Trump Deployment Faces Pushback Amid California Wildfires \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ Top military officials have requested that 200 National Guard troops deployed to Los Angeles protests be reassigned to California’s wildfire unit. The request follows President Trump’s controversial deployment of federal forces to respond to anti-ICE demonstrations, raising legal concerns. California officials warn the state is underprepared as wildfire season begins.
Quick Looks
- Request made: Gen. Guillot asks to return 200 troops to wildfire duty
- Deployment scale: 4,000 National Guard, 800 Marines sent to Los Angeles
- Trump order: Overrode California Gov. Newsom’s opposition
- Mission scope: Marines guarding federal buildings; legal questions raised
- Insurrection Act: Not invoked, but Marines have detained civilians
- Fire season warning: California understaffed, Gov. Newsom raises alarm
- Wildfire team: Troops requested for Joint Task Force Rattlesnake
- Congressional concern: Lawmakers query future of domestic military use
- Pentagon silence: Sec. Hegseth avoids giving clear answers
- Military stance: Gen. Caine sees no “foreign invasion,” notes border issues
Deep Look
As California faces an intensifying wildfire season, a new internal military request reveals rising friction between federal and state priorities. U.S. Northern Command head Gen. Gregory Guillot has formally requested that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reassign 200 National Guard troops currently deployed in Los Angeles to help the state fight wildfires. The troops were initially dispatched under President Donald Trump’s June order in response to widespread protests over federal immigration raids.
The deployment—consisting of about 4,000 California National Guard personnel and 800 active duty U.S. Marines—has stirred controversy from the outset. Ordered against the explicit objections of California Governor Gavin Newsom, the military mobilization was meant to help federal agents respond to escalating demonstrations after ICE conducted mass immigration enforcement operations in Los Angeles. Protesters had rallied across the city, opposing what they described as aggressive, unjust raids that disproportionately impacted immigrant communities.
While the Marines have primarily been tasked with guarding federal buildings such as courthouses and ICE facilities, reports indicate that their presence on city streets has raised serious legal questions. According to U.S. law, specifically the Posse Comitatus Act, active duty military personnel are prohibited from engaging in domestic law enforcement activities unless specifically authorized under exceptional circumstances, such as via the Insurrection Act—a statute that has not yet been invoked in this case.
However, at least one instance of Marines detaining civilians has already occurred in Los Angeles, further escalating tensions and fueling concern among civil rights advocates, legal scholars, and state officials.
Now, as California enters its peak wildfire period, officials are warning that the diversion of Guard resources to protest management is jeopardizing the state’s emergency readiness. The wildfire threat is particularly acute in 2025 due to ongoing drought conditions, extreme heat waves, and reduced local firefighting manpower following several years of climate-driven disasters.
Gov. Newsom has publicly warned that California’s wildfire response capability is being compromised by the federal troop presence in Los Angeles. Many of the National Guard troops sent to the city were drawn from Joint Task Force Rattlesnake—a specialized unit trained and equipped to assist in wildfire suppression in rugged, high-risk areas across the state.
Recognizing the growing urgency, Gen. Guillot submitted a formal request to Secretary Hegseth asking that 200 Guard members be returned to wildfire duty. According to two U.S. officials who spoke to the Associated Press on condition of anonymity, this appeal represents a significant escalation in internal military efforts to reprioritize mission focus in light of the state’s dire firefighting needs.
Despite the request, the Pentagon has yet to announce whether it will approve the troop transfer. The decision rests with Hegseth and, ultimately, President Trump, whose administration has so far doubled down on its immigration enforcement agenda while remaining vague about long-term military involvement in domestic protest responses.
President Trump has repeatedly framed the issue as a matter of national security, declaring that the U.S. is under “invasion” by undocumented migrants crossing the southern border. His rhetoric has drawn widespread criticism and has been challenged even within the military establishment. In testimony before Congress, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine pushed back on that narrative, saying, “I don’t see any foreign, state-sponsored folks invading,” though he acknowledged persistent “border issues.”
Congressional scrutiny of the domestic deployment has intensified. During recent budget hearings, lawmakers asked Secretary Hegseth whether the administration intended to expand the troop deployment to other U.S. cities in response to immigration-related protests. Hegseth declined to provide a direct answer, deflecting questions about long-term strategy and citing national security discretion.
For California officials, however, the priorities are clear. With wildfires already sparking across northern and central regions, and the dry season just beginning, emergency planners say they need every available resource. Joint Task Force Rattlesnake has historically served as a critical supplement to Cal Fire and local fire agencies, especially in hard-to-reach mountainous terrain.
Returning 200 troops to wildfire duty would help reinforce thinning frontline response units and ensure the state can respond swiftly to fast-moving blazes. Moreover, it would send a signal that the federal government is willing to balance its enforcement agenda with the pressing environmental and humanitarian needs of one of the nation’s most vulnerable states.
The troop deployment has also deepened a long-simmering federal-state divide. Newsom, a Democrat and longtime critic of Trump’s domestic security policies, has accused the White House of politicizing military deployments and eroding state sovereignty. He and other state leaders have argued that domestic use of active duty military for protest management is unnecessary and escalatory, especially when local and state law enforcement already possess the authority and resources to manage civil unrest.
The debate underscores a broader national conversation about the use of military force on American soil. Civil liberties groups, including the ACLU and Human Rights Watch, have warned that using federal troops in protest scenarios risks chilling free speech and infringing on constitutional rights.
In California, where wildfire season is not just an environmental issue but a persistent public safety emergency, those concerns are intersecting with life-and-death realities. The 2025 fire season is projected to be one of the worst on record, with over 3.5 million acres already classified as extreme-risk zones due to accumulated fuel, lightning patterns, and climate forecasts.
The outcome of Gen. Guillot’s request could set a precedent for how future crises are prioritized and handled. If the Pentagon agrees to reallocate troops, it may signal a shift in the administration’s balance between internal security operations and traditional disaster response roles. If not, California may face an even steeper challenge in responding to fast-moving, large-scale wildfires with limited support.
As the debate continues, one thing is clear: the use of military assets in overlapping crises is pushing the boundaries of federal authority, state rights, and national emergency planning.
Trump Deployment Faces Trump Deployment Faces Trump Deployment Faces
You must Register or Login to post a comment.