During a House Appropriations Defense subcommittee hearing, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth asserted that he and President Donald Trump possess the authority to deploy National Guard and active-duty troops across the nation to ensure that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) can enforce immigration laws effectively.
“We believe that ICE, which is a federal law enforcement agency, has the right to safely conduct operations in any state, in any jurisdiction in the country,” Hegseth emphasized, underscoring the federal agency’s jurisdiction.
He added, “ICE ought to be able to do its job, whether it’s Minneapolis or Los Angeles.”
Hegseth’s comments come as approximately 4,800 National Guard and Marines were en route to Los Angeles for a 60-day deployment following clashes between protestors and law enforcement that resulted in property damage and unrest.
President Donald Trump also indicated a willingness to deploy military resources elsewhere if necessary, stating that any protests in other states would be met with “equal or greater force.”
The decision to mobilize troops has faced strong opposition from state authorities, particularly from California Governor Gavin Newsom, who described the deployment as inflammatory and predicted it would exacerbate tensions rather than alleviate them.
Representative Betty McCollum, the top Democrat on the House subcommittee, criticized the move as “premature” and potentially escalatory.
“Active-duty military has absolutely no role in domestic law enforcement, and they are not trained for those missions. I ask you, Mister Secretary, and I ask the president, follow the law,” she urged during the hearing.
The Pentagon’s acting budget official, Bryn Woollacott MacDonnell, projected that the deployment would cost around $134 million, with funds being diverted from existing operations and maintenance accounts.
The Trump administration, referencing Title 10 of the U.S. Code, justified the troop deployments as necessary to protect federal buildings and personnel, particularly in situations involving “rebellion” or a failure of regular forces to enforce U.S. laws.
However, officials clarified that the rules of engagement for troops would limit their role to protecting federal property while forbidding active policing tasks such as patrols or arrests of protestors.
Despite these assurances, concerns persist regarding the potential for confusion and escalation in situations where military personnel are tasked with protecting ICE agents during immigration enforcement activities.
Rachel VanLandingham, a legal expert and former chief legal advisor to U.S. Central Command, expressed skepticism over the adequacy of military personnel’s training for domestic law enforcement scenarios.
“Protection means you protect by using force. So, what kind of force are we using? What kind of forces are they trained to use?” she questioned in an interview. VanLandingham noted that military personnel are primarily trained for combat situations, not for managing civil disturbances.
Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Eric Smith countered these concerns by asserting that the 700 Marines being deployed have received training in crowd control. He emphasized that such training is part of standard annual protocols for Marines.
“I would say that all Marines are trained in crowd control, embassy reinforcement, etc. So, this is part of their training,” Smith informed the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Nonetheless, when asked about the depth of the training, Smith estimated that individual Marines receive “in excess of two hours” in crowd control techniques, a figure that has raised eyebrows among lawmakers.
Senator Elissa Slotkin, a Michigan Democrat, expressed doubt about the sufficiency of this preparation in light of law enforcement’s typically extensive training.
“I’m worried about the reputation of the U.S. military in the United States of America,” she cautioned, suggesting that deploying Marines in this context could tarnish the military’s image as an apolitical entity.
The possibility of President Donald Trump invoking the Insurrection Act remains a topic of speculation. This 1807 law permits the president to employ military or militia forces in response to issues like insurrection or obstruction of law enforcement efforts at the state level.
Historically, the Insurrection Act has been invoked in reaction to 30 crises, including significant civil rights confrontations, such as school desegregation measures taken by Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown v. Board of Education.
The hearing initially aimed to review President Donald Trump’s upcoming budget proposal, which has yet to be made public. Instead, Hegseth focused on broader military spending initiatives and recruitment successes while discussing the importance of technological advancements within the Army.
On his Truth Social platform, President Trump denounced the Los Angeles protestors, labeling them as “violent, insurrectionist mobs” and “paid insurrectionists,” further inflaming tensions surrounding the unfolding events.
In the wake of military deployments, the Pentagon has refrained from holding a press conference, directing inquiries about the operation and its objectives to Hegseth’s social media postings.
Following the hearing, Hegseth accompanied President Trump to Fort Bragg in North Carolina for engagements linked to the Army’s 250th birthday celebration.
image source from：https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hegseth-testify-capitol-hill-house-dem-calls-marine/story?id=122668997
