Marines

WASHINGTON — The U.S. military has built up an unusually large force in the Caribbean Sea and the waters off the coast of Venezuela since this summer, when the Trump administration first began to shift assets to the region as part of its so-called war against narcoterrorism.

Here is a look at the ships, planes and troops in the region:

Ships

The Navy has eight warships in the region — three destroyers, three amphibious assault ships, a cruiser and a smaller littoral combat ship that’s designed for coastal waters.

The three amphibious assault ships make up an amphibious readiness group and carry an expeditionary unit of Marines. As a result, those ships also have on board a variety of Marine helicopters, Osprey tilt rotor aircraft and Harrier jets that have the capability of either transporting large numbers of Marines or striking targets on land and sea.

While officials have not offered specific numbers, destroyers and cruisers typically deploy with a missile loadout that contains Tomahawk cruise missiles — a missile that can strike hundreds of miles from its launch point.

A U.S. Navy submarine, the USS Newport News, also is operating in the broader area of South America and is capable of carrying and launching cruise missiles.

Planes and drones

A squadron of advanced U.S. Marine Corps F-35B Lightning II jets have been sent to an airstrip in Puerto Rico. The planes were first spotted landing on the island territory in mid-September.

MQ-9 Reaper Air Force drones, capable of flying long distances and carrying up to eight laser-guided missiles, also have been spotted operating out of Puerto Rico by commercial satellites and military watchers, as well as photojournalists, around the same time.

It has been widely reported that the Navy is operating P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft out of the region as well.

Earlier this month, the military released a photo of an U.S. Air Force AC-130J Ghostrider, a heavily armed plane capable of firing its large guns with precision onto ground targets, also sitting on the tarmac in Puerto Rico.

There have been a multitude of other military aircraft that have temporarily flown through the region as part of military operations there.

For example, the U.S. Air Force flew a group of B-52 Stratofortress bombers through the region last week for what the Pentagon dubbed as a “bomber attack demo” in photos online.

Troops

All told, there are more than 6,000 sailors and Marines that are now operating in the region based on the ships that have been confirmed by defense officials.

The Pentagon has not offered specific numbers on how many drones, aircraft or ground crew are in the region so their impact on that broader figure is unknown.

Toropin writes for the Associated Press.

Oct. 19 (UPI) — As protesters marched against the Trump administration on Saturday, Vice President JD Vance took the stage at an event and live artillery demonstration at Camp Pendleton in California, honoring the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Marine Corps.

The spectacle was criticized as a “dangerous” show of force by the state’s governor, Gavin Newsom.

“Firing live rounds over a busy highway isn’t just wrong — it’s dangerous. Using our military to intimidate people you disagree with isn’t strength — it’s reckless, it’s disrespectful, and it’s beneath the office he holds,” Newsom said in a statement. “Law and order? This is chaos and confusion.”

Vance, a former Marine who served in Iraq, delivered a speech in which he attacked Democrats for the ongoing government shutdown and previous diversity initiatives in the military.

He also promised that service members would be paid during the shutdown as hundreds of thousands of other federal workers go without paychecks.

“I know we’re here to talk about the Marine Corps. But I have got to get just a little political,” Vance said during his speech. “Because congressional Democrats seem to want to keep the government shut down even though it would mean that a lot of you would not get your paycheck.”

The demonstration was reported to have been the largest in the United States in a decade and showcased fighter jets, the Naval fleet and live fire from M777 howitzers over a major interstate freeway.

Newsom’s office said in the statement that California officials were recently notified that the White House intended to fire live artillery rounds but were assured on Thursday by Marine Corps officials that they would not be fired over Interstate 5.

“That afternoon, the federal government also directed cancellation of train services, which run parallel to the I-5, on Saturday between Orange County-San Diego County,” Newsom’s office said in the statement.

“Late on Friday, the state then received notice from event organizers asking for CalTrans signage to be posted along the I-5 freeway that would read: ‘Overhead fire in progress.'”

Newsom’s office said California officials then asked the federal government for additional details about the event and were told that the live fire activities would take place.

His office said he closed the freeway to traffic during the demonstration.

“If Gavin Newsom wants to oppose the training exercises that ensure our Armed Forces are the deadliest and most lethal fighting force in the world, then he can go right ahead,” William Martin, Vance’s communications director, told CNN. “It would come as no surprise that he would stoop so low, considering his pathetic track record of failure as governor.”

The right wing‘s war on Netflix wages on.

The Pentagon issued a statement blasting the streamer’s programming and leadership Friday following an inquiry about the new series “Boots” from Entertainment Weekly. While the response from Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson did not directly address the gay coming-of-age military show, it did slam Netflix for following an “ideological agenda” that “feeds woke garbage to their audience and children.”

“Under President Trump and Secretary [Pete] Hegseth, the U.S. military is getting back to restoring the warrior ethos,” Wilson’s statement said. “Our standards across the board are elite, uniform, and sex neutral because the weight of a rucksack or a human being doesn’t care if you’re a man, a woman, gay, or straight. We will not compromise our standards to satisfy an ideological agenda, unlike Netflix whose leadership consistently produces and feeds woke garbage to their audience and children.”

The Trump administration’s efforts to restore this “warrior ethos” thus far has included banning transgender people from serving in the military, body-shaming top military brass and other service members and declaring an end to “woke” culture and policies. The statement comes amid the Pentagon’s move to enforce a new unprecedentedly restrictive media policy that paints basic reporting methods as criminal activity.

Based on Greg Cope White’s 2016 memoir “The Pink Marine,” “Boots” follows Cam Cope (Miles Heizer), a gay teenager who enlists in the Marines at a time when being gay in the military was still a crime. Noting the show’s timely themes, Times television critic Robert Lloyd called it a “perfectly decent, good-hearted, unsurprisingly sentimental miniseries” in his review.

The show’s creatives also worked closely with several advisors with past military experience to authentically portray the Marines and military life in the 1990s.

The Pentagon’s criticism against Netflix follows the recent campaign led by billionaire Elon Musk calling for people to cancel their subscriptions to the streamer. The on-again/off-again Trump ally railed against Netflix on X earlier this month after clips of “Dead End: Paranormal Park,” an animated Netflix series featuring a trans character, was making the rounds on the social media platform. The show was canceled after its second season was released in 2022.

Despite being the target of right-wing ire, Netflix also has a history of being called out for its anti-trans programming. In 2021, transphobic remarks made by comedian Dave Chappelle in his special “The Closer” led to protests, walkouts and even a resignation of a trans employee. The streamer followed that in 2022 by releasing a comedy special from Ricky Gervais that also featured transphobic material.

SACRAMENTO  — Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office is weighing whether to close parts of Interstate 5 beginning Friday amid concerns over what it says is a White House-directed plan to use live ordnance during a military anniversary celebration off Camp Pendleton’s coast in San Diego County — where Navy ships are expected to fire over the freeway onto the base.

Newsom’s office has received, but not confirmed, reports that live ordnance will be fired from offshore vessels during the event commemorating the Marine Corps’ 250th anniversary. The event is titled “Sea to Shore — A Review of Amphibious Strength” and will feature Vice President JD Vance.

Newsom’s office said it has received little information about the event or safety plans. The military show of force coincides with No Kings rallies and marches across the state on Saturday that are expected to draw large crowds, demonstrations challenging Trump and what critics say is government overreach.

“Donald Trump and JD Vance think that shutting down the I-5 to shoot out missiles from ships is how you respect the military,” Newsom posted on the social media site X Wednesday.

A military media advisory said the celebration will include a live amphibious assault demonstration. The Times could not confirm whether live ordnance will be fired over the freeway. The White House and Marine Corps did not respond to questions from The Times.

“California always honors our Marines — but this isn’t the right way to go about it,” said a Newsom spokesperson. “The White House should focus on paying their military, lowering grocery prices and honoring these soldiers for their service instead of pompous displays of power. The lack of coordination and communication from the federal government on this event — and the overall impact to our society and economy — is evident of the larger disarray that is the Trump Administration.”

Freeway closures are being considered for a section of I-5 between Orange County to San Diego County from Friday to Saturday, which would cut off a major traffic artery that moves upward of 80,000 travelers a day. A closure with little notice would likely result in massive gridlock from Dana Point in the north to well past Del Mar in the south.

Vance, the first Marine veteran to serve as vice president, is expected to attend the event Saturday along with 15,000 Marines, Sailors, veterans and their families, according to event’s media release. Along with Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is expected to deliver remarks.

Camp Pendleton advised nearby residents that there will be live-fire training with high explosive munitions through Sunday, which will result in some roads on base being closed.

The Trump administration previously had plans for a major celebration next month for the 250th anniversary of the Navy and Marines, which would have included an air and sea show — with the Blue Angels and parading warships — attended by President Trump, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune. Plans to host that show in San Diego have been called off, the paper reported.

Camp Pendleton is a 125,000-acre base in northwestern San Diego County that has been critical in preparing soldiers for amphibious missions since World War II thanks to its miles of beach and coastal hills. The U.S. Department of Defense is considering making a portion of the base available for development or lease.

SACRAMENTO — Seven months into President Trump’s second term, California has filed 37 lawsuits against his administration and spent about $5 million doing it.

Before you go off on a government-spending rant, let me drop this figure on you: For each dollar the state has spent in litigation with Trump, it has recouped $33,600 in funds that the federal government has tried to take away from the Golden State, according to Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta.

That, as he put it during a Monday news conference, is “bringing the receipts.”

These aren’t dollars Californians were wishing for or begging for from the federal government — these are funds that have already been legally allotted to the state but which the Trump administration is attempting to stop for reasons petty, ideological or both. They pay for teacher training, immunizations, tracking infectious diseases, keeping roads safe, disaster recovery and on and on. And they are predominantly your tax dollars, being withheld from your state.

“What we’re demanding is that we get the funding that’s already been legally approved and appropriated,” Bonta said.

But as much as it’s about paying for the basics that keep California going, it’s also about protecting an inclusive and equitable way of living that defines the ethos of our state. Don’t tread on us! Californians get to spend our money how we see fit.

“When you add it all up, you see the totality of what’s at stake: the California dream,” Bonta said. “The idea that every Californian, no matter how they look, where they live or how much money they have, can send their kid to school, go to the doctor when they’re sick and put food on the table and a roof over their heads.”

Or as Gov. Gavin Newsom put it, it’s litigation not for the sake of suing, but to “defend, to stand tall, to hold the line in terms of our values, the things we hold dear.”

It’s serious times, folks. Trump has made it clear that he doesn’t stand for LGBTQ+ rights, for immigrants’ rights, for women’s rights, for due process or even public schools. But so far, the courts have held, for the most part, to their responsibility to be a check on this unbalanced administration.

Of course, lawyers win cases, sometimes regardless of facts. I want to give a shout out to our state Department of Justice. Bonta may be the state’s top lawyer, but there is a whole army of legal folks behind these lawsuits.

The $5 million spent so far has been entirely in-house, Bonta said. This cash isn’t going to expensive outside counsel, but, as my colleague Kevin Rector points out, money that is funding the smart, talented attorneys and staff who work for taxpayers.

More than a few of them were around during Trump’s first term, when the state was involved in more than 120 lawsuits against his administration. Many of those suits were about process — the haphazard, rules-be-damned way Trump seeks to implement his policies.

Our California lawyers learned then that courts do in fact uphold law, and simply pointing out that rules have to be followed was often enough to stop Trump. While we now have a seasoned legal team that understands the weaknesses in what Trump is doing, the sort-of-funny part is that he’s still doing it. Few lessons learned, which is good for California.

So far, these lawsuits by California have ensured that about $168 billion that Trump would have cut off instead continued to flow to California. Bonta said that in the 19 cases that have made it in front of a judge so far, he’s succeeded in 17, including winning 13 court orders directly blocking Trump’s “illegal actions.”

He’s also secured wins outside of court, including when the U.S. Department of Education recently backed down after freezing school funding weeks before school is set to start. That funding, under threat of a lawsuit, has been restored.

Bonta said that while the state is fighting every lawsuit with rigor, two are personal to him and “remain sort of the most important in terms of what they represent.”

They happen to be the first two suits the state filed, shortly after Trump took office. The first was about birthright citizenship, and Trump’s bid to end it. It’s a case Bonta says is “very meaningful” to him.

Bonta was born in the Philippines and immigrated to the United States when he was 2 months old, living in a trailer in the Central Valley town of La Paz, the home of the United Farm Workers. His parents left their country to avoid martial law as the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos gained power, and worked with civil rights leaders including Cesar Chavez once they settled here.

So it makes sense that an executive order that would leave about 24,500 babies born each year in California without U.S. citizenship hits hard with Bonta.

Bonta, along with attorneys general of several other states, filed that lawsuit the day after Trump took office, in response to an executive order he signed on Inauguration Day. So far, multiple courts have expressed deep skepticism of that order, and the idea that the Constitution and prior Supreme Court rulings should be ignored in favor of Trump’s position.

The second case that Bonta takes personally is a multistate pushback on Trump’s sweeping halt of federal funding. That case put at risk about $3 trillion nationwide, including that $168 billion in California, about a third of the state budget.

Coming up next is a challenge to the deployment of Marines and National Guard troops in Los Angeles. The Trump administration has been quietly removing those soldiers in recent days, perhaps in preparation for asking the court to drop that case, which seems like a loser for them. No troops, no case. We’ll see how it goes in a few days.

“The Marines and the National Guardspeople arrived to quiet streets in L.A.,” Bonta said. “The president has been incredibly, in my view, disrespectful to these patriots. He’s treated them as political pawns.”

The $5 million the state has spent so far on legal fights with Trump is part of $25 million the Legislature set aside earlier this year during a special session. Bonta said that even that will likely not be enough to keep the challenges flowing for the next three and a half years.

Newsom, for his part, is all in and promised that Bonta “will not be in need of resources to do his job.” (And yes, I know it raises his profile for a 2028 presidential run.)

As much as it seems ridiculous that we are setting aside this huge chunk of change for legal fees at a moment when we are facing a budget crisis, the cost of letting Trump run roughshod over our state is much higher. This is money well spent.

Because it’s not just our federal funding at stake, it’s the California dream.

Nearly two months after President Trump took the extraordinary step of deploying the National Guard to Los Angeles to quell public unrest over immigration raids, the Pentagon on Wednesday announced that it was withdrawing more than a thousand troops.

The departure of about 1,350 members of the National Guard, ordered by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, represents just the latest rollback of troops from L.A. this month since more than 5,000 National Guard members and Marines were deployed to the city in June.

Sean Parnell, chief spokesman for the Pentagon, said that approximately 250 California Guard members would remain in L.A. to protect federal agents and buildings.

“We greatly appreciate the support of the more than 5,000 Guardsmen and Marines who mobilized to Los Angeles to defend Federal functions against the rampant lawlessness occurring in the city,” Parnell said in a statement.

Mayor Karen Bass, who had dubbed the deployment an “armed occupation,” was quick to celebrate the troops’ departure.

“Another win for Los Angeles,” Bass said on X on Wednesday night. “We will continue this pressure until ALL troops are out of L.A.”

The troops’ presence in Los Angeles — and their role of protecting federal agents conducting immigration raids — was fiercely contested. President Trump said the troops were necessary to maintain order as the administration ramped up its immigration raids and protesters covered downtown buildings in graffiti, set Waymos on fire and clashed with Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.

But many of California’s key Democratic leaders said there was no need for federal troops in the city: Local law enforcement could handle the protesters, they said, and the presence of federal troops in highly militarized gear only inflamed tension in the region. They also argued that federal officials had deployed the troops illegally.

Just a day after the first convoys of National Guard troops rumbled into to L.A. on June 8, Gov. Gavin Newsom sued federal officials, saying that the deployment exceeded federal authority and violated the 10th Amendment in an “unprecedented usurpation” of state power. Newsom also complained that the deployment had diverted the California National Guard from critical duties such as combating wildfires and interrupting the drug trade at the U.S.-Mexico border and across California.

His office released a statement responding to the latest drawdown Thursday.

“President Trump is realizing that his political theater backfired. This militarization was always unnecessary and deeply unpopular,” the statement said. “The President must do the right thing to end this illegal militarization now because the economic and societal impacts are dire. The women and men of our military deserve more than to be used as props in the federal government’s propaganda machine.”

Over the weeks, as the L.A. protests subsided, the troops did not appear to have a clear role and many appeared to be bored. By July, a source within Newsom’s office with knowledge of the military operation told The Times that only about 3% of the troops were taking part in daily missions.

“There’s not much to do,” one Marine told The Times as he stood guard earlier this month outside the Wilshire Federal Building in Westwood.

The majority of National Guard members were left largely milling about the Joint Forces Training Base in Los Alamitos in an operation that the Pentagon had estimated would cost about $134 million.

On July 15, the Pentagon withdrew nearly 2,000 California National Guard soldiers from L.A. and on July 21 it withdrew 700 active-duty Marines.

More than a month after President Trump made the fiercely contentious decision to send about 700 U.S. Marines to Los Angeles, those troops will begin withdrawing from the city, Pentagon officials said Monday.

The decision comes a week after the Pentagon announced that half of the almost 4,000 National Guard soldiers deployed to the Los Angeles area would be released from duty. The Marines and National Guard were sent to the city in early June amid widespread federal immigration raids and fiery protests against the raids, with the Trump administration vowing to crack down on “rioters, looters and thugs.”

While the president contended that he had “saved Los Angeles,” local and state officials ferociously denounced the extraordinary deployment of military troops to the streets of an American city.

Advocates and California politicians also argued that the heavy-handed spectacle would be incendiary, potentially putting both the troops and protesters at risk.

In recent days, the troops have been largely fighting tedium, without much to do.

The sometimes volatile protests, which erupted in downtown Los Angeles and other parts of the region in mid-June, have since wound down. The troops have been tasked with guarding federal buildings, and some have accompanied immigration agents on tense enforcement actions.

Speaking on behalf of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell seemed to acknowledge the quiet in a statement Monday.

“With stability returning to Los Angeles, the Secretary has directed the redeployment of the 700 Marines whose presence sent a clear message: lawlessness will not be tolerated,” Parnell said. “Their rapid response, unwavering discipline, and unmistakable presence were instrumental in restoring order and upholding the rule of law. We’re deeply grateful for their service, and for the strength and professionalism they brought to this mission.”

News of the Marines’ withdrawal, which was first reported by the New York Times, broke minutes after Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass finished a Monday morning public appearance with veterans’ groups, where she decried the “inappropriate” presence of military forces on L.A. streets.

“This is another win for Los Angeles. As we said this morning — the way to best support our troops is to have them do what they enlisted to do, not to protect two office buildings,” Bass said in response to the withdrawal.

Roughly 2,000 National Guard troops remain in the region, according to U.S. Northern Command.

They were deployed by the Trump administration to combat “violent, insurrectionist mobs” in and around Los Angeles, but in recent days the only thing many U.S. Marines and California National Guard troops seemed to be fighting was tedium.

“There’s not much to do,” one Marine said as he stood guard outside the towering Wilshire Federal Building in Westwood this week.

The blazing protests that first met federal immigration raids in downtown Los Angeles were nowhere to be seen along Wilshire Boulevard or Veteran Avenue, so many troops passed the time chatting and joking over energy drinks. The Marine, who declined to give his name because he was not authorized to speak to reporters, said his duties consisted mostly of approving access for federal workers and visitors to the Veterans Affairs office.

More than five weeks after Trump mobilized an extraordinary show of military force against the will of California Gov. Gavin Newsom and L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, few National Guard troops and Marines have remained in public view, most retreating to local military bases in Orange County.

As an indication of the military’s dwindling role in immigration enforcement operations, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth on Tuesday ordered the release of 2,000 National Guard troops. Now, Bass, Newsom and others are demanding the complete removal of remaining troops — or about 2,000 California National Guard soldiers and 700 Marines.

“Thousands of members are still federalized in Los Angeles for no reason and unable to carry out their critical duties across the state,” Newsom said on X, accusing Trump of using California National Guard troops as “political pawns.”

“End this theater and send everyone home,” the governor said.

Bass said the troops’ primary mission in L.A. was to guard federal buildings that “frankly didn’t need to be guarded.”

“They had to leave their families, they had to leave their education, they had to leave their work,” Bass said at a news conference Tuesday. “We have had no problems for weeks, so why were they here?”

Steve Woolford, a resource counselor for GI Rights Hotline, a nonprofit group that provides free, confidential information to service members, said calls from troops had gone down dramatically over the last month.

“The most recent people I talked to sounded like they’re sitting around bored without much to do,” Woolford said. “And they’re happy with that: They aren’t asking to do more. At the same time, I don’t think people see a real purpose in what they’re doing at all.”

The majority of National Guard troops have been stationed at the Joint Forces Training Base in Los Alamitos, according to military officials and governor’s office officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Over the last few weeks, a massive tent city has risen at the Orange County base — about 25 miles southeast of downtown L.A. The tents, some of which stretch up to 50 yards long, provide living quarters, cafeteria space and other facilities. On a recent morning, National Guards troops — some dressed in full combat fatigues, others in T-shirts and shorts — could be seen exercising, milling about and playing a game of touch football.

A separate group of Marines and National Guard troops have remained at the Westwood federal building for an entire month. The federal building has been outfitted with sleeping and eating arrangements for troops, according to a Marine who spoke with The Times.

To be sure, some California National Guard troops embarked on tense missions with federal immigration agents on sweeps at farms, warehouses and public streets.

On July 7, Guard troops accompanied federal agents as they descended on MacArthur Park on horses and in armored vehicles in a heavily militarized show of force. It’s still unclear whether any arrests were made that day, but crowds quickly formed around the federal agents and military troops, screaming for them to “get the f— out!”

A few days later, Guard troops wearing riot face shields and clutching long, wooden batons faced off with hundreds of protesters in Ventura County as immigration agents arrested about 200 suspected undocumented immigrants at Glass House Farms, a large, licensed cannabis greenhouse in Camarillo.

But most of the deployed Guard troops and Marines do not appear to have been engaged in raids or even the federal building security in recent weeks.

An estimated 90% of the National Guard troops stationed in the L.A. area over the last few days have not been deployed on daily missions, according to a source within Newsom’s office who has knowledge of the military operation.

“For the most part … they’re sitting around,” the source said.

The source, who spoke on condition on anonymity because they were unauthorized to speak publicly on the deployment, said an estimated 3% of the 4,000 troops — about 120 soldiers — were taking part in daily missions, mostly consisting of security at federal buildings.

An additional couple hundred were standing by for “quick response force” missions — ready to mobilize within a few hours for an immigration raid or a crowd control operation. But even if all those troops were used each day, the source said, that still left about 88% of the 4,000 troops — or about three-quarters of the remaining 2,000 — underutilized.

The Pentagon and Task Force 51, the military’s designation for Los Angeles area troops, declined to answer questions about how many Guard troops and Marines were engaged in protecting federal buildings or accompanying immigration agents on daily missions. Nor did they comment on the claim from Newsom’s office that most troops were “sitting around.”

Guard soldiers and Marines were “primarily protecting fixed-site federal facilities and protecting federal law enforcement personnel while they conduct immigration enforcement activities, such as warrant services,” read a task force statement.

Federal officials have also declined to provide precise details on the cost of the deployment. Hegseth previously said that the mobilization of troops would cost $134 million, but it’s unclear whether that estimate is accurate.

Jennifer Kavanagh, director of military analysis at Defense Priorities, a military research group, said there is little evidence that the military presence is necessary.

“The need for military forces in Los Angeles is low while the need for National Guard forces elsewhere in the state is rising,” Kavanagh said. “That they’re still deployed after so much time, when there doesn’t seem to be a need, suggests that this really is about setting precedent of having military forces involved in immigration enforcement and deployed in U.S. cities.”

Kori Schake, senior fellow and director of foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, agreed: “They have a real job to be training for — fighting and winning the nation’s wars — which this performative policing is a distraction from.”

The first convoys of Guard troops rumbled into L.A. on June 8, shortly after the Trump administration announced it would send 2,000 Guard members to the city to quell unrest as protesters graffitied buildings downtown, set Waymo driverless cars ablaze and clashed with ICE agents as they tried to conduct immigration raids.

As California leaders protested, and called the deployment unnecessary, the Trump administration doubled down. On June 10, 700 Marines from the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center about 150 miles west in Twentynine Palms arrived in L.A. A week later, the task force ballooned to 4,800 personnel when Hegseth added 2,000 more Guard troops.

Newsom condemned Trump for diverting members of the California National Guard as they geared up for wildfire season, noting that the unit assigned to combating wildfires was at just 40% of its regular staffing levels due to the deployment. The governor’s office also complained that about 150 California Guard soldiers were being pulled from the state’s Counterdrug Task Force, which focuses on interrupting drug trade at the U.S.-Mexico border and throughout California.

The Trump administration eventually approved a request to release 150 Guard members for state wildfire suppression.

The Guard has been deployed to Los Angeles before, but never against the will of the L.A. mayor and California governor.

In 1992, President George H.W. Bush mobilized the National Guard to L.A. after multiple days of riots following a jury’s acquittal of four white police officers in the beating of Black motorist Rodney King. About 6,000 troops were ultimately sent in, requested by California’s then-Gov. Pete Wilson and Mayor Tom Bradley, to guard trouble spots and gain control of neighborhoods after rioters attacked stores, torched buildings and, in some extreme cases, beat and killed residents. The Times dubbed it “the worst civil unrest in Los Angeles history.”

Nearly 30 years later, Guard troops were called in again during the 2020 protests following the murder of George Floyd. After downtown buildings were vandalized and graffitied and police cars were set aflame, L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti asked Newsom to send in 1,000 National Guard troops to restore order and assist local law enforcement.

But last month, the federal government sent in the troops without local politicians’ support, setting in motion an intense legal showdown.

A day after National Guard troops hit the ground in L.A., Newsom and Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration to end the “illegal and unnecessary takeover” of a California National Guard unit. They argued that the unwarranted commandeering of National Guard troops, without the consent or input of the governor, violated the U.S. Constitution and exceeded the president’s Title 10 authority.

A U.S. district judge in San Francisco sided with the state, ruling June 12 that Trump broke the law when he deployed thousands of California National Guard troops to L.A. against the state’s will. The judge issued a temporary restraining order that would have returned control of the National Guard to California. But the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals paused that court order, allowing the troops to remain in L.A. while the case played out in federal court.

Kavanagh said she was disturbed to see Guard troops accompanying federal agents on immigration raids. Even if they had orders not to participate in law enforcement activities, confrontations could escalate quickly.

“There’s so many chances for things to spiral out of control,” she said. “While we haven’t seen any unintentional escalation yet, that doesn’t mean we won’t.”

When troops were first deployed to L.A., advocates for service members warned of low morale. The GI Rights Hotline received a flurry of calls voicing concern about immigration enforcement, Woolford said.

Some military personnel told the hotline that they did not want to support ICE or play any role in deporting people because they considered immigrants part of the community or had immigrants in their family, Woolford said. Others said they did not want to point guns at citizens. A few worried that the country was on the verge of turning into something like martial law, and said that they didn’t want to be on the side of being armed occupiers of their own country.

Many were shocked that the deployment orders were for 60 days.

“There’s no way they’re really going to keep us here that long, are they?” Woolford said he was asked.

But as the military brought in more contractors and set up giant tents with cots, Woolford said, callers to the hotline seemed more resigned to the idea that they would remain in L.A. a long time.

Asked about the pressures facing troops on their mission to Los Angeles, one Marine outside the Wilshire Federal Building summed it up this way:

“That’s just orders,” he said. “We do what we’re told — it’s the system.”

Times staff writer Jeanette Marantos contributed to this report.

Spouses experiencing health emergencies alone, because their loved ones are serving on the streets of Los Angeles. Troops fatigued by a mission they weren’t prepared for. Children of active-duty troops left without their parents, who were deployed on U.S. soil.

Such incidents are happening because of the Trump administration’s decision to send troops to Los Angeles, said Brandi Jones, organizing director for the Secure Families Initiative, a nonprofit that advocates for military spouses, children and veterans.

“We’ve heard from families who have a concern that what their loved ones have sacrificed and served in protection of the Constitution, and all the rights it guarantees, are really under siege right now in a way they could never have expected,” Jones said Thursday during a virtual news conference.

California National Guard troops stand outside a federal building in downtown Los Angeles during a June 14 protest.

(Zurie Pope / Los Angeles Times)

On the eve of Independence Day, veterans, legal scholars and advocates for active-duty troops warned that sending troops to quell protests in California’s largest city threatens democratic norms. Under a 147-year-old law, federal troops are barred from being used for civilian law enforcement.

Dan Maurer, a retired lieutenant colonel who is now a law professor at Ohio Northern University, described this state of affairs during the news conference as “exactly the situation we fought for independence from,” adding that President Trump is “making America militarized again.”

Though 150 National Guard troops were released from protest duty on Tuesday, according to a news release from U.S Northern Command, around 3,950 remain in Los Angeles alongside 700 Marines, who are protecting federal property from protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement actions.

Trump has defended the deployment of troops in Los Angeles, saying on his social media platform that the city “would be burning to the ground right now” if they were not sent. He has suggested doing the same in other U.S. cities, calling the L.A. deployment “the first, perhaps of many,” during an Oval Office news conference.

Troops in L.A. were federalized under Title 10 of the United States code, and their purview is narrow. They do not have the authority to arrest, only to detain individuals before handing them over to police, and they are only obligated to protect federal property and personnel, according to the U.S Northern Command.

Though Marines detained a U.S. Army veteran in early June, the most active involvement they and the National Guard have had in ICE’s activity is providing security during arrests, according to reports from Reuters and the CBS show “Face the Nation.”

“The administration has unnecessarily and provocatively deployed the military in a way that reflects the very fears that our founding fathers had,” Maurer said. “Using the military as a police force in all but name.”

“The closer they [the military] act to providing security around a perimeter … the closer they act to detaining individuals, the closer they act to questioning individuals that are suspected of being illegal immigrants, the closer the military is pushed to that Posse Comitatus line,” Maurer said, referring to the law that prohibits use of troops in a law enforcement capacity on American soil. “That is a very dangerous place to be.”

Other speakers argued that the use of troops in Los Angeles jeopardizes service members, placing them in a environment they were never trained for, and pitting them against American citizens.

“Our Marines are our nation’s shock troops, and it’s entirely inappropriate that they’re deployed in the streets of Los Angeles,” said Joe Plenzler, a Marine combat veteran who served as platoon commander, weapons platoon commander and company executive officer for the 2nd Batallion 7th Marines, which is now deployed in downtown L.A.

Plenzler recalled that more than half of the men he served with in 2nd Batallion came from Spanish-speaking families, and some were in this country as legal permanent residents with green cards and had yet to enjoy all the benefits of citizenship.

Members of the California National Guard are deployed at a June 14 protest in downtown L.A.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

“Think about what might be going through their heads right now, as they’re being ordered to help ICE arrest and deport hardworking people who look a lot like people they would see at their own family reunions,” Plenzler said.

Plenzler also contrasted the training Marines receive with those of civilian law enforcement.

“We are not cops,” Plenzler said. “Marines aren’t trained in de-escalatory tactics required in community policing. We don’t deploy troops in civilian settings, typically because it increases the risk of excessive force, wrongful deaths and erosion of public trust.”

During the 1992 L.A. riots, Marines responded with the LAPD to a domestic dispute. One officer asked the Marines to cover him, and they, mistakenly believing he was asking them to open fire, fired 200 rounds into the home.

“Our troops are under-prepared, overstretched and overwhelmed,” said Christopher Purdy, founder of the nonprofit veteran advocacy group The Chamberlain Network and a veteran of the Army National Guard.

“Guard units doing these missions are often doing them with minimal preparation,” Purdy said, stating that many units are given a single civil unrest training block a year.

“When I deployed to Iraq, we spent weeks of intense training on cultural competency, local laws and customs, how we should operate in a blend of civil and combat operations,” Purdy said. “If we wouldn’t accept that kind of shortcut for a combat deployment, why are we accepting it now when troops are being put out on the front line in American streets?”

Each speaker reflected on the importance of holding the federal government accountable, not only for its treatment of active-duty troops, but also for how these men and women are being used on American soil.

“I reflect this Fourth of July on both the promise and the responsibility of freedom. Military family readiness is force readiness,” Jones said. “At Secure Families Initiative, we’re hearing from active-duty families: You can’t keep the force if families are stretched thin — or if troops are used against civilians.”

Added Maurer: “The rule of law means absolutely nothing if those that we democratically entrust to enforce it faithfully ignore it at will. And I think that’s where we are.”

The Trump administration must turn over a cache of documents, photos, internal reports and other evidence detailing the activities of the military in Southern California, a federal judge ruled Tuesday, handing a procedural victory to the state in its fight to rein in thousands of troops under the president’s command.

Ordering “expedited, limited discovery,” Senior District Judge Charles R. Breyer of the federal court in San Francisco also authorized California lawyers to depose key administration officials, and signaled he might review questions about how long troops remain under federal control.

The Department of Justice opposed the move, saying it had “no opportunity to respond.”

The ruling follows a stinging loss for the state in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last Thursday, when an appellate panel struck down Breyer’s temporary restraining order that would have returned control of the troops to California leaders.

Writing for the court, Judge Mark R. Bennett of Honolulu said the judiciary must broadly defer to the president to decide whether a “rebellion” was underway and if civilians protesting immigration agents had sufficiently hampered deportations to warrant an assist from the National Guard or the Marines.

Bennett wrote that the president has authority to take action under a statute that “authorizes federalization of the National Guard when ‘the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.’”

But neither court has yet opined on California’s other major claim: that by aiding immigration raids, troops under Trump’s command violated the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which forbids soldiers from enforcing civilian laws.

Shilpi Agarwal, legal director of the ACLU of Northern California, argued the White House is abusing the post-Civil War law — known in legal jargon as the PCA — by having soldiers support Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations.

“There isn’t a dispute that what the National Guard is doing right now is prohibited by the PCA — legally it absolutely has to be,” said Agarwal. “Going out with ICE officers into the community and playing a role in individual ICE raids really feels like what the Posse Comitatus Act was designed to prohibit.”

In his June 12 order, Breyer wrote that charge was “premature,” saying that there was not yet sufficient evidence to weigh whether that law had been broken.

The 9th Circuit agreed.

“Although we hold that the President likely has authority to federalize the National Guard, nothing in our decision addresses the nature of the activities in which the federalized National Guard may engage,” Bennett wrote. “Before the district court, Plaintiffs argued that certain uses of the National Guard would violate the Posse Comitatus Act … We express no opinion on it.

Now, California has permission to compel that evidence from the government, as well as to depose figures including Ernesto Santacruz, Jr., the director of the ICE field office in L.A., and Maj. Gen. Niave F. Knell, who heads operations for the Army department in charge of “homeland defense.”

With few exceptions, such evidence would immediately become public, another win for Californians, Agarwal said.

“As the facts are further developed in this case, i think it will be come more abundantly clear to everyone how little this invocation of the National Guard was based on,” she said.

In its Monday briefing, the Trump administration argued that troops were “merely performing a protective function” not enforcing the law.

“Nothing in the preliminary injunction record plausibly supports a claim that the Guard and Marines are engaged in execution of federal laws rather than efforts to protect the personnel and property used in the execution of federal laws,” the Justice Department’s motion said.

The federal government also claimed even if troops were enforcing the law, that would not violate the Posse Comitatus Act — and if it did, the Northern District of California would have only limited authority to rule on it.

“Given the Ninth Circuit’s finding, it would be illogical to hold that, although the President can call up the National Guard when he is unable ‘with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States,’ the Guard, once federalized, is forbidden from ‘execut[ing] the laws,’” the motion said.

For Agarwal and other civil liberties experts, the next few weeks will be crucial.

“There’s this atmospheric Rubicon we have crossed when we say based on vandalism and people throwing things at cars, that can be justification for military roaming our streets,” the lawyer said. “There was more unrest when the Lakers won the Championship.”

June 14 (UPI) — U.S. Marines deployed to Los Angeles to help temper unrest in that city, stopped and detained an American citizen trying to enter a federal building.

The man was trying to enter a Veterans Affairs office inside the Wilshire Federal Building in the city’s Sawtelle neighborhood when he was stopped earlier this week by Marines sent to protect the property amid protests over immigration raids.

This marks the first time during the current unrest that military troops have detained a U.S citizen.

The 27-year-old U.S. Army veteran was released after a short time.

“They treated me very fairly,” Marcos Leao told the New York Times following the incident, adding headphones at first prohibited him from hearing the Marines giving him verbal commands to stop.

U.S. Northern Command confirmed to The Hill, the Marines “temporarily detained a civilian earlier today” under Title 10 of the United States Code governing detention by the armed forces.

Around 200 Marines moved into Los Angeles on Friday, joining thousands of California National Guard troops to help protect federal assets and agents sent to the city to carry out arrests on behalf of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

President Donald Trump sent around 700 Marines to the area Monday, but they have thus far been staged outside the city. Gov. Gavin Newsom, D-Calif., has opposed the move.

On Friday, Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., sent a written letter to Trump, signed by all U.S. Senate Democrats demanding the president remove military troops from Los Angeles.

A U.S. District Court Judge in San Francisco on Thursday ruled the president’s National Guard troop deployment was illegal. An appeals court later reversed that decision.

Los Angeles officials on Tuesday instituted a local curfew in parts of the city, following over 100 arrests that day amid protesters clashing with police.

On Saturday, millions of people are expected to take part in at least 1,500 protests across the United States. The “No Kings” demonstrations are scheduled to coincide with a major Flag Day military parade in Washington, D.C. and Trump’s 70th birthday.

The movement describes itself as “rejecting authoritarianism, billionaire-first politics, and the militarization of our democracy.”

The United States Marines have deployed to Los Angeles following criticism and legal battles over whether President Donald Trump had the authority to use the military to quell civilian protests without state approval.

On Friday, Major General Scott Sherman of the US Army confirmed that 200 Marines were arriving in southern California to protect a federal building. A total of 700 Marines have been authorised for deployment to the region.

“I would like to emphasise that the soldiers will not participate in law enforcement activities,” Sherman said during a briefing.

Later in the day, the news agency Reuters confirmed with the military that the Marines had carried out their first-known detention, restraining a civilian with zip ties. The Trump administration has said the Marines will accompany Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on raids and arrests.

“Any temporary detention ends immediately when the individual can be safely transferred to the custody of appropriate civilian law enforcement personnel,” a military spokesperson told Reuters.

Federal law generally prohibits the military from participating in civilian law enforcement activities, and military officials have been careful to draw a line between temporary detentions and formal arrests — the latter of which they cannot do.

The Marines join National Guard troops already in the Los Angeles area following the eruption of protests on June 6, when residents took to the streets to express their displeasure with President Trump’s immigration raids, some of which targeted local hardware stores and other workplaces.

While many of the demonstrations were mostly peaceful and limited to a small part of the city, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) did experience tense clashes with some protesters, who hurled objects and set driverless Waymo vehicles on fire. Police responded with flashbangs, tear gas and rubber bullets.

Trump, meanwhile, dubbed the protesters “bad people” and “insurrectionists” and announced the deployment of the National Guard on the evening of June 7.

The president cited Title 10 of the US Code, which allows a president to call up the National Guard if there is a “rebellion or danger of rebellion” against the federal government. Trump and his allies framed the demonstrators as part of a migrant “invasion” imperilling the US.

“To the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States,” Trump wrote in a presidential memorandum.

A legal battle

It was the first time since 1965 that a US president had authorised the National Guard’s deployment to a state without the governor’s permission. The last time was to protect civil rights protesters who were marching through segregated Alabama and faced threats of violence.

Presidents have called up the National Guard to address domestic unrest in the years since, but only with the cooperation of local authorities. In 1992, for instance, then-President Bill Clinton answered a request from California’s governor at the time to send National Guard members to address the Rodney King protests in Los Angeles.

Trump’s decision to circumvent the authority of California’s present-day governor, Gavin Newsom, has led to a legal fight over whether he exceeded his powers as president.

Newsom filed a lawsuit to block the use of military troops outside of federal sites, and on Thursday, a pair of court decisions left the future of the recent deployment unclear.

First, on Thursday afternoon, District Court Judge Charles Breyer of San Francisco sided with Newsom, calling Trump’s actions “illegal” and a violation of the US Constitution.

In his 36-page decision, Breyer ruled that the Trump administration had failed to show a danger of rebellion in Los Angeles.

“While Defendants have pointed to several instances of violence, they have not identified a violent, armed, organized, open and avowed uprising against the government as a whole,” he wrote. “The definition of rebellion is unmet.”

He added that he was “troubled” by the Trump administration’s argument that a protest against the federal government could be tantamount to rebellion, warning that such logic could violate the First Amendment right to free speech.

“Individuals’ right to protest the government is one of the fundamental rights protected by the First Amendment, and just because some stray bad actors go too far does not wipe out that right for everyone,” Breyer said.

He called for an injunction against Trump’s use of National Guard members, saying “it sets a dangerous precedent for future domestic military activity” and “deprives the state for two months of its own use of thousands of National Guard members”.

Nearly 4,000 members of the California National Guard have been authorised for deployment to Los Angeles under Trump’s command.

But the Trump administration quickly appealed Judge Breyer’s injunction. By late Thursday, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals had temporarily blocked the injunction, allowing Trump to continue using the National Guard until a hearing could be held on the matter next week.

On Friday, Trump celebrated that decision on his social media platform, Truth Social.

“The Appeals Court ruled last night that I can use the National Guard to keep our cities, in this case Los Angeles, safe,” Trump wrote.

“If I didn’t send the Military into Los Angeles, that city would be burning to the ground right now. We saved L.A. Thank you for the Decision!!!”

Newsom, meanwhile, has continued his call for Trump to end what he framed as illegal control of the National Guard. He has also accused the military presence of heightening tensions with protesters, not dissipating them.

“@RealDonaldTrump, you must relinquish your authority of the National Guard back to me and back to California,” Newsom wrote on social media Thursday.

He has called the Republican president’s federalisation of the National Guard an “unmistakable step toward authoritarianism”.

The California governor is seen as a possible Democratic contender for the presidency in the 2028 election cycle.

President Trump broke the law when he mobilized thousands of members of the California National Guard to the streets of Los Angeles amid protests over immigration raids, and must return control of the troops to Gov. Gavin Newsom, a federal judge ruled Thursday.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer of San Francisco granted the state of California’s request for a temporary restraining order Thursday evening, but also delayed enforcement of the order until noon Friday, giving the Trump administration time to file an appeal with the U.S. 9th Circuit.

In a 36-page decision, Breyer wrote that Trump’s actions “were illegal — both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution.” Breyer added that he was “troubled by the implication” inherent in the Trump administration’s argument that “protest against the federal government, a core civil liberty protected by the First Amendment, can justify a finding of rebellion.”

Newsom, who filed the lawsuit along with the state of California, called the ruling “a win for all Americans.”

“Today was really about the test of democracy, and today we passed the test,” Newsom told reporters in a building that houses the California Supreme Court in San Francisco.

• Share via Close extra sharing options

The ruling, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta told reporters, is “a critical early indication that upon quick review of the facts of our case, the court sees the merits of our argument.”

“We aren’t in the throes of a rebellion,” Bonta said. “We are not under threat of an invasion. Nothing is preventing the federal government from enforcing federal law. The situation in Los Angeles last weekend didn’t warrant the deployment of military troops, and their arrival only inflamed the situation.”

The Trump administration filed a notice of appeal in the case late Thursday, and is seeking to delay Breyer’s order until the 9th Circuit decides on the case. If the 9th Circuit granted the request for a stay, control of the National Guard would not revert back to Newsom on Friday, Bonta said.

If the 9th Circuit does not grant the stay, Breyer’s order will take effect Friday afternoon, sending the National Guard back to Newsom’s control. Newsom said troops would go back to working on counter drug enforcement, border security and forest management.

During a hearing Thursday, Breyer seemed skeptical of the Justice Department’s argument that courts could not question the president’s judgment on key legal issues, including whether the protests and unrest in Los Angeles constituted either “a rebellion or danger of a rebellion.”

“We’re talking about the president exercising his authority, and of course, the president is limited in his authority,” Breyer said. “That’s the difference between the president and King George.”

Trump and the White House have argued that the military mobilization is legal under Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code on Armed Forces, which gives the president the authority to federalize the National Guard if there is “a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States.”

“The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of ‘rebellion,’” Breyer wrote. There were instances of violence, he said, but the Trump administration did not identify “a violent, armed, organized, open and avowed uprising against the government as a whole.”

“The evidence is overwhelming that protesters gathered to protest a single issue—the immigration raids,” Breyer wrote.

Title 10 of the U.S. Code also requires that orders from the president “be issued through the governors of the States.”

As governor, Newsom is the commander in chief of the California National Guard. Last Saturday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth sent a memo to the head of the California Guard to mobilize nearly 2,000 members, who then sent the memo to Newsom’s office, the state’s complaint said. Neither Newsom nor his office consented to the mobilization, the lawsuit said.

Newsom wrote to Hegseth on Sunday, asking him to rescind the troop deployment. The letter said the mobilization was “a serious breach of state sovereignty that seems intentionally designed to inflame the situation, while simultaneously depriving the state from deploying these personnel and resources where they are truly required.”

“I’m trying to figure out how something is ‘through’ somebody, if in fact you didn’t send it to him,” Breyer asked. “As long as he gets a copy of it at some point, it’s going through?”

Breyer was less willing, however, to engage in the legality of Trump’s deployment of U.S. Marines to Los Angeles. Attorneys for California noted that 140 Marines were scheduled to relieve and replace Guardsmen over the next 24 hours.

Protests emerged across Los Angeles on Friday in response to a series of flash raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents across the county. A handful of agitators among the protesters committed violence and vandalism, prompting Trump to quickly deploy the California National Guard to respond. He added active-duty Marines to the operation Monday. Protests, and some sporadic violent rioting, have continued since the deployments.

Trump has said that the mobilization was necessary to “deal with the violent, instigated riots,” and that without the National Guard, “Los Angeles would have been completely obliterated.”

Breyer said that the Trump administration had identified “some stray violent incidents relating to the protests,” and from there, he said, “boldly claim that state and local officials were ‘unable to bring rioters under control.’”

“It is not the federal government’s place in our constitutional system to take over a state’s police power whenever it is dissatisfied with how vigorously or quickly the state is enforcing its own laws,” Breyer wrote.

The attorneys general from 18 other states, as well as Los Angeles City Atty. Hydee Feldstein-Soto, supported California’s position in the case.

Wilner reported from Washington, D.C., Wong from San Francisco and Nelson from Los Angeles.

The secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, promises that forces will continue their immigration crackdown in an effort to “liberate” Los Angeles, pushing back at criticism that sending the United States military into the city was unwarranted and illegal.

“We have more assets now, today, than we did yesterday. We had more yesterday than we did the day before, so we are only building momentum,” Noem said during a news conference in the city. “This is only going to continue and be increased until we have peace on the streets of Los Angeles.”

As Noem was speaking, a US Democratic senator from California, Alex Padilla, was forcefully ejected from the room while trying to make himself heard – a removal that was swiftly condemned by other Democrats.

Padilla’s office said that once outside the room, the senator was pushed to the ground and handcuffed. He was later released.

President Donald Trump’s decision to dispatch troops to Los Angeles over the objections of California Governor Gavin Newsom has prompted a national debate about the use of the military in law enforcement operations on US soil.

Some 700 US Marines will be on the streets of the city by Thursday or Friday, the military has said, to support up to 4,000 National Guard troops in protecting federal property and federal agents, including on immigration raids.

Noem defended the use of National Guard troops and Marines alongside ICE agents and other federal personnel, saying Trump “has the right to utilise every authority that he has”.

The state of California is seeking a federal court order later today that would stop troops from “patrolling the streets of Los Angeles” and limit their role to protecting federal personnel and property. California’s lawsuit ultimately seeks to rescind Trump’s order to deploy the National Guard to the area.

In a court filing on Thursday, California argued that the federal government has already violated the law by having National Guard troops assist ICE agents in immigration raids.

Noem said federal officers have arrested more than 1,500 people and that the department has “tens of thousands of targets” in the region.

She said the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was investigating whether there are financial links between the protests and political advocacy groups, something of which there has been little evidence.

Trump’s parade

On Saturday, Americans likely will see split-screen images of US troops on the streets of two major cities: Los Angeles, where troops are guarding federal buildings, and Washington, where soldiers, accompanied by tanks and other armoured vehicles, will rumble down Constitution Avenue in a rare public display of military might to celebrate the army’s 250th anniversary.

Nearly 2,000 protests against the parade, which is taking place on Trump’s 79th birthday, are planned around the country in one of the biggest demonstrations against Trump since he returned to power in January.

Mostly peaceful street protests so far this week have taken place in multiple cities besides Los Angeles, including New York, Chicago, Washington, DC, and San Antonio, Texas.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott said Thursday he has ordered the deployment of more than 5,000 Texas National Guard troops, along with more than 2,000 state police, to help local law enforcement manage protests against Trump and the continuing federal immigration raids.

Abbott’s announcement did not detail where the troops were sent, but some were seen at a protest Wednesday night in downtown San Antonio near the Alamo. That protest drew hundreds of demonstrators but did not erupt into violence.

“Peaceful protests are part of the fabric of our nation, but Texas will not tolerate the lawlessness we have seen in Los Angeles in response to President Donald Trump’s enforcement of immigration law,” Abbott said. “Anyone engaging in acts of violence or damaging property will be arrested and held accountable to the full extent of the law.”

Mayors in San Antonio and Austin have said they did not ask for Abbott to mobilise the National Guard to their cities.

Missouri Governor Mike Kehoe on Thursday also activated the state’s National Guard “in response to civil unrest”.

“We respect, and will defend, the right to peacefully protest, but we will not tolerate violence or lawlessness in our state,” Kehoe said in a statement on the governor’s website. “While other states may wait for chaos to ensue, the State of Missouri is taking a proactive approach in the event that assistance is needed to support local law enforcement in protecting our citizens and communities.”

The Los Angeles protests began last Friday in response to a series of immigration raids in the city. Trump, in turn, called in the National Guard on Saturday, then ordered the deployment of Marines on Monday.

“Los Angeles was safe and sound for the last two nights. Our great National Guard, with a little help from the Marines, put the LA Police in a position to effectively do their job,” Trump posted on social media on Thursday.

State and city officials say Trump is exaggerating what is happening in the city and that local police have the situation under control. The protests have been largely orderly but occasionally punctuated by violence, mostly contained to a few blocks.

Police said demonstrators at one location threw commercial-grade fireworks and rocks at officers on Wednesday night.

Another group of nearly 1,000 demonstrators was peacefully marching through downtown when police suddenly opened fire with less lethal munitions in front of City Hall.

Limits sought

Trump is carrying out a campaign promise to deport immigrants, employing forceful tactics consistent with the norm-breaking political style that got him elected twice.

The administration has circulated images showing National Guard troops protecting immigration agents who were arresting suspected undocumented migrants – a permissible function for the troops under federal law.

But the state argues those Guard troops have crossed the line into illegal activity under the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the military from participating in civilian law enforcement.

“For example, photos posted on social media by ICE depict heavily armed members of the National Guard standing alongside ICE agents during arrests,” California said in its latest court filing.

Unless a judge intervenes, the military’s role likely will grow to include “detention, interrogation, and other activities that are practically indistinguishable from urban policing operations”, the filing asserts.

The Trump administration said in a Wednesday court filing that the judge should not restrict the military’s activities in Los Angeles.

“Neither the National Guard nor the Marines are engaged in law enforcement. Rather, they are protecting law enforcement, consistent with longstanding practice and the inherent protective power to provide for the safety of federal property and personnel,” the administration wrote.

US Army Major-General Scott Sherman, who commands the task force of Marines and Guardsmen, told reporters the Marines will not load their rifles with live ammunition, but they will carry live rounds.

Los Angeles has become a military zone. As citywide protests erupted following ICE raids on local immigrant communities, United States President Donald Trump sent Marines and National Guard troops into the city for the first time in decades. How is this show of force turning immigration raids into a national flashpoint?

The clashes between National Guard troops, police and protesters in recent days have evoked memories for some Angelenos of the deadly riots that erupted after LAPD officers were acquitted of brutally assaulting Black motorist Rodney King in 1992.

But leaders who were involved in dealing with the uprising more than three decades ago say what has unfolded with President Trump’s deployment of soldiers to Los Angeles and surrounding communities bears no resemblance to the coordinated response that took place then.

“It’s not even close,” said former LAPD chief and city councilman Bernard Parks, who was a deputy chief in the police department during the 1992 unrest. “You get a sense that this is all theatrics, and it is really trying to show a bad light on Los Angeles, as though people are overwhelmed.”

Protesters continue to gather in downtown Los Angeles due to the immigration raids in L.A. on Tuesday.

(Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times)

The chaos of 1992 unfolded after four LAPD officers who were videotaped beating King the prior year were not convicted. It took place at a time of deep distrust and animosity between minority communities and the city’s police department.

Federal troops and California National Guard units joined forces with local law enforcement officers to quell the turmoil, but not without harrowing results. More than 60 people were killed, thousands were injured and arrested, and there was property damage that some estimate exceeded $1 billion.

What has played out recently on the city’s streets is significantly more limited in scope, Mayor Karen Bass said.

“There was massive civil unrest [then]. Nothing like that is happening here,” Bass said on CNN on Sunday. “So there is no need for there to be federal troops on our ground right now.”

1

2

3

4

1. A demonstrator is arrested as protesters and police clash downtown Monday . (Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times) 2. Los Angeles police officers in riot gear prepare to clear a street in Downtown Los Angeles on Monday. (Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times) 3. Blood spots on the ground near the Metropolitan Detention Center, in Los Angeles on Sunday. (Luke Johnson/Los Angeles Times) 4. National Guard are stationed at the Metropolitan Detention Center, on Sunday. (Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times)

As of Wednesday evening, several hundred people had been arrested or detained because of their alleged actions during the protests, or taken into custody by federal officials because of their immigration status. On Tuesday, after the 101 Freeway was blocked by protesters, buildings in downtown Los Angeles were vandalized and businesses ransacked, Bass imposed a curfew in the city’s civic core from 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. that is expected to last several days.

Zev Yaroslavsky, who served on the City Council in 1992, recalled that year as “one of the most significant, tragic events in the city’s history.”

He described the riots as “a massive citywide uprising,” with “thousands of people who were on the streets in various parts of the city, some burning down buildings.”

Yaroslavsky, who was later on the county Board of Supervisors for two decades, said that while some actions protesters are currently taking are inappropriate, the swath of Los Angeles impacted is a small sliver of a sprawling city.

“All you’re seeing is what is happening at 2nd and Alameda,” he said. “There’s a whole other city, a whole other county that is going about its business.”

Another significant distinction from 1992, according to people who lived through it, was the bipartisan coordination among local, state and federal law enforcement agencies. Gov. Pete Wilson, a Republican, and Democratic Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley requested assistance from then-President George H.W. Bush.

That’s a stark contrast from what started unfolding last week, when Trump’s administration sent ICE agents to Los Angeles and federalized the state’s National Guard without request by the state’s governor, which last happened in the United States in the 1960s.

“The biggest difference is that the governor requested federal help rather than having it imposed over his objection,” said Dan Schnur, a political professor and veteran strategist who served as Wilson’s communication’s director in 1992. “There were some political tensions between state and local elected officials. But both the governor and the mayor set those aside very quickly, given the urgency of the situation.”

Loren Kaye, Wilson’s cabinet secretary at the time, noted times have changed since then.

1

2

1. Critics say police gave up when the rioting erupted in 1992, letting big chunks of the city burn while looters and hoodlums ruled. Street cops say commanders held them back, fearing violent clashes would produce an endless stream of Rodney Kings. (Kirk McKoy / Los Angeles Times) 2. A National Guardsman stands at alert near graffiti that spells out support for Rodney King, April 30, 1992. (Los Angeles Times)

“What I’m worried about is that there aren’t the same incentives for resolving the contention in this situation as there were in ’92,” he said. Then, “everyone had incentives to resolve the violence and the issues. It’s just different. The context is different.”

Parks, a Democrat, argued that the lack of federal communication with California and Los Angeles officials inflamed the situation by creating a lag in local law enforcement response that made the situation worse.

“You have spontaneous multiple events, which is the Achilles heel of any operation,” he said.

“It’s not that they’re ill-equipped, and it’s not that they’re under-deployed,” Parks said. “It takes a minute. You just don’t have a large number of people idly sitting there saying, okay, we are waiting for the next event, and particularly if it’s spontaneous.”

Protests can start peacefully, but those who wish to create chaos can use the moment to seek attention, such as by burning cars, Park said. The end result is images viewed by people across the country who don’t realize how localized the protests and how limited the damage was in recent days.

“The visuals they show on TV are exactly what the folks in Washington want to be seen,” Parks said.

On Monday, the president deployed hundreds of Marines from Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center in Twentynine Palms. State leaders have asked for a temporary restraining order blocking the military and state National Guard deployments, which is expected to be heard in federal court on Thursday.

Trump, speaking to U.S. Army troops at Ft. Bragg in North Carolina on Tuesday, said that he deployed National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles “to protect federal law enforcement from the attacks of a vicious and violent mob.”

The president descried protesters as leftists pursuing a “foreign invasion” of the United States, bent on destroying the nation’s sovereignty.

“If we didn’t do it, there wouldn’t be a Los Angeles,” Trump said. “It would be burning today, just like their houses were burning a number of months ago.”

Newsom responded that the president was intentionally provoking protesters.

“Donald Trump’s government isn’t protecting our communities — they’re traumatizing our communities,” Newsom said. “And that seems to be the entire point.”

Activists who witnessed the 1992 riots said the current turmoil, despite being much smaller and less violent, is viewed differently because of images and video seen around the world on social media as well as the plethora of cable outlets that didn’t exist previously.

“They keep looping the same damn video of a car burning. It gives the impression cars are burning everywhere, businesses are being looted everywhere,” said Earl Ofari Hutchinson, president of the Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable.

Hutchinson, an activist from South L.A. who raised money to rebuild businesses during the 1992 riots, said he was concerned about the city’s reputation.

“L.A. is getting a bad name,” he said.

California Democrats plan to question Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Thursday about the immigration raids that have roiled Los Angeles, the federal commandeering of the state’s National Guard and the deployment of Marines in the region when he testifies before the House Armed Services Committee.

Several committee members said they received no advance notice about the federal immigration sweeps at workplaces and other locations that started Friday and that prompted large and at times fiery protests in downtown Los Angeles.

“That’s going to change,” said Rep. Derek Tran (D-Orange), when the committee questions Hegseth on Thursday morning.

“We need to de-escalate the situation,” Tran said in an interview. President Trump and his administration’s moves, most recently deploying hundreds of Marines in Southern California, “escalates the situation, sending in troops that shouldn’t be there, that are trained to shoot and kill.”

Though largely peaceful, protests about U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s actions have been punctuated by incidents of violence and lawlessness. As of Tuesday evening, several hundred people had been detained on suspicion of crimes or because of their immigration status.

After dissenters blocked the 101 Freeway, vandalized buildings in downtown Los Angeles and stole from businesses, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass on Tuesday imposed a curfew in the city’s civic core from 8 p.m. to 6 a.m.

Thursday’s testimony before the House Armed Services Committee will be Hegseth’s third appearance on Capitol Hill this week. He was questioned Tuesday by the House Appropriations subcommittee on defense and the Senate Appropriations Committee on Wednesday.

Both appearances were testy. On Wednesday, Hegseth insisted the deployment of Marines in Los Angeles was lawful but couldn’t name the law under which it is allowed. On Tuesday, he was buffeted with questions about the “chaos” in his tenure, his discussion of national secrets on a Signal group chat and the lack of information provided to elected leaders about Defense Department operations and budgets, including the cost of the federal deployment in Los Angeles.

“I want your plan!” Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) demanded. “What is your plan for the future? Can we get that in writing and on paper so that we know where you’re going? Because we don’t have anything today. We have zip! Nada!”

Hegseth responded that the agency has the details and would provide them to members of Congress. The Pentagon posted a video clip of the back-and-forth on X that tagged the congresswoman and was titled “WHY ARE YOU SCREAMING!”

Thursday’s hearing is especially notable because the committee oversees the Pentagon budget. None of the Republican members of the committee are from California. More than a dozen who were asked to weigh in on the hearing didn’t respond.

Republicans are expected to reflect the sentiments expressed by Trump, most recently on Wednesday when he took questions from reporters on the red carpet at the Kennedy Center shortly before attending a performance of “Les Miserables” with First Lady Melania Trump.

“We are going to have law and order in our country,” he said. “If I didn’t act quickly on that, Los Angeles would be burning to the ground right now.”

“These are radical left lunatics that you’re dealing with, and they’re tough, they’re smart, they’re probably paid, many of them, as you know, they’re professionals,” he added. “When you see them chopping up concrete because the bricks got captured, they’re chopping up concrete and they’re using that as a weapon. That’s pretty bad.”

Seven of the committee’s members are Democrats from California, and they are expected to press Hegseth on the legal underpinnings of the deployment of federal forces in the state, the lack of notification or coordination with state and local officials and the conditions and future of residents swept up in the raids.

“The president’s decision to deploy the National Guard and the U.S. Marines over the objections of California officials has escalated the situation, creating unnecessary chaos and putting public safety at risk,” said Rep. George Whitesides (D-Agua Dulce). “As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I’m deeply concerned with the precedent this sets, and the apparent lack of protocol followed, and I will be seeking answers.”

Rep. Salud Carbajal (D-Santa Barbara), a Mexican immigrant who served in the Marine Corps Reserve and is also a member of the committee, said Trump is doing what he does best.

“He likes to play arsonist and firefighter,” Carbajal said in an interview.

He argued Trump is using the raids to deflect attention from legislation that will harm the most vulnerable Americans while enriching the wealthy.

“There’s a question of whether what he’s doing is legal, regarding him and Hegseth sending in Marines. The governor and the mayor did not request the National Guard, let alone the Marines,” Carbajal said. “This is likely a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the use of U.S. forces in the U.S.”

Carbajal also said he expects what has unfolded in Los Angeles in recent days to be replicated in communities nationwide, a concern raised by Bass and other Democrats on Wednesday.

As a former Marine, Carbajal added that he and his fellow veterans had no role to play domestically, barring crisis.

“We’re not trained for this. There is no role for Marines on American soil unless rebellion is happening,” he said. “This is so ridiculous. It says a lot about the administration and what it’s willing to do to distract and create a more stressful, volatile environment.”

“Let’s make it clear,” he added. “We Democrats don’t support any violent protests. But as a Marine, there is no place for the U.S. military on domestic soil under the guise and reasoning he’s provided.”

After days of fiery protest against federal immigration raids, Los Angeles residents and officials braced for the arrival of hundreds of U.S. Marines on Tuesday in what some called an unprecedented and potentially explosive deployment of active-duty troops with hazy mission objectives.

As Trump administration officials vowed to crack down on “rioters, looters and thugs,” state and local officials decried the mobilization of 700 troops from the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center in Twentynine Palms, calling it a clear violation of law and civility. L.A. Mayor Karen Bass even likened the deployment to “an experiment” that nobody asked to be a part of.

According to the U.S. Northern Command, which oversees troops based in the United States, the Marines will join “seamlessly” with National Guard troops under “Task Force 51” — the military’s designation of the Los Angeles forces. The Marines, like the Guard, they said, “have been trained in de-escalation, crowd control and rules for the use of force.”

Air Force Gen. Gregory Guillot told The Times on Tuesday that the Marines in Los Angeles were limited in their authority, deployed only to defend federal property and federal personnel. They do not have arrest power, he said.

“They are not law enforcement officers, and they do not have the authority to make arrests,” Guillot said. “There are very unique situations where they could detain someone … but they could only detain that person long enough to hand it off to a proper law enforcement official.”

But military experts have raised practical concerns about the unclear parameters of the Marines’ objective. They also warn that sending in Marines without a request from a governor — a highly unusual step that has not been made since the civil rights era in 1965 — could potentially inflame the situation.

U.S. Marines are trained for overseas conflict zones, with deployments in recent decades in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. But the roles they have played in those nations — including providing artillery support to coalition forces fighting against Islamic State militants and advising and training local security forces — are quite different from what they might face as they confront protesters in Los Angeles.

“Marines are trained to fight, that’s the first thing they’re trained to do,” said Jennifer Kavanagh, director of military analysis at Defense Priorities, a military research group. “So I think you do have a little bit of mismatch in skills here.”

“In a crisis, when they’re forced to make a snap decision, do they have enough training and experience to make the one that de-escalates the situation rather than escalates it? I think that’s a question mark,” Kavanagh said.

Hours after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told congressional lawmakers Tuesday that the mobilization of troops to Los Angeles to curtail protests would cost $134 million, President Trump told U.S. Army troops at Ft. Bragg in North Carolina that he deployed thousands of National Guard troops and hundreds of Marines “to protect federal law enforcement from the attacks of a vicious and violent mob.”

But city and state officials have repeatedly said that troops are not necessary to contain the protests.

On Monday night, California Gov. Gavin Newsom called the deployment of Marines “a blatant abuse of power” and filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn the deployment.

Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell warned that — “absent clear coordination” — the prospect of Marines descending on Los Angeles “presents a significant logistical and operational challenge for those of us charged with safeguarding this city.”

However, Guillot said coordinating among different agencies “hasn’t been a challenge to us at all.”

“I think people understand that we’re there for a very specific purpose,” he said. “We’re very highly trained, professional and disciplined, and people have been very cooperative so far.”

By Tuesday afternoon, all 700 Marines had arrived in the Greater Los Angeles area, Guillot said. At least one convoy of U.S. Marine vehicles from Twentynine Palms had arrived at Orange County’s Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach under police escort.

The mobilized Marines and National Guard troops will be stationed in facilities across the region, including Seal Beach, Los Alamitos and a number of National Guard armories, Guillot said. He didn’t provide further details.

Over the last few days, National Guard members have already been stationed at a few federal buildings and have accompanied Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents on missions, Guillot said. He expects Marines will be mobilized on the ground Wednesday, if not Tuesday evening, after wrapping up final training.

It is rare for U.S. Marines to be sent to an American city. The last time they were deployed in the U.S. was after riots broke out in Los Angeles in 1992 after the acquittal of four LAPD officers who were recorded beating a Black motorist, Rodney G. King.

Back then, President George H.W. Bush acted at the request of California Gov. Pete Wilson and Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley after what The Times described as “three days of the worst urban unrest in Los Angeles history.”

Deploying Marines to Los Angeles is not only a dramatic escalation of events, but also potentially illegal, according to Abigail Hall, a defense scholar and senior fellow at the Independent Institute, a nonprofit think tank based in Oakland.

Bringing in the Marines to L.A., she said, violates the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 law enacted after the Civil War, which forbids active-duty federal forces to provide regular civilian law enforcement unless authorized by Congress or the president invokes the Insurrection Act.

Trump has yet to invoke the Insurrection Act.

“I don’t see any way that this is not a direct violation of the Posse Comitatus Act,” Hall said. “We’re not at war, we’ve not invoked the Insurrection Act of 1807 — and even if we did, that’s what the National Guard is for. It’s not what the Marines are for.”

Kavanagh didn’t comment on the deployment’s legality, but called it unprecedented in modern times. She worried that could make its mission and parameters unclear for troops.

The last time the military was deployed without a governor’s request or approval, military experts said, was to facilitate court-ordered desegregation in Southern states during the civil rights movement in the 1960s.

Kori Schake, senior fellow and director of foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, said the Trump administration appeared to be trying out a new way to get around the restrictions on domestic law enforcement by the American military.

“The authority the president is claiming is his constitutional authority under what’s called the Take Care clause … he’s claiming the federal responsibility to protect federal agents and federal property operations. That authority has never been tested in court.”

Such an approach, Schake said, was fraught with more than legal risk.

“If violence burgeons, tempers are running high, the Marines are armed, this could spiral out of control,” Schake said.

The L.A. deployment, Kavanagh said, could also be a jarring mission for Marines who signed up to go abroad and defend America’s freedom — and instead are facing off with fellow citizens.

“Does everyone know the rules of engagement?” Kavanagh asked of the L.A. mission. “Are they clear?”

She also worried that the troops deployed to L.A. are likely to have some of the most limited experience. Guard members are not full time and undergo less frequent training, and Marines retain the youngest service members of all the military branches. Nearly three-quarters of active-duty enlisted members of the Marine Corps are 25 or younger, according to a 2022 Department of Defense report. The average age is 24, compared with 27 for the Army and 28 for the Air Force.

Schake, however, pointed out that although Marines may be the youngest cohort in the military, they are well trained in de-escalation tactics.

“The wars that the United States has been fighting for the last 25 years have required incredible discipline on the use of force by the military in Afghanistan and in Iraq in particular, so they are trained for de-escalating conflict,” Schake said. “I think actually, it’s quite possible they’re better trained at de-escalation of violence than the police forces are.”

In that sense, Schake said she was less worried about violence on the streets than about “creeping authoritarianism.”

“The way the president, that Homeland secretary, the secretary of Defense, the White House press spokesman are talking is incendiary and reckless,” Schake said.

“They’re calling the city of Los Angeles — where 1 in 40 Americans live — a hellscape, and everybody in the city a criminal. They’re describing protests that are really peaceful as an insurrection. And that’s a very reckless thing to do in a difficult situation.”

Times staff writers Hayley Smith and Christopher Buchanan contributed to this report.

California’s two U.S. Senators pushed top military officials Tuesday for more information about how hundreds of U.S. Marines were deployed to Los Angeles over the objections of local leaders and what the active-duty military will do on the ground.

In a letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla asked the Pentagon to explain the legal basis for deploying 700 active-duty Marines amid ongoing protests and unrest over immigration raids across Southern California.

“A decision to deploy active-duty military personnel within the United States should only be undertaken during the most extreme circumstances, and these are not them,” Schiff and Padilla wrote in the letter. “That this deployment was made over the objections of state authorities is all the more unjustifiable.”

California is challenging the legality of the militarization, arguing in a lawsuit filed Monday that the deployment of both the National Guard and the Marines violated the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which spells out the limits of federal power.

Schiff and Padilla asked Hegseth to clarify the mission the Marines will be following during their deployment, as well as what training the troops have received for crowd control, use of force and de-escalation.

The senators also asked whether the Defense Department received any requests from the White House or the Department of Homeland Security about “the scope of the Marines’ mission and duties.”

Hegseth mobilized the Marines Monday from a base in Twentynine Palms. Convoys were seen heading east on the 10 Freeway toward Los Angeles on Monday evening.

Schiff and Padilla said that Congress received a notification from the U.S. Northern Command on Monday about the mobilization that said the Marines had been deployed to “restore order” and support the roughly 4,000 members of the state National Guard who had been called into service Saturday and Monday.

The notification, the senators said, “did not provide critical information to understand the legal authority, mission, or rules of engagement for Marines involved in this domestic deployment.”

The California National Guard was first mobilized Saturday night over Newsom’s objection.

The last time a president sent the National Guard into a state without a request from the governor was six decades ago, when President Lyndon B. Johnson mobilized troops in Alabama to defend civil rights demonstrators and enforce a federal court order in 1965.

Trump and the White House have said the military mobilization is legal under Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code on Armed Forces. The statute gives the president the authority to federalize the National Guard if there is “a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States,” but also states that the Guard must be called up through an order from the state’s governor.

Trump has said that without the mobilization of the military, “Los Angeles would have been completely obliterated.”

Days of protests have included some violent clashes with police and some vandalism and burglaries.

“It was heading in the wrong direction,” Trump said Monday. “It’s now heading in the right direction. And we hope to have the support of Gavin, because Gavin is the big beneficiary as we straighten out his problems. I mean, his state is a mess.”

On Tuesday morning, L.A. Mayor Karen Bass said city officials had not been told what the military would do, given that the National Guard is already in place outside of federal buildings.

“This is just absolutely unnecessary,” Bass said. “People have asked me, ‘What are the Marines going to do when they get here?’ That’s a good question. I have no idea.”

On Tuesday, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta sought a restraining order to block the deployment.

California on Tuesday asked a federal court for a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration’s deployment of both state National Guard forces and U.S. Marines to Los Angeles amid mass protests over sweeping federal immigration enforcement efforts.

The request was filed in the same federal lawsuit the state and California Gov. Gavin Newsom filed Monday, in which they alleged Trump had exceeded his authority and violated the U.S. Constitution by sending military forces into an American city without the request or approval of the state governor or local officials.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, whose office is handling the litigation on behalf of both Newsom and the state, said the restraining order was necessary to bring an immediate stop to the deployments, which local officials have contended are not needed and only adding to tensions sparked by sweeping immigration detentions and arrests in communities with large immigrant communities.

“The President is looking for any pretense to place military forces on American streets to intimidate and quiet those who disagree with him,” Bonta said in a statement Tuesday. “It’s not just immoral — it’s illegal and dangerous.”

Newsom, in his own statement, echoed Bonta, saying the federal government “is now turning the military against American citizens.”

“Sending trained warfighters onto the streets is unprecedented and threatens the very core of our democracy,” Newsom said. “Donald Trump is behaving like a tyrant, not a President.”

The state’s request Tuesday asked for the restraining order to be granted by 1 p.m. Tuesday “to prevent immediate and irreparable harm” to the state.

Absent such relief, the Trump administration’s “use of the military and the federalized National Guard to patrol communities or otherwise engage in general law enforcement activities creates imminent harm to State Sovereignty, deprives the State of vital resources, escalates tensions and promotes (rather than quells) civil unrest,” the state contended.

The request specifically notes that the use of military forces such as Marines to conduct domestic policing tasks is unlawful, and that Trump administration officials have stated that is how the Marines being deployed to Los Angeles may be used.

“The Marine Corps’ deployment for law enforcement purposes is likewise unlawful. For more than a century, the Posse Comitatus Act has expressly prohibited the use of the active duty armed forces and federalized national guard for civilian law enforcement,” the state’s request states. “And the President and Secretary Hegseth have made clear — publicly and privately — that the Marines are not in Los Angeles to stand outside a federal building.”

At Trump’s direction, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth mobilized nearly 2,000 members of the state’s National Guard on Saturday after Trump said L.A. was descending into chaos and federal agents were in danger, then mobilized another 2,000 members on Monday. The Pentagon approved the deployment of 700 U.S. Marines from the base in Twentynine Palms to the city Monday, with the stated mission of protecting federal buildings and agents.

Hegseth said the deployments would last 60 days, and the acting Pentagon budget chief said the cost would be at least $134 million. He told members of the House appropriations defense subcommittee that the length of the deployments was intended to “ensure that those rioters, looters and thugs on the other side assaulting our police officers know that we’re not going anywhere.”

Local officials have decried acts of violence, property damage and burglaries that have occurred in tandem with the protests, but have also said that Trump administration officials have blown the problems out of proportion and that there is no need for federal forces in the city.

Constitutional scholars and some members of Congress have also questioned the domestic deployment of military forces, especially without the buy-in of local and state officials — calling it a tactic of dictators and authoritarian regimes.

L.A. Mayor Karen Bass questioned what Marines would do on the ground, while Police Chief Jim McDonnell said the arrival of military forces in the city without “clear coordination” with local law enforcement “presents a significant logistical and operational challenge for those of us tasked with safeguarding this city.”

Bonta had said Monday that the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution limits federal power around such deployments, that the deployment of National Guard forces to quell protests without Newsom’s consent was “unlawful” and “unprecedented,” and that the deployment of Marines would be “similarly unlawful.”

On Tuesday, he said the state was asking the court to “immediately block the Trump Administration from ordering the military or federalized national guard from patrolling our communities or otherwise engaging in general law enforcement activities beyond federal property.”