The Trump administration has initiated a significant escalation by deploying national guard troops to Los Angeles to intervene in ongoing civilian protests. This controversial move has faced strong opposition from California's governor and has raised alarms among armed service veterans regarding the potential politicization of the US military.
Former military leaders have expressed their concerns about the decision to place up to 2,000 troops under federal control for deployment in the streets of LA. They argue that this action violates the military's longstanding commitment to remain apolitical, intervening in domestic issues only under exceptional circumstances. It is worth noting that the last time a US president federalized the national guard against a governor's wishes was in 1965, when Lyndon Johnson dispatched troops to protect civil rights marchers in Alabama.
Retired Major General Paul Eaton voiced his apprehensions, stating, “This is the politicization of the armed forces. It casts the military in a terrible light.” Eaton, who previously commanded the training of Iraqi troops during the invasion, predicted that the Los Angeles deployment could lead to the invocation of the Insurrection Act. This 1807 law grants the president the authority to deploy the full US military to address insurrection or armed rebellion.
The protests in Los Angeles, largely peaceful in nature, have continued for four days, primarily opposing Trump’s deportation efforts. National guard troops began arriving in the city on Sunday, authorized to protect federal personnel and buildings but explicitly prohibited from engaging in law enforcement activities. The Trump administration's decision, made without a genuine civil emergency, has raised alarms among military circles that pride themselves on maintaining a nonpartisan stance.
A retired senior US army officer, who wished to remain anonymous, remarked on the political overtones of the deployment, stating, “This deployment was made counter to what the governor wanted, so it seems like a political forcing.” Trump's memo federalizing the national guard is broad in scope, suggesting a nationwide mobilization that allows the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, to deploy troops to protect federal functions wherever protests may occur.
One of the most alarming aspects of the memo is its preemptive nature, allowing the military to be sent to locations where protests are anticipated based on current threat assessments. On Sunday, Trump indicated that the Los Angeles deployment might just be the beginning, stating, “We’re gonna have troops everywhere.”
Janessa Goldbeck, a Marine Corps veteran and CEO of Vet Voice Foundation, criticized the executive order, describing it as an invitation for Hegseth to mobilize troops across the nation. Goldbeck described this as a massive escalation that could have profound implications for civil liberties. Furthermore, Geoffrey DeWeese, a former US army judge advocate, expressed concerns about how the national guard would be utilized in LA, particularly in relation to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations.
The current military mobilization is not entirely surprising. Experts from the Brennan Center had previously wargamed potential scenarios during a second Trump administration, predicting the unfolding events. Trump’s rhetoric during his election campaign about using the military against “the enemy within” has only heightened these concerns.
Concerns have been exacerbated by Trump's previous dismissals of top military leaders, including the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, which many believe have contributed to the politicization of the armed services. Retired Lieutenant General Jeffrey Buchanan emphasized that this trend could lead to divisions within the military, with loyalties becoming tied to political figures rather than the constitution.
The upcoming military parade scheduled for June 14 in Washington, D.C., coinciding with Trump’s 79th birthday, raises further questions about the use of military resources for personal celebration rather than professional acknowledgment. Goldbeck remarked, “That’s deeply un-American,” noting that military parades are typically avoided to prevent the appearance of a dictatorship.
As the situation unfolds, the implications of the national guard's deployment and the broader militarization of domestic issues will likely continue to provoke debate and concern within both military and civilian communities.
