On July 15, 2025, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced a troop reduction following the deployment of approximately 4,000 California National Guard troops and 700 U.S. Marines in June amidst civil unrest.
The Pentagon stated that the decision to decrease troop levels was prompted by a noted reduction in unrest and stabilized conditions across the state.
Despite the drawdown, 2,000 National Guard troops remain stationed in Los Angeles, supplemented by roughly 700 Marines assigned to secure federal buildings, including the Wilshire Federal Building, ICE headquarters, and downtown federal courts.
Both groups continue to operate under Title 32 orders, maintaining federal control while being funded by the state.
Governor Gavin Newsom, a vocal opponent of the federalization of California’s National Guard, reiterated his demand for a complete withdrawal of troops in a press release dated July 16.
He condemned the deployment as an unnecessary militarization of local communities and suggested that the troops be redirected to functions such as wildfire suppression and drug interdiction.
In a related development, Newsom has reactivated his legal challenge—Newsom v. Trump—currently pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
This lawsuit contends that President Donald Trump’s unilateral mobilization of the National Guard exceeded executive authority and violated federalism principles, with a court decision anticipated later this summer.
Echoing the governor’s sentiments, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass described the troop reduction as “a retreat, not a resolution,” cautioning that federal troop presence adversely affects trust between immigrant communities and local government.
As the remaining troops await further instructions, many National Guard personnel and Marines are reportedly experiencing low activity levels and unclear mission objectives.
Frustration among the troops has been noted, particularly from Marines, who are restricted by the Posse Comitatus Act from engaging in direct law enforcement activities on U.S. soil.
Federal authorities maintain that the troops are essential for ensuring the security of federal facilities and providing logistical support during ongoing ICE operations.
Lt. Col. Adrienne Valdez, a Pentagon spokesperson, emphasized that the National Guard’s duties are limited to support roles such as detainment, transport assistance, and site security—not active immigration enforcement.
Pushback against the deployment continues from civil rights advocates and local leaders, spearheaded by organizations like the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA) and the ACLU.
These groups have organized weeks of protests and filed multiple legal motions against the deployment.
A recent federal injunction prohibits the LAPD from using non-lethal weapons against journalists during immigration-related demonstrations, marking a significant victory for the protesters.
Moreover, a separate judicial ruling found that ICE engaged in systemic racial profiling during its operations in May and June, further amplifying scrutiny of federal actions.
While public protests have subsided since their June peak, new movements linked to a national campaign dubbed “Good Trouble Lives On” have arisen, initiating localized actions in regions such as Echo Park and Historic Filipinotown.
As California braces for what is projected to be another record wildfire season, Governor Newsom has called for the remaining Guard troops to be redeployed to wildfire duty in Northern California.
The impending court ruling in Newsom v. Trump is poised to establish critical legal boundaries regarding federal authority over state National Guard forces in politically charged situations.
In the meantime, the 2,000 remaining National Guard troops and 700 Marines will continue their largely passive roles amid mounting demands from state leaders and immigrant communities to eliminate what critics describe as a militarized immigration enforcement presence in the nation’s most diverse city.
image source from：asianjournal
