Troop Withdrawal Reshapes Los Angeles Streets After Federal Crackdown on Immigration Protests

Over 1,000 National Guard Troops Begin Exit from Los Angeles

More than 1,000 National Guard troops are departing Los Angeles following a major rollback of federal military presence in the city. The decision to scale back comes after weeks of national scrutiny and growing local opposition to the unprecedented deployment, which had been authorized to suppress protests against federal immigration raids.

Approximately 1,350 troops are now leaving, while around 250 will remain stationed to protect federal facilities and personnel, according to an official statement. This marks one of the final phases in a military presence that has been steadily declining over the past month.

Initial Deployment Sparked Controversy and Legal Pushback

In June, the federal government ordered the deployment of around 4,000 California National Guard troops and 700 active-duty Marines to Los Angeles. The goal was to quell mounting demonstrations against immigration enforcement operations that had ignited large-scale protests across the state.

This deployment was notable not only for its size but also for its controversial legal standing. It was the first time in nearly six decades that federal forces had been deployed to a U.S. city without the consent of the state’s governor. Legal experts described the move as highly irregular, citing concerns about the use of military power in a largely civilian, non-combat context.

The Marines, initially deployed alongside the National Guard, were quietly withdrawn on July 21.

Limited Clarity on Troop Responsibilities Raised Concerns

Although the federal mandate allowed troops to "protect federal personnel and property," there was little public clarity on what that entailed in practice. While some Guard members were stationed at detention centers and federal buildings in Los Angeles, reports emerged of their involvement in broader operations — including accompanying immigration officers on raids well outside the city.

This expansion of duties only intensified criticism from civil rights groups and state officials, many of whom argued the military should never have been deployed in the first place.

Local Leaders Applaud Withdrawal, Call It Long Overdue

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass welcomed the latest drawdown, describing it as a victory for the city’s sustained resistance to the federal presence. “Another win for Los Angeles tonight,” she posted online. “1,000 more troops are retreating. We will continue this pressure until all troops are out of L.A.”

The move was also hailed by California Governor Gavin Newsom, who had publicly challenged the legality of the deployment from the outset. In a written statement, Newsom criticized the action as "political theater" and called for a complete end to what he described as “illegal militarization.”

Protests Largely Peaceful Despite Federal Framing

The original justification for the deployment was the potential for civil unrest during anti-immigration protests. While some isolated incidents of violence did occur — including thrown objects and property damage — most demonstrations remained peaceful and confined to a limited downtown area.

Despite this, the federal government labeled the protesters as ‘looters’ and ‘insurrectionists,’ language that drew significant backlash from both local leaders and the public.

In some cases, the heightened military presence had unintended side effects. Businesses temporarily suspended operations, and autonomous vehicle services halted activity after their cars were vandalized during the protests.

Federal-State Tensions Continue Amid Legal Challenges

The deployment not only stirred public unrest but also triggered legal challenges. The state of California filed suit, arguing the federal government had overstepped its constitutional authority by bypassing the governor’s approval.

The back-and-forth between state and federal leaders became emblematic of a larger power struggle, with both sides accusing the other of escalating tensions unnecessarily.

A Step Toward De-Escalation, but Questions Remain

As troops continue their exit from Los Angeles, the city takes a tentative step toward normalcy. Yet many questions remain unanswered — about the cost, the legality, and the long-term implications of deploying military force in response to civilian protest.

While the drawdown may signal an end to this specific chapter, it has left behind a legacy of deep political division and concern about the use of federal power in matters traditionally handled by local authorities.Troop Withdrawal Reshapes Los Angeles Streets After Federal Crackdown on Immigration Protests

Over 1,000 National Guard Troops Begin Exit from Los Angeles

More than 1,000 National Guard troops are departing Los Angeles following a major rollback of federal military presence in the city. The decision to scale back comes after weeks of national scrutiny and growing local opposition to the unprecedented deployment, which had been authorized to suppress protests against federal immigration raids.

Approximately 1,350 troops are now leaving, while around 250 will remain stationed to protect federal facilities and personnel, according to an official statement. This marks one of the final phases in a military presence that has been steadily declining over the past month.

Initial Deployment Sparked Controversy and Legal Pushback

In June, the federal government ordered the deployment of around 4,000 California National Guard troops and 700 active-duty Marines to Los Angeles. The goal was to quell mounting demonstrations against immigration enforcement operations that had ignited large-scale protests across the state.

This deployment was notable not only for its size but also for its controversial legal standing. It was the first time in nearly six decades that federal forces had been deployed to a U.S. city without the consent of the state’s governor. Legal experts described the move as highly irregular, citing concerns about the use of military power in a largely civilian, non-combat context.

The Marines, initially deployed alongside the National Guard, were quietly withdrawn on July 21.

Limited Clarity on Troop Responsibilities Raised Concerns

Although the federal mandate allowed troops to "protect federal personnel and property," there was little public clarity on what that entailed in practice. While some Guard members were stationed at detention centers and federal buildings in Los Angeles, reports emerged of their involvement in broader operations — including accompanying immigration officers on raids well outside the city.

This expansion of duties only intensified criticism from civil rights groups and state officials, many of whom argued the military should never have been deployed in the first place.

Local Leaders Applaud Withdrawal, Call It Long Overdue

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass welcomed the latest drawdown, describing it as a victory for the city’s sustained resistance to the federal presence. “Another win for Los Angeles tonight,” she posted online. “1,000 more troops are retreating. We will continue this pressure until all troops are out of L.A.”

The move was also hailed by California Governor Gavin Newsom, who had publicly challenged the legality of the deployment from the outset. In a written statement, Newsom criticized the action as "political theater" and called for a complete end to what he described as “illegal militarization.”

Protests Largely Peaceful Despite Federal Framing

The original justification for the deployment was the potential for civil unrest during anti-immigration protests. While some isolated incidents of violence did occur — including thrown objects and property damage — most demonstrations remained peaceful and confined to a limited downtown area.

Despite this, the federal government labeled the protesters as ‘looters’ and ‘insurrectionists,’ language that drew significant backlash from both local leaders and the public.

In some cases, the heightened military presence had unintended side effects. Businesses temporarily suspended operations, and autonomous vehicle services halted activity after their cars were vandalized during the protests.

Federal-State Tensions Continue Amid Legal Challenges

The deployment not only stirred public unrest but also triggered legal challenges. The state of California filed suit, arguing the federal government had overstepped its constitutional authority by bypassing the governor’s approval.

The back-and-forth between state and federal leaders became emblematic of a larger power struggle, with both sides accusing the other of escalating tensions unnecessarily.

A Step Toward De-Escalation, but Questions Remain

As troops continue their exit from Los Angeles, the city takes a tentative step toward normalcy. Yet many questions remain unanswered — about the cost, the legality, and the long-term implications of deploying military force in response to civilian protest.

While the drawdown may signal an end to this specific chapter, it has left behind a legacy of deep political division and concern about the use of federal power in matters traditionally handled by local authorities.