The US Army has announced that the cost of deploying approximately 5.000 soldiers to Los Angeles for 60 days will be $134 million. This huge expenditure has brought to the forefront both the financial burden of military operations and the political and legal debates behind this deployment. The statement made by Pentagon interim treasurer Bryn MacDonnell to the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee has initiated a deep debate on the use of military force in domestic security matters.
Details and Justification of Deployment
According to Defense News, the cost of deploying about 5.000 National Guard and Marine Corps personnel to Los Angeles will be covered by the Department of Defense’s operations and maintenance budget. This spending will cover the soldiers’ travel, housing, food and other logistics. The Pentagon has approved the deployment of 4.000 National Guard soldiers and 700 active-duty Marines to the Los Angeles area following protests against the Trump administration’s mass deportation policies. The troops are tasked with protecting federal immigration authorities and public buildings.
Democrats' Response and Legal Arguments
The military deployment was widely criticized by local California officials and members of the Democratic Party, particularly in California, as an “unnecessary escalation.” A case was made for the troop withdrawal, and the cost explanation came to the fore during a heated House hearing in which Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testified. California Representative Pete Aguilar questioned the rationale for deploying active-duty soldiers. Throughout the session, several Democratic lawmakers raised the legal basis and implications of the mandate.
Minister Hegseth, in his defense, stated, “President Donald Trump believes in the principle of law and order, he has full authority for this deployment.” However, Aguilar reminded that the mission was legally controversial and that according to US law, the use of the military in internal security duties could only be possible with the activation of the Insurrection Act. This situation once again highlighted the importance of the Posse Comitatus Act. This law largely prohibits the US military from acting as internal law enforcement unless legally permitted.
Expert Opinions and Concerns of “Politicization”
Many defense experts and former Pentagon officials say the deployment is technically legal, but the military’s involvement in homeland security has created a “troubling” situation in terms of politicizing military power and interfering with homeland security missions. Additionally, deployed troops are legally prohibited from acting directly as law enforcement officers. But the military’s duty to protect federal property and personnel can sometimes blur the boundaries in practice.
The Trump administration’s revival of this step, following similar deployments that were ended by the Biden administration in 2021, has increased criticism of “politically motivated military use,” especially at a time when the election atmosphere is entering. Concerns are being expressed that such deployments could undermine the impartiality of military personnel and the public’s trust in the military.
Statement from the White House and Trump's Position
White House Press Briefing on June 7 Sözcüs Karoline Leavitt announced that Donald Trump signed a memorandum in California that calls for the “deployment of 2.000 National Guardsmen to combat lawlessness” in the state as protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations continue. Sözcü“In the wake of this violence, California’s irresponsible Democratic leaders have completely abdicated their responsibility to protect their citizens. That’s why President Trump has signed a Presidential Memorandum deploying 2.000 National Guardsmen to address the lawlessness that has been allowed to fester,” he said. This statement demonstrates that the Trump administration continues to strongly emphasize “law and order” in homeland security.
Future Reflections and Continuity of Discussions
This military deployment in Los Angeles has once again reignited ongoing debates in the United States about domestic security, the use of military force, and the boundaries of authority between federal and state authorities. The $134 million cost raises questions about how taxpayer money is spent on such operations, while the legal and ethical dimensions continue to be intensely debated in the public. Whether such steps will further deepen the polarization of US domestic politics remains to be seen.
