A federal judge in California appeared poised to rule against the Trump administration over its troop deployment in Los Angeles to quell anti-deportation protests, expressing concern such deployments could quickly become a “national police force.”
“Again, I go back to the thing I’m really troubled by: What limiting factors are there to this use of force?” Senior District Judge Charles R. Breyer asked prosecutors in the final moments of a three-day bench trial in San Francisco.
“What was the threat today? What was the threat yesterday?” he asked. “It’s the absence of any limits to any national police force, that’s what I’m sitting here trying to figure out.”
The Justice Department defended the White House’s move as wholly justified under President Donald Trump’s decree that the protests were a “rebellion,” and painted the presence of armored vehicles and troops as a “protective function” — just as Trump repeated the maneuver in Washington, D.C.
That reality permeated the trial, with the judge often asking the DOJ to describe exactly where the government draws the line that would violate the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which strictly limits federal use of the military as domestic law enforcement. But government lawyers largely dodged that question, instead falling back on arguments that the court was essentially powerless to intervene and that all kinds of exceptions apply anyway.
At one point during the closing moments of the trial on Wednesday, Breyer wondered aloud why the major general in charge of the troops in Task Force 51 would have repeatedly distributed training materials to his soldiers stressing the need to operate legally within the confines of the law.
“Why did I spend a day looking at slide after slide,” the judge said, “and regulation after regulation and reports after reports on the conduct of the soldiers to ensure that they were in compliance with the Posse Comitatus Act if the Posse Comitatus Act is irrelevant?”
It’s likely the legal ramifications of Breyer’s decision could be felt immediately, and inspire similar legal challenges elsewhere, forming the basis for another constitutional battle headed for a Supreme Court that returns this fall. Trump has already threatened to deploy similar tactics in Democratic-leaning cities nationwide — a move that a wide swath of history professors and experts have warned continues to put the nation on a slide toward authoritarianism.
The Trump administration’s argument for deploying soldiers on U.S. soil has evolved over time. In California, officials said that the troops were there to support and protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents conducting deportation raids, not engage in law enforcement activity. But Trump and other administration officials have described the National Guard’s mission in D.C. as more akin to run-of-the-mill policing.
During a press conference Monday, Trump said the troops would be clearing homeless encampments, adding that he was weighing whether it was necessary to “bring in” military units. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth later said in a Fox News interview that National Guard members would be stationed at federal sites and intersections in D.C. as a deterrent, but that they would have “broad latitude” to take “proactive” measures if they see anything illegal happening.
And while there were no documented instances of soldiers attacking civilians, evidence presented at this week’s trial shows how federal forces planned for an escalation in violence. One PowerPoint presentation of a “concept of operation” developed by the Border Patrol Tactical Unit and military planners ahead of a July 7 ICE walk-through at MacArthur Park — the heart of LA’s immigrant community — displayed the degree to which armed government security forces treated American streets as a battlefield.
The operation’s planners had determined that the “overall threat assessment” of the mission was “high,” given that members of the MS-13 gang — by then branded a “foreign terrorist organization” by the Trump administration — “consider the park their home turf.” Mission preparation materials spoke of “known or likely defensive positions or fortified structures,” referring to surrounding apartment buildings.
Planners gauged “estimated resistance levels and lethality potential” — for a busy city thoroughfare that’s made up of children’s playgrounds, soccer fields and bright blue benches that overlook a lake with a city vista.
The “key tasks” made clear that soldiers were to “secure key terrain,” “provide area security” by safeguarding ICE agents and “support law enforcement.” However, soldiers were restricted by orders to “detain individuals only in response to an imminent threat and transfer to law enforcement as soon as practical” and to “use force only when authorized and necessary.”
The image of an occupied Los Angeles — and the potential for violence — appeared to disturb the judge throughout the trial.
“Why is the federalized National Guard, even though it’s been drawn down, still in place?” he asked toward the end.
A high-ranking DOJ lawyer noted there’s “only” 300 guard members, down from roughly 4,000. Meghan Strong, a deputy attorney general with California’s Department of Justice, took issue with the word “only.”
“That is certainly more than enough soldiers to constitute a Posse Comitatus Violation,” she said.
At that, the judge ended the trial and promised to make a ruling soon.