Pentagon Deploys 700 Marines and Expands National Guard Presence Amid Los Angeles Protests

The Pentagon escalated its federal involvement in the Los Angeles immigration enforcement protests on Monday by deploying 700 Marines and doubling the number of California National Guard troops. Officials described the deployment as a limited effort aimed at safeguarding federal property and personnel, even as President Trump asserted that the situation was "very well under control."

Earlier that day, President Trump referred to the protesters as "insurrectionists," though he did not indicate any intention to invoke the 1807 Insurrection Act, which would permit direct military intervention in suppressing the demonstrations.

The Pentagon’s announcement did not clarify the necessity of adding 2,000 National Guard members. More concerning to state officials, legal experts, and congressional Democrats was the unprecedented deployment of active-duty Marines. By law and tradition, U.S. military forces are rarely used domestically except under extreme circumstances.

Complicating the situation, the president claimed the unrest was subsiding due to his decision to federalize the California National Guard and deploy troops into the streets, despite opposition from Governor Gavin Newsom. Later on Monday, California filed a federal lawsuit contesting the administration’s actions, deeming them unlawful.

Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell stated Monday evening that the decision to send additional National Guard troops was made "at the order of the president."

The conflicting signals — the president’s display of increased military power amid protests, alongside claims of progress — followed days of heightened tensions, with the administration appearing to embrace confrontation with local and state officials over immigration enforcement.

Governor Newsom condemned the deployment of Marines as "a provocation, not just an escalation," asserting that it was intended to spread fear, deepen anger, and further divide communities.

Newsom noted that only about 300 National Guard troops called up by the president had actually been deployed, suggesting the Marines’ arrival was more politically motivated than a genuine security necessity.

Traditionally, California has used National Guard units under state authority to assist local law enforcement during large-scale unrest. According to Newsom, the current situation does not warrant such a response.

"We’re nowhere near the point of needing that," Newsom said. "But the more the president escalates, the closer we might get — which seems to be his intention."

He further criticized the president's actions as "creating more chaos," adding, "If necessary, we will clean up the mess he’s making."

Contrasting the governor’s stance, President Trump told reporters at the White House, "We got it just in time. It’s still simmering a little, but not much."

This raised questions about why such a substantial military presence was deployed, as there are now approximately 4,700 troops assigned to Los Angeles.

Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell expressed concerns about the logistics and coordination challenges posed by the possible arrival of federal military forces without clear communication, emphasizing the complexity of protecting the city.

The legal justification for deploying active-duty Marines remains unclear. The Posse Comitatus Act generally prohibits federal troops from engaging in domestic law enforcement unless the Insurrection Act is invoked — which the president has not done. Instead, the federalization order cited Title 10 of the U.S. Code and presidential constitutional authority.

U.S. Northern Command stated that the Marines would integrate with existing Title 10 forces under Task Force 51, responsible for protecting federal personnel and property in the greater Los Angeles area.

This suggests the troops lack arrest powers, and it remains uncertain what rules of engagement will govern their interactions with protesters.

During the Vietnam War era, legal opinions posited that presidents had inherent authority to deploy troops to prevent antiwar protests from disrupting federal operations or damaging property, despite laws restricting military involvement in civilian law enforcement. However, this theory has never been judicially tested.

Experts warn the administration is testing a novel legal approach to bypass restrictions on domestic military involvement, blurring lines between federalized National Guard duties and active-duty military deployment — a move described as dangerously unprecedented.

Invoking the 1807 Insurrection Act would grant extraordinary powers to the president, powers that were considered but ultimately restrained during previous nationwide protests amid the last administration, reportedly due to counsel from senior officials.

Since protests began on Friday, the administration has repeatedly characterized demonstrators as "insurrectionists."

President Trump posted on social media that "violent, insurrectionist mobs are swarming and attacking our Federal Agents to try and stop our deportation operations."

However, by Monday afternoon, the president softened his tone, stating, "It was heading in the wrong direction, now it’s heading in the right direction."

The administration framed the expanded federal response as necessary due to failures by California’s leadership, particularly Governor Newsom.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth cited increased threats against federal officers and buildings as justification for deploying 700 Marines. He emphasized an obligation to protect law enforcement officers, "even if the governor will not."

Thomas D. Homan, the administration’s border enforcement official, suggested the possibility of arresting the governor and other officials, a threat that drew a defiant response from Newsom.

"Come after me," Newsom said during a televised interview. "Arrest me, tough guy. Let’s just get it over with."

When asked if the governor should be arrested, the president replied, "I would do it if I were Tom. Look, I like Gavin Newsom, he’s a nice guy. But he’s grossly incompetent."

The Los Angeles Civic Alliance, a prominent coalition of business and civic leaders, publicly condemned the federal military deployment, warning it sets a dangerous precedent for federal intervention in cities without state consent.

The group stressed that peaceful protests must be respected and cautioned against the unchecked use of military forces on American soil.

Meanwhile, smaller protests continued across the country, including cities such as San Francisco, Boston, and others in California, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina.

Veterans and lawmakers expressed concern over the expanding military footprint in U.S. cities. Senator Jack Reed, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, described the president’s actions as forcibly overriding local authority and weaponizing the military politically, warning that such unprecedented steps risk escalating tensions into a national crisis.