Los Angeles, Calif. — The deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles amid ongoing protests against immigration policies has raised significant concerns about the politicization of the U.S. military. Veterans and former military officials have voiced alarm over the federal government’s decision to dispatch up to 2,000 troops, particularly in opposition to California’s governor.
Former military leaders have criticized the order, stating it undermines the military’s long-standing tradition of remaining neutral in domestic affairs except under extraordinary circumstances. The last instance of a U.S. president federalizing the National Guard without a state governor’s support occurred in 1965, during civil rights marches in Alabama.
“This action casts the military in an unfavorable light,” said Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, highlighting the potential repercussions of using troops to manage civilian protests. He warned that such deployments could pave the way for invoking the Insurrection Act, a law that empowers the president to deploy the military to quell insurrections.
The protests in Los Angeles, which have largely been peaceful, are focused on opposition to President Trump’s immigration enforcement measures. National Guard troops began arriving on Sunday under federal orders, specifically tasked with safeguarding federal property and personnel, but are not authorized to engage in law enforcement activities.
Concerns about this military build-up come amid assertions that the deployment is politically motivated, particularly since it runs counter to the governor’s wishes. A retired senior U.S. Army officer expressed concern that this is an inappropriate militarization of civil unrest, enabled by the direct intervention of the federal government.
President Trump’s orders, described in sweeping terms, suggest a broader nationwide mobilization. They instruct the defense secretary to execute military operations where protests against federal functions arise, including preemptive deployments based on threat evaluations. This unprecedented action allows for military involvement in anticipated civil protests.
Janessa Goldbeck, a Marine Corps veteran and CEO of the Vet Voice Foundation, characterized the executive order as a “dangerous escalation” that gives authority to mobilize troops across the country, potentially transforming the military’s role in domestic affairs.
Geoffrey DeWeese, a former Army judge advocate, expressed skepticism about the implications for state-federal interactions. The memo permits the National Guard to support Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which could blur lines between military and law enforcement in communities already on edge.
Analysts believe that the current military actions were foreshadowed during discussions about potential scenarios under a second Trump administration. Experts predicted exactly this type of military escalation, given the President’s rhetoric surrounding his intentions to deploy troops against perceived domestic threats.
Heightening concerns about the relationship between military authority and political power, Trump has previously taken actions like dismissing high-ranking military officials without conventional cause. Such moves could create divisions within the military based on political allegiance, potentially undermining trust and integrity within the armed forces.
Beyond the immediate situation, there are worries surrounding an upcoming military parade planned for Washington, D.C. to commemorate the U.S. Army’s 250th anniversary. Observers have critiqued this as a display of personal glorification rather than a celebration of the military as a professional institution bound by duty to the Constitution.
Goldbeck noted that celebratory parades should not resemble spectacles typically associated with authoritarian regimes. Such actions indicate a troubling trend of viewing the military as a tool for personal agendas rather than as a dedicated service committed to national principles.
