Military deployment controversy in L.A

Sun, Jun 22 2025

/

Home

Business News

Computer and Electronics

Finance Insights

Health

Home and Garden

Law and Government

Science and Technology

Online Communities

Beauty and Fitness

Internet and Telecom

Cryptocurrency

Military deployment controversy in L.A

U.S. Marines detained a civilian veteran, marking the first domestic use of active-duty troops. The 9th Circuit paused a judge’s order to return Guard control to California, allowing federal deployment to remain through the weekend

Sultan Sikander

June 14, 2025

8Min Reads

Law and Government

🛡️ \American Streets or Battlefield Borders?\

Introduction: A City at the Crossroads

Los Angeles, often heralded as the City of Angels, now finds itself at the center of an extraordinary constitutional and political showdown. As federal forces—namely U.S. Marines and National Guard troops—have been deployed in response to immigration-related protests, the situation has ignited fierce debate about the boundaries of executive power, states’ rights, and the proper place of the military in a democracy.

On June 13, 2025, U.S. Marines detained Marcos Leao, a 27‑year‑old Army veteran, in front of the Wilshire Federal Building—reportedly the first time active-duty troops have detained a civilian on American soil in roughly three decades. That same day, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stepped in to temporarily pause a lower-court order requiring the federal government to return control of California’s National Guard to Governor Gavin Newsom. The back-and-forth legal drama allowed federal deployment to continue through the weekend while full court hearings proceed.

1. Early Sparks: ICE Raids Ignite Protests

The origin of the current controversy dates back to June 6, when Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) executed workplace raids across Los Angeles. The actions triggered widespread outrage and led to scattered but passionate protests. Most of these gatherings remained peaceful and local authorities, including the LAPD, reportedly believed they were well within their capacity to manage the situation.

Yet, in what some describe as a dramatic escalation, President Trump responded in kind—invoking the Insurrection Act to federalize thousands of National Guard members and deploying approximately 700 Marines. The stated purpose: to “protect federal property” and support law enforcement responding to unrest. This move marked a rare and contentious use of active-duty military forces in a domestic law enforcement context—a step that would prove deeply polarizing.

2. The Military Arrives: Troops in the City

By Friday, troops were on the ground. The deployment looked like this:

4,000 National Guard soldiers, federalized under the President’s command

700 Marines, positioned to guard federal facilities

Approximately 2,000 Guard members & 200 Marines dedicated to federal buildings—with others positioned strategically across the city

Photos showed soldiers in riot gear, shields at the ready, and fences around key federal sites. In particular, Wilshire Federal Building became a focal point: there, Marines replaced Guard units to allow Guard soldiers to assist local law enforcement in immigration raids.

Within days, authorities imposed limited curfews and made hundreds of arrests—primarily for non-violent infractions such as failing to disperse in protest zones.

3. The Veteran's Detention: A Solemn First

That same day, Marines with zip-ties detained Marcos Leao at a restricted access point. Leao, who had been on his way to a Veterans Affairs appointment, was later released to the Department of Homeland Security. He described the encounter as “very fair,” emphasizing respectful treatment by the Marines.

Despite this outcome, the incident was historic—and deeply unsettling—for many. It marked the first known detention of a civilian by active-duty troops on U.S. soil in recent memory. Symbolically, it raised the specter of a militarized domestic front—a flashpoint for critics who warn that such actions signal dilution of the bedrock American principle: military power is for foreign defense, not crowd control.

4. Legal Flashpoint: Courts Assert Themselves

As the deployments unfolded, California’s leadership launched a major legal offensive.

Governor Gavin Newsom sued, citing constitutional protections (especially the Tenth and Posse Comitatus Amendments) and accusing Trump of federal overreach.

On June 11, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled that Trump’s mobilization of the National Guard violated statutory and constitutional norms, ordering Guard forces be returned to state control by June 13 noon.

Hours later, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay, halting that order and keeping troops in federal hands—at least through the weekend. A full hearing was scheduled for June 17.

Importantly, the legal wrangling did not immediately include the Marines. That was to be decided separately, though the dispute over Guard control set a significant precedent.

5. Constitution vs. Command: The Battle Over Authority

At the heart of this standoff lies a fundamental question: Who holds authority over military forces when they are used domestically?

Tenth Amendment: Reserves powers not explicitly granted to the federal government to the states. California's lawsuit argued that deploying Guard/Marines without the governor’s consent breaches this principle.

Insurrection Act: Allows the President to federalize troops under limited conditions, but critics say Trump’s invocation here oversteps—especially since disruptions were largely peaceful.

Posse Comitatus Act: Traditionally bars active-duty military from functioning as domestic police. The deployment of Marines did not violate it outright, but it clearly dove into its spirit—raising legal and ethical alarms.

During hearings, Judge Breyer expressed unease with the White House's expansive claims. Disagreeing that presidential orders were above judicial review, he asked:

“How is this different from what a monarch does?”

On appeal, the federal government warned that defeating the deployment would endanger federal personnel and threaten public order. But Legal scholars underscored that allowing unchecked troop mobilization risks long-lasting damage to democracy.

6. Tactical Deployment: Strategy on the Streets

California officials said the incoming troops were unnecessary and escalatory. LAPD Chief Michel Moore reportedly told media the department was capable of handling protests. Yet, federal officials seen the troops as a corrective measure—stabilizers in the face of growing unrest.

Several key moves stand out:

Marines took the lead on guarding federal facilities, freeing National Guard to assist local enforcement.

Curfews in select zones were imposed, though enforcement remained light.

Lines of communication reportedly broke down between military and LA authorities—raising concerns of jurisdictional friction and trust deficits.

Schools, businesses, and residents faced uncertainty amid a tense but controlled environment.

7. Voices & Views

Pro-Deployment

President Trump contended it was needed to enforce the law. \We saved L.A.,” he said, praising the temporary judicial stay.

Some Republican lawmakers echoed support, saying the executive had responsibility to protect federal institutions and secure immigration compliance.

Opponents

Governor Newsom denounced the move as an act of “unwarranted federal intrusion” and a political ploy.

Retired military brass and civil-rights groups warned of blurred lines between military and law enforcement.

Federal Judge Breyer emphasized judicial oversight—even judges must check presidential claims, he argued.

Public polls: Surveys showed Americans divided, with general support split roughly down the middle—but noticeable opposition grew in California and independent voters.

8. Public Reaction: Mixed, Emotion-Laden, Tense

Media: Editorial boards ranged from ringing alarm bells about tyranny to framing the deployments as necessary frameworks for order.

Activists: Some protested on the principle; others expressed concern over using force rather than dialogue.

Veterans: Many spoke out strongly—often citing their service ideals and warning against compromising democratic principles.

General public: Remained polarized. In some neighborhoods, protests maintained a steady, non-violent rhythm; in others, tension flared briefly—though no major violence has yet erupted.

9. Why It Matters: Stakes Involved

This dispute isn't just about Los Angeles—it cuts to the spine of American democracy:

Precedent: The Eighth Circuit ruling may influence future troop use in domestic situations—especially if federal intervention becomes a substitute for local policy solutions.

Federalism clash: When can the President unilaterally act in states that object? And what happens if the courts uphold such power?

Civil-military boundary: Are we inching toward a system where military is used routinely as a domestic tool? Many worry this is a slippery slope.

Erosion of trust: The public seeing troops, not mere law enforcement, patrolling their neighborhoods can fray the public’s sense of safety and constitutional identity.

10. What Happens Next: The Weekend & Beyond

Over the Weekend

Troops stay in place, per the 9th Circuit’s stay.

Curfews and arrests may continue, though major violence is not anticipated.

Legal preparations ramp up for Tuesday’s hearing in the intermediate appeal.

Coming Days

Court hearing: Set for June 17—could lift the stay and compel federal return of forces.

Marines’ role still undefined—could spark follow-up suit.

Independent oversight and congressional hearings may be called to ensure accountability.

Ground tension: Activists and counter-activists may clash rhetorically—even if violence remains limited.

Political shift: Developments could shape broader narratives: executive reach, election strategy, or gun-law directives.

11. Epilogue: Battle Lines Beyond the Battlefield

In the golden sprawl of Los Angeles, federal forces hold positions at the edge of public space. But their presence represents a broader tension—an ideological confrontation over the shape of American governance in the 21st century.

On one hand: the federal executive, empowered to act decisively; on the other: state leaders and legal guardians, arguing that democracy thrives when authority is checked and divided.

The veteran’s detention is more than an isolated flashpoint—it’s a symbol of what’s at stake: respect for civilian life, adherence to constitutional guardrails, and confidence that—even at crisis’s peak—America remains a republic, not a kingdom.

Bottom Line

One veteran detained by active‑duty troops – a symbolic flashpoint.

4,700+ troops deployed – hundreds of Marines, thousands of Guard.

Court temporarily halts state’s re-assertion of power – but full legal questions remain.

Nationwide debate over federal authority, civil-military boundaries, and democratic norms.

This saga continues to unfold, with Tuesday’s appellate hearing poised to deepen the rift—or restore clarity.