National Guard’s LA Deployment: From Riot Control to Routine Boredom

California Governor Sues Over National guard Deployment Amidst L.A. Immigration Raids

Los Angeles, California – A legal battle has erupted between California and the federal government over the deployment of National Guard troops in Los Angeles, sparking concerns about the military’s role in domestic immigration enforcement. Governor Gavin Newsom,alongside Attorney General Rob Bonta,filed a lawsuit challenging what they termed an “illegal and unneeded takeover” of a California national Guard unit by the Trump administration.The lawsuit, filed following the deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles, argues that the commandeering of these forces without the state’s consent violates the U.S.Constitution and exceeds the President’s authority. A federal judge in San Francisco initially sided with the state, issuing a temporary restraining order to return control of the National Guard to California. However, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has since paused this order, allowing the troops to remain in Los Angeles while the legal proceedings continue.

Beyond the legal challenges, the deployment has raised important ethical and morale concerns among service members and advocacy groups. Reports indicate that National Guard troops have been observed accompanying federal agents on immigration raids, leading to anxieties about potential escalations.

“There’s so many chances for things to spiral out of control,” noted one observer, expressing worry about unintended confrontations. While no such escalations have been reported to date, apprehension remains that they could occur.

Advocates for service members have reported a surge in calls to the GI Rights Hotline expressing concerns about the mission’s focus on immigration enforcement. Many military personnel reportedly voiced reluctance to support Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or participate in deportations, citing personal connections to immigrant communities or a broader opposition to using military force against civilians. Some expressed fears of the country moving towards a state of martial law and their unwillingness to be part of “armed occupiers of their own country.”

The initial 60-day deployment orders also caused widespread shock and disbelief among the troops. As contractors arrived and temporary living quarters were established, callers to the hotline appeared to become more resigned to a prolonged presence in Los Angeles.

When asked about the pressures of their mission, one Marine outside the Wilshire Federal Building succinctly stated, “That’s just orders. We do what we’re told – it’s the system.” The situation underscores the complex intersection of military duty, constitutional law, and domestic policy in contemporary America.

What specific financial challenges did National Guard personnel face during the extended LA deployment?

Initial Deployment & The Height of Unrest (Summer 2020)

The summer of 2020 saw a meaningful National Guard presence in Los Angeles, initially deployed in response to widespread protests and civil unrest following the murder of George Floyd. The primary mission was to support local law enforcement, specifically the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and the Los Angeles county Sheriff’s Department (LASD), in maintaining order and protecting critical infrastructure. This deployment, authorized by Governor Gavin Newsom, involved over 1,000 California National guard soldiers and airmen.

Focus Areas: Downtown Los Angeles, Hollywood, and areas experiencing significant looting and property damage.

Roles: Primarily focused on perimeter security, traffic control, and providing a visible deterrent to further unrest. They were not intended to directly engage in crowd control, but rather to support local authorities.

Equipment: Guardsmen were equipped with standard-issue military gear, including rifles (ofen carried but not necessarily loaded), body armor, and interaction equipment. the use of military vehicles was also observed.

Public Perception: Initial reactions were mixed. while some residents welcomed the added security, others viewed the National Guard’s presence as an escalation and a symbol of government overreach.Concerns about militarization of policing were frequently voiced.

The Shift to a Supporting Role & Extended Stay

As the initial wave of protests subsided in late summer and early fall of 2020, the National Guard’s mission evolved. The focus shifted from active riot control to a more supportive role, assisting with logistics and security at essential facilities.This included:

Food Bank Support: Guardsmen were deployed to assist at food banks experiencing increased demand due to the economic fallout of the pandemic. This involved sorting, packing, and distributing food to families in need.

Hospital Support: During surges in COVID-19 cases, National Guard medical personnel were deployed to hospitals to assist with non-clinical tasks, freeing up doctors and nurses to focus on patient care.

port Security: Increased security measures were implemented at the Ports of Los Angeles and long Beach, with the National guard contributing to perimeter security and monitoring.

Extended Duration: What was initially anticipated as a short-term deployment stretched into months, and then years, leading to a sense of “routine boredom” for many Guardsmen.

The Reality of Long-Term Deployment: Boredom & Mental Health

The prolonged deployment in Los Angeles presented unique challenges for the national Guard. The transition from high-intensity riot control to a largely observational role led to significant morale issues.

Lack of purpose: Many Guardsmen expressed feeling underutilized and lacking a clear sense of purpose.The constant state of readiness without frequent activation created a sense of frustration.

Mental Health Concerns: The stress of being deployed away from family and civilian jobs, coupled with the monotony of the assignment, contributed to increased rates of anxiety, depression, and other mental health concerns. Access to mental health resources was a key issue.

Financial Strain: Maintaining a civilian life while on extended deployment presented financial challenges for many Guardsmen, notably those with families.

Training Opportunities: Limited opportunities for relevant training during the extended deployment raised concerns about maintaining skills and readiness.

Case Study: The Impact on Individual Guardsmen

sergeant Maria Rodriguez, a member of the California National Guard’s 40th Infantry Division, spoke anonymously to Army Times in late 2021 about her experiance. “We were expecting to be here for a week or two,maybe a month tops,” she said. “Now we’re looking at a year. It’s not the danger that’s hard, it’s the waiting. it’s the feeling like you’re just…here.” Her story reflects a common sentiment among many Guardsmen deployed to Los Angeles. The lack of clear objectives and the extended duration took a toll on morale and mental wellbeing.

The Current Status (July 2025) & Future Considerations

As of July 2025, a reduced National Guard presence remains in Los Angeles, primarily focused on supporting local law enforcement with specialized capabilities and providing disaster preparedness assistance.The scale of the deployment is substantially smaller than in 2020.

Ongoing Missions: Support for large-scale events, disaster response training, and limited assistance to local law enforcement during periods of heightened risk.

Lessons Learned: the LA deployment highlighted the importance of clear mission objectives, adequate mental health support, and financial assistance for National Guard personnel on extended deployments.

Future Deployments: The experience has prompted discussions within the California National Guard and state government about improving preparedness for civil unrest and ensuring the wellbeing of Guardsmen deployed for extended periods. The need for better communication with local communities and transparency regarding the National Guard’s role is also being addressed.

**