Two hundred United States Marines have been deployed to Los Angeles, following significant criticism and legal disputes regarding President Donald Trump’s authority to utilize military forces to control civilian protests without state consent.
Major General Scott Sherman of the U.S. Army confirmed the arrival of the Marines to protect a federal building in southern California, with a total of 700 Marines authorized for deployment in the region.
During a briefing, Sherman emphasized that the Marines would not engage in law enforcement activities.
However, reports later emerged that the Marines conduct their first known detention, using zip ties to restrain a civilian.
According to the Trump administration, the Marines will assist Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in raids and arrests.
A military spokesperson stated, “Any temporary detention ends immediately when the individual can be safely transferred to the custody of appropriate civilian law enforcement personnel.”
Federal law typically prohibits military participation in civilian law enforcement, prompting military officials to carefully differentiate between temporary detentions and formal arrests, the latter being beyond their authority.
The deployment coincides with National Guard troops already stationed in Los Angeles following the protests that erupted on June 6.
Residents took to the streets in response to President Trump’s immigration raids, which targeted local businesses, including hardware stores.
While many demonstrations remained peaceful, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) encountered significant tensions with some protesters, leading to clashes that involved objects being hurled and damage to driverless Waymo vehicles.
The LAPD responded with tactics including flashbangs, tear gas, and rubber bullets.
Amid the unrest, Trump labeled the protesters as “bad people” and “insurrectionists,” subsequently announcing the National Guard’s deployment on June 7.
In his justification, he cited Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which permits a president to summon the National Guard in situations of “rebellion or danger of rebellion” against the federal government.
Trump and his supporters characterized the demonstrations as part of an alleged migrant “invasion” threatening the United States.
In a presidential memorandum, Trump articulated that acts of violence that inhibit the execution of laws represent a form of rebellion against government authority.
This deployment marks the first instance since 1965 that a U.S. president has authorized National Guard deployment to a state without the governor’s approval.
The last occurrence involved protecting civil rights protesters during a march in segregation-era Alabama, faced with threats of violence.
Historically, presidents have utilized the National Guard to handle domestic unrest, typically with local authorities’ cooperation.
For instance, in 1992, President Bill Clinton dispatched National Guard members to address the Rodney King protests in Los Angeles upon a request from California’s governor at the time.
President Trump’s decision to bypass the authority of California’s current governor, Gavin Newsom, has ignited a legal battle over the legality of his actions.
Newsom filed a lawsuit to prevent military troops’ use beyond federal sites, leading to a tense legal landscape surrounding the deployment.
On Thursday, District Court Judge Charles Breyer of San Francisco ruled in favor of Newsom, deeming Trump’s actions “illegal” and in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
In his extensive 36-page ruling, Breyer stated that the Trump administration failed to substantiate a clear danger of rebellion within Los Angeles.
He expressed concern over the argument that protests against the federal government could equate to rebellion, warning that such reasoning may infringe on the First Amendment right to free speech.
Breyer affirmed the essential nature of the right to protest and cautioned that instances of bad behavior by a few should not undermine the rights of the many.
He called for an injunction against Trump’s use of National Guard members, stressing that it sets a dangerous precedent for future domestic military involvement and deprives the state of its own National Guard resources.
With nearly 4,000 members of the California National Guard authorized for deployment under Trump’s command, the legal complexities continue to unfold.
Following Judge Breyer’s ruling, the Trump administration promptly appealed, seeking to maintain control over the National Guard.
By late Thursday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily stayed the injunction, allowing Trump to deploy the National Guard until a subsequent hearing.
Trump celebrated the Appeals Court decision on his social media platform, Truth Social, asserting, “The Appeals Court ruled last night that I can use the National Guard to keep our cities, in this case Los Angeles, safe.”
He claimed that without military intervention, Los Angeles would be in chaos, stating, “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!!!”
In contrast, Newsom has remained vocal in his opposition to Trump’s actions, insisting that the federal presence has only escalated tensions with protesters rather than alleviating them.
He has called for Trump to relinquish control of the National Guard back to California, framing the president’s actions as an ominous trend toward authoritarianism.
Gavin Newsom, viewed as a potential Democratic candidate for the 2028 presidential election, continues to challenge Trump’s military deployment decisions, reflecting deeper divisions within the political landscape.
image source from：https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/6/13/us-marines-arrive-at-los-angeles-federal-sites-as-court-battle-unfolds
