In a stunning turn in the ongoing legal and political battle between California and the Trump administration, the Pentagon has confirmed the withdrawal of 2,000 National Guard troops from Los Angeles.
The decision effectively cuts the military presence in the region by nearly half, amid mounting criticism and litigation over the legality of the deployment.
Since early June, approximately 4,000 National Guard soldiers and 700 U.S. Marines have occupied parts of L.A. in response to protests against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations. Critics argued the show of force was not only disproportionate, but an unconstitutional use of federal troops on American soil.
“Thanks to our troops who stepped up to answer the call, the lawlessness in Los Angeles is subsiding,” said Chief Pentagon Spokesman Sean Parnell in a statement Tuesday. “As such, the Secretary has ordered the release of 2,000 California National Guardsmen from the federal protection mission.”
Legal Battle Over Federal Authority Heats Up
The deployment sparked a fierce legal clash between state officials and the federal government, raising serious constitutional questions.
At the heart of the dispute: whether the Trump administration overstepped its authority under the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits federal military personnel from conducting domestic law enforcement activities unless specifically authorized by law.
“For more than a month, the National Guard has been pulled away from their families, communities and civilian work to serve as political pawns for the President in Los Angeles,” read a statement from California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office.
Although the Guard members were not officially engaging in law enforcement, they were authorized to temporarily detain individuals during ICE-related operations before turning them over to police—raising legal red flags.
Federal Courts Temporarily Side with Trump—But Legal Questions Remain
The deployment is the subject of a still-pending court case after California sued the Trump administration. While an appeals court last month allowed the troops to remain in place temporarily, the legal status of the full deployment remains unresolved.
The Trump administration has not invoked the Insurrection Act, which would be required to grant federal troops full policing authority, a move that would almost certainly face additional constitutional scrutiny and potential injunctions.
Mayor and State Leaders Declare a Victory
L.A. Mayor Karen Bass praised the partial troop withdrawal as a “people-powered victory.”
“This happened because the people of Los Angeles stood united and stood strong,” she said. “We took the Trump administration to court—this led to today’s retreat.”
Mayor Bass emphasized that peaceful protests and legal challenges, not military might, are the tools of democracy. She vowed that advocacy efforts would continue until the remaining troops are withdrawn and ICE operations are reexamined nationwide.
Troops Needed Elsewhere: Wildfires and Public Safety
The withdrawal also follows urgent calls from military commanders and state officials to return some troops to their wildfire response duties, as California enters its peak fire season.
Gen. Gregory Guillot, head of U.S. Northern Command, submitted a request for 200 National Guard soldiers to return to Joint Task Force Rattlesnake, which focuses on wildfire prevention and control.
“We call on Trump and the Department of Defense to end this theater and send everyone home now,” Newsom’s office demanded.
A Legal Flashpoint in Domestic Military Use
The events unfolding in Los Angeles have become a national flashpoint on the limits of federal military power, particularly when it intersects with domestic protests, immigration policy, and state sovereignty.
Legal scholars say this case could set precedent for how and when federal forces can be deployed within U.S. cities without the consent of state or local governments.
