General Testifies: No Evidence of ‘Rebellion’ During Trump’s L.A. Military Deployment

Three officials recently testified in a trial regarding President Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles during protests. The case, initiated by California Governor Gavin Newsom, challenges whether Trump’s use of the Guard violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which prevents military interference in domestic law enforcement.

Newsom labeled the deployment of about 4,000 National Guard troops as an unlawful “power grab.” Trump defended his actions, stating they were essential for the safety of federal agents amid protests against ICE operations. In June, he issued an executive order claiming protests amounted to “rebellion,” using Title 10 of U.S. law which lets the president call up the Guard in emergencies.

One notable moment of the testimony involved Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman, who led the Los Angeles Guard task force. He stated he never heard any officials refer to the situation as a rebellion, raising questions about the justification for military presence.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer is overseeing the trial and previously indicated that Trump’s deployment was likely illegal. However, an appellate court reversed his ruling, arguing Trump had grounds to act due to potential violence hindering federal law enforcement. The judges did not conclude whether the protests constituted a rebellion, indicating it wasn’t essential for determining legality.

The topic gained renewed attention when Trump announced plans for National Guard deployment in Washington, D.C. Unlike California, D.C. National Guard operates under presidential command. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stated that while Guard troops will not engage in law enforcement, they may briefly detain individuals for police transfer.

Testimonies from military officials revealed that their main role was to protect federal buildings and personnel rather than enforce laws. This raised eyebrows when Sherman claimed military support could be requested even without a clear threat. When pressed by Judge Breyer, he confirmed military support could accompany local law enforcement operations at any moment.

Sherman recounted a situation where he resisted a request for military assistance in a low-risk immigration operation, mentioning he was called “disloyal” for this decision. In contrast, testimonies showed a significant drop in assaults on ICE agents once National Guard troops were deployed.

At the height of the situation, nearly 5,000 service members were active in Los Angeles, with about 300 remaining under federal control. They continue to provide security at key locations in the area.

The trial continues, with the federal government expected to argue that California does not have the standing to sue. This legal battle raises fundamental questions about the military’s role in domestic issues, echoing historical tensions between state and federal authority.



Source link