Trump Administration Illegally Deployed National Guard in Los Angeles, Judge Rules

Troops from the California National Guard were stationed at the Federal Building in downtown Los Angeles on June 10, 2025. A Tuesday ruling by a federal judge found the Trump administration to have broken federal law by deploying the National Guard during immigration operations and related protests in Southern California. Notably, the presiding U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer based in San Francisco did not necessitate the removal of remaining troops. He scheduled the ruling to be operational starting Friday.

The lawsuit initiated by California concluded that the troops assigned to Los Angeles over the summer had contravened a law that prevents military enforcement of local laws. Through their defense attorneys, the Republican administration led by Trump challenged this, stating that the Posse Comitatus Act didn’t apply as the troops were primarily safeguarding federal officers instead of executing laws.

The defense also claimed that the soldiers were ushered in under the president’s prerogative to deploy them. The ruling by the judge unfolded as Trump pondered over deploying the National Guard in Democrat-run cities including New York, Baltimore, and Chicago.

He has made use of the National Guard as part of his groundbreaking command over law enforcement in Washington where he possesses undisputed legal control. Members of the California National Guard were federalized by the Trump administration and deployed to the second-largest U.S. city against the expressed intentions of Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom and other city officials.

The law enabling Trump to put the National Guard into federal service when America faces threats such as invasion, uprising, or any other circumstances where the president believes he is unable to execute federal laws facilitated these actions. Trump’s administration has pushed the envelope regarding the normal conduct of military operations within domestic domains, inclusive of the establishment of militarised areas along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Neither the White House nor the Defense Department provided an immediate response to queries seeking their opinions. In his stinging ruling, Breyer accused the Trump administration of conscious violation of the law.

He went on to state that the administration misused troops for roles that were explicitly prohibited by their training manuals, disregarded attempts to coordinate meaningfully with local and state officials, and even coached federal law enforcement agencies regarding the discourse to employ when soliciting help.

Breyer pointed out in his ruling, ‘These actions express that the defendants had knowledge that their orders for the troops went beyond their usual mandate to enforce domestic law.’ He wrote further that the trial’s evidence proved that armed soldiers, often unrecognizable due to their protective gear, and military vehicles were consistently used to establish defense perimeters, traffic blockades, conduct crowd control, and maintain military aura in and around Los Angeles.

Breyer also drew attention to the potential plans of the Trump administration to send National Guard members to other U.S. cities. In Los Angeles, the National Guard contributed to operations at MacArthur Park, located in downtown Los Angeles. The operation was a power projection against undocumented immigrants and those protesting the immigration policies of the Trump administration.

In one instance, they assisted federal immigration officers in conducting raids at two state-licensed marijuana nurseries in Ventura County. This was accounted for by Army Major General Scott Sherman in his testimony. Sherman, the original commander of the deployed troops in Los Angeles, expressed his worries during the second day of the trial that these deployments had the potential to violate the Posse Comitatus Act.

In his testimony, Sherman shared that troops had been properly educated on the Act and supplied with materials listing all prohibited actions, such as undertaking security patrols, conducting traffic control, crowd control, and suppressing riots.

He further explained that despite the Posse Comitatus Act explicitly ruling out troops undertaking such actions, his superiors had advocated for a constitutional exception that permitted those activities when pertaining to safeguarding federal properties or personnel.