Three officials involved in President Trump’s controversial deployment of National Guard troops to respond to protests in Los Angeles testified in court on Monday, as the trial in California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s lawsuit against the Trump administration begins.
The question at issue is whether the military forces sent in by Mr. Trump — including members of the Marine Corps and National Guard — violated the 19th century Posse Comitatus Act, which bars the military from enforcing domestic laws.
Newsom called the deployment of around 4,000 California National Guard troops, who normally are under the governor’s command, an illegal “power grab.” But Mr. Trump argued the move was legal and necessary to protect immigration agents and federal property during tense protests against operations by ICE, or Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Mr. Trump’s early June executive order calling up the Guard said the protests “constitute a form of rebellion.” And the administration has justified the deployment using a law called Title 10 that allows the president to call up Guard forces during a “rebellion” or “invasion,” or if he is unable “with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”
In one notable moment during Monday’s testimony, Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman — who at one point was deployed as the commanding general of the Guard task force in Los Angeles — said he never heard the term “rebellion” used to describe the situation in the nation’s second-largest city.
San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer is overseeing the three-day trial. Breyer had previously ruled in June that Mr. Trump’s deployment was likely illegal. An appellate court overturned that ruling, saying the president should be given deference to decide whether Title 10 applies, and that Mr. Trump had some basis to say that violence during the protests had prevented federal officers from enforcing the law. The appellate judges didn’t weigh in on whether the protests constituted a rebellion, which they said wasn’t necessary for the deployment to be legal.
The dispute gained new resonance on Monday, after Mr. Trump announced National Guard forces would be deployed in Washington, D.C., to assist with police. Unlike in California, the D.C. National Guard reports to the president.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said Guard forces will not be involved in law enforcement in the nation’s capital, but they can briefly detain people if necessary and hand them over to police.
Officials testify about military’s role amid L.A. protests
Military officials said their mission was to protect federal facilities and federal personnel, and “to support federal law enforcement.”
Sherman testified that the military could be sent whenever local law enforcement carried out an operation, even if there were no physical threats and no protesters were breaking the law.
The comments surprised Breyer, who pressed him on the claim, asking: “So if there’s no threat you can send out the military?” Sherman affirmed that whenever local law enforcement was carrying out an operation, the military could be sent out, explaining that a threat could develop even if no active threat was assessed.
“Wouldn’t that always be the case?” Breyer responded.
But Sherman said he had withheld support for one operation. He testified that a DHS official called him “disloyal” to his country for objecting to the request for military assistance with an immigration enforcement operation at MacArthur Park. He said he had assessed that there was a low risk to federal agents on that occasion.
The operation, which took place on July 7, featured horse-mounted officers and military Humvees and drew national attention.
William Harrington, deputy chief of staff for the Los Angeles military deployment’s task force, testified that he understood the federalized National Guard troops could not engage in civil enforcement activities, and everybody knew the Posse Comitatus Act applied. He said task force members responded to requests for assistance from federal law enforcement agencies. These included protecting federal buildings and force protection for federal agents who were executing functions such as search warrant operations.
Ernesto Santacruz Jr., a field office director for the Department of Homeland Security, testified Monday that assaults on agents from ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations division reduced drastically once the National Guard was there. He said that there had been daily attacks on officers before the deployment.
Santacruz testified that the National Guard troops were there “to assist and protect federal authorities.” He did not know of any denials of requests for assistance.
When asked about the law this trial centers on, the Posse Comitatus Act, Santacruz did not have any knowledge of what it allowed or prohibited.
At its peak in June, nearly 5,000 service members were deployed to the Los Angeles area: some 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines. The vast majority of Guard forces have been returned to California, though about 300 remain under federal control.
As of Sunday night, the remaining Guard forces were still guarding a courthouse in Downtown Los Angeles and a facility in Paramount, California, Sherman testified.
The trial will continue on Tuesday, when the federal government will call Sherman back to the stand. On Wednesday, the court is set to hear several legal issues raised by the government, including that California lacks standing to sue.
