramp-up through low-rate initial production,” Fleeger explained.

Once Sikorsky hits the milestone of 16 production aircraft per year, this will trigger the start of the Marine Corps CH-53K transition from East Coast to West Coast, and thus across the entire heavy-lift fleet.

Fleeger said that the line will be “getting up there” toward full-rate production at the end of Fiscal Year 2028, with the milestone to be achieved in FY29.

“The East Coast squadrons will complete transition, and then the transition plan will move out to the West Coast, and we will start transitioning the West Coast squadrons there as well,” Fleeger added. The CH-53E is slated to be retired in 2032.

As for the Navy MH-53E Sea Dragon, it is slated to be withdrawn in 2027. Exactly what will happen with its primary airborne mine countermeasures mission, a general capability set that is increasingly in the spotlight, is unclear. Currently, the Navy is beefing its MH-60 Seahawk mine countermeasures capabilities to help offset the loss. Still, the unique heavy countermeasures sled-towing capability that will be gone when the MH-53E leaves the inventory is likely to be felt, as will the heaviest vertical lift capability organic to the U.S. Navy.

According to Fleeger, “there have not yet been conversations about the Navy procuring the CH-53K or producing a minesweeping variant.” However, she added that “we are certainly open to that in the future, should that need arise.”

Whether or not the CH-53K eventually adopts another new mission, the type is clearly keeping busy for the time being, as the Marine Corps looks forward to taking it on its first operational deployment next year.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com