Imagine military leaders privately warning about a deployment spiraling into a riot. That’s exactly what records reveal about the National Guard’s role in Los Angeles. The risks of domestic operations were deemed “extremely high,” with fears of far-reaching political implications. What happens when our armed forces are deployed on home soil under such pressure?
Newly disclosed military records reveal profound concerns among top brass regarding the deployment of the National Guard and Marines to U.S. cities, specifically highlighting the operation in Los Angeles. Leaders privately questioned the adequacy of troop training and warned of the “far-reaching social, political and operational” risks inherent in aiding law enforcement during civil unrest, underscoring the delicate balance between maintaining order and safeguarding public trust.
An internal document detailed the “extremely high” risk associated with using troops to protect agents carrying out an immigration crackdown in MacArthur Park. Officials explicitly warned of the potential for protests to escalate into riots, envisioning scenarios of “miscommunication and fratricide” alongside accidental harm to civilians, including children. This assessment painted a stark picture of the dangers involved in domestic operations of this nature.
As President Trump pushed for increased military presence in Democratic-run cities, military lawyers proactively drafted comprehensive rules for the use of force and de-escalation tactics. These guidelines, accessible to troops on their phones, emphasized the high stakes of such deployments. One undated document, titled “Los Angeles Civil Unrest SRUF,” grimly noted that “the very nature of military deployment in U.S. communities has such significant implications that the mistakes of a few soldiers can have far-reaching political implications.”
The controversy extended to political circles, with Louis Caldera, former Army Secretary under President Bill Clinton, asserting that domestic military deployments endanger both soldiers and civilians, while simultaneously undermining recruitment and eroding public support. California Governor Newsom’s spokesperson further characterized the LA deployment as “pure political theater” and a “display of power meant to intimidate our communities,” reflecting deep divisions over the use of federal troops.
A request from the Department of Homeland Security for military assistance in MacArthur Park, a known gathering spot for immigrants, faced internal resistance. Army Major General Scott Sherman testified that he initially rejected the request due to a perceived lack of military necessity, only to be overruled by the Secretary of Defense. This incident highlights the complex chain of command and the pressures influencing government oversight during sensitive operations.
Despite the grave warnings and internal disagreements, the MacArthur Park operation ultimately took place, though it reportedly concluded without major incident, lasting approximately an hour. However, the city’s mayor, Karen Bass, publicly denounced the operation as a “political stunt,” reinforcing the widespread sentiment of disapproval and questioning its true purpose beyond political optics.
The experiences in Los Angeles served as a critical learning ground, with military leaders sharing insights and lessons with officers in other regions in anticipation of future National Guard deployments. Emails circulated detailing instances of military members being harassed, protests at hotels housing immigration agents, and attempts by activists to “dox” National Guard members, illustrating the intense societal friction surrounding these civil unrest interventions.
