Troops and marines deeply troubled by LA deployment: ‘Morale is not great'
California national guards troops and marines deployed to Los Angeles to help restore order after days of protest against the Trump administration have told friends and family members they are deeply unhappy about the assignment and worry their only meaningful role will be as pawns in a political battle they do not want to join.
Three different advocacy organisations representing military families said they had heard from dozens of affected service members who expressed discomfort about being drawn into a domestic policing operation outside their normal field of operations. The groups said they have heard no countervailing opinions.
'The sentiment across the board right now is that deploying military force against our own communities isn't the kind of national security we signed up for,' said Sarah Streyder of the Secure Families Initiative, which represents the interests of military spouses, children and veterans.
Related: Families arrested in LA Ice raids held in basements with little food or water, lawyers say
'Families are scared not just for their loved ones' safety, although that's a big concern, but also for what their service is being used to justify.'
Chris Purdy of the Chamberlain Network, whose stated mission is to 'mobilize and empower veterans to protect democracy', said he had heard similar things from half a dozen national guard members. 'Morale is not great, is the quote I keep hearing,' he said.
The marines and the California national guard did not respond to invitations to comment.
Trump has taken the unusual step of ordering 4,000 national guard members to Los Angeles without the consent of California's governor, Gavin Newsom, saying that the city risked being 'obliterated' by violent protesters without them. Earlier this week, he also activated 700 marines from the Twentynine Palms base two hours' drive to the east, describing Los Angeles as a 'trash heap' that was in danger of burning to the ground.
In reality, the anti-Trump protests – called first in response to aggressive federal roundups of undocumented immigrants, then in anger at the national guard deployment – have been largely peaceful and restricted to just a few blocks around downtown federal buildings. The Los Angeles police has made hundreds of arrests in response to acts of violence and vandalism around the protests, and the city's mayor, Karen Bass, has instituted a night-time curfew – all with minimal input from the federal authorities.
At the largest demonstration since Trump first intervened, last Sunday, the national guard was hemmed into a staging area by Los Angeles police cruisers and played almost no role in crowd control. Since then, its service members have been deployed to guard buildings and federal law enforcement convoys conducting immigration sweeps. The marines, who arrived on Wednesday, are expected to play a similar function, with no powers of arrest.
Newsom has described the deployment as 'a provocation, not just an escalation' and accused the White House of mistreating the service members it was activating. A widely circulated photograph, later confirmed as authentic by the Pentagon, showed national guard members sleeping on a concrete loading dock floor without bedding, and the San Francisco Chronicle reported that the troops arrived with no lodging, insufficient portable toilets and no funds for food or water.
A pair of YouGov polls published on Tuesday show public disapproval of both the national guard and marines deployments, as well as disapproval of Trump's immigrant deportation policies. A Washington Post poll published on Wednesday came up with similar findings, but with slightly narrower margins.
Active service members are prohibited by law from speaking publicly about their work. But Streyder, of the Secure Families Initiative, said she had heard dozens of complaints indirectly through their families. She had also seen a written comment passed along to her organization from a national guard member who described the assignment as 'shitty' – particularly compared with early secondments to help with wildfire relief or, during the Covid pandemic, vaccination outreach.
'Both of those experiences were uncomplicatedly positive, a contribution back to the community,' Streyder described the message as saying. 'This is quite the opposite.'
According to Janessa Goldbeck, a Marine Corps veteran who runs the Vet Voice Foundation, the feeling was similar among some of the troops being sent from Twentynine Palms.
'Among all that I spoke with, the feeling was that the marines are being used as political pawns, and it strains the perception that marines are apolitical,' Goldbeck said. 'Some were concerned that the Marines were being set up for failure. The overall perception was that the situation was nowhere at the level where marines were necessary.'
The advocates said it was important to draw a distinction between the personal political preferences of service members, many if not most of whom voted for Trump last November, and the higher principle that military personnel should not get involved in politics or politically motivated missions that blur lines of responsibility with civilian agencies.
'We tend to be uniquely apolitical, as an institution and with each other,' Streyder said. 'The military is a tool that should be used as a last resort, not a first response… It does not feel that the tool is being calibrated accurately to the situation.'
The discontent may not be limited to California. In Texas, where the governor, Greg Abbott, called out the national guard on Wednesday in San Antonio, Austin and other cities expecting anti-Trump protests, guardsmen have a history of feeling poorly treated in the workplace if not outright misused, Purdy of the Chamberlain Network said.
After Abbott requisitioned the guard in 2021 to help police the Mexican border – a controversial policy codenamed Operation Lone Star – there were bitter complaints among guard members about the length and nature of an assignment that largely duplicated the work of the federal Border Patrol. Several guardsmen took their own lives.
The LA operations are also sparking safety concerns because of complications inherent in pairing military and domestic police officers, advocates say, since they are trained very differently and use different vocabulary to handle emergency situations. In one infamous episode during the 1992 Los Angeles riots – the last time the military were called out to restore order in southern California – a police officer on patrol turned to his marines counterparts and said 'cover me', meaning be ready with your weapon to make sure I stay safe.
To the marines, though, 'cover me' meant open fire immediately, which they did, unloading more than 200 M16 rounds into a house where the police had a tip about a possible domestic abuser. By sheer luck, nobody was hurt.
CJ Chivers, a New York Times reporter who was with the marines in Los Angeles in 1992 and witnessed the tail-end of this near-calamity, wrote years later of his mixed feelings about the assignment: 'The Marines' presence in greater Los Angeles… felt unnecessary,' he said. 'I'd like to say we understood the context of the role we were given … But domestic crowd control had never been our specialty.'
Streyder and the other advocates concurred. 'Domestic law enforcement and the military are entirely separate functions, manned by separate people who have been given separate training, who come from different cultures,' Streyder said. 'As military families, we rely implicitly on that separation being honored and remaining clear.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
16 minutes ago
- The Hill
Israeli Ambassador: ‘Objective is not to contain the war' but ‘win the war' against Iran
Israeli ambassador to the United States, Yechiel Leiter, said the goal in the war against Iran is not to contain it but to win it, as the two countries continue to exchange strikes for a third day. During an appearance on ABC's 'This Week,' host Martha Raddatz asked Leiter how Israel would avoid escalating and attempt to contain the war. 'Martha, the objective is not to contain the war,' Leiter responded. 'The objective is to win the war.' 'Eighty years ago, we had a little man with a mustache running around Europe that nobody believed him when he said he was going to destroy the Jewish people,' he continued. 'We lost 6 million. Now we've got a crazed new Hitler running around the Middle East saying he's going to destroy us. 'We have to take him at face value… He's got a concrete plan to destroy us.' Her comments come after Israel and Iran continued to exchange airstrikes on Sunday. Another round of U.S.-Iranian nuclear talks was scheduled in Muscat, Oman, but was cancelled amid the fighting. When Raddatz mentioned that Trump did not want Israel to strike Iran because it would 'blow it,' Leiter said Trump was 'congratulatory about our strike,' noting that he had been given a 'heads-up' by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. When pushed further on whether Israel would accept a deal between Iran and Israel, Leiter said not unless Iran is willing to halt the nuclear program entirely. 'He wants the nuclear program in Iran to be halted in its entirety,' Leiter said. 'He said it very clearly: dismantle the centrifuges, dismantle the infrastructure, and stop in total the enrichment of uranium. So, if that can be achieved through negotiation, so be it. We'll be very happy. But it hasn't been.'


CNN
16 minutes ago
- CNN
Trump wary of increasing US involvement as Israel-Iran conflict escalates
Amid ongoing waves of tit-for-tat strikes between Israel and Iran, President Donald Trump is publicly and privately making clear his desire to keep the United States out of the fray for now, wary of becoming bogged in another Middle East war and highly attuned to the changing politics of his party. Sources familiar with the matter say Israel has spoken with the US about possibly increasing its level of involvement, though one Israeli official cautioned those conversation have not yet included 'practical' discussions of the finer details. And while Trump hopes to avoid a prolonged conflict that could further destabilize the Middle East, some in the administration recognize that American military assistance may help Israel conclude its objectives more quickly, the sources said. 'We're not involved in it. It's possible we could get involved. But we are not at this moment involved,' Trump told ABC News on Sunday morning. The competing interests have created a complicated dynamic for a president eager to make good on his pledge to bring peace to the world's troubled regions. Since Israel launched its first attack early Friday morning, the US has offered defensive support to Israel intercepting an onslaught of Iranian reprisal strikes. But Trump has stopped well short of joining Israel's military in its attempts to dismantle Iran's nuclear facilities, resisting pressure from fellow Republicans to join the fight. He said in a social media post Saturday that he felt the conflict 'should end' as he continues to hold out hope for a negotiated agreement that would curb Tehran's nuclear ambitions, even after planned talks this weekend in Oman between the US and Iranian negotiating teams were called off. At stake is Trump's promise to act as a global peacemaker — or, as he told his inaugural crowd in January, to 'bring a new spirit of unity to a world that has been angry, violent and totally unpredictable.' That vow has already been tested by his inability to bring about an end to the Ukraine conflict and halting efforts to stop the fighting in Gaza. Now, as a new flashpoint is threatening to spiral out of control on Trump's watch, the commander-in-chief is attempting to limit US involvement. 'The U.S. had nothing to do with the attack on Iran, tonight,' Trump wrote on Truth Social late Saturday amid a fresh round of attacks in the region. 'If we are attacked in any way, shape or form by Iran, the full strength and might of the U.S. Armed Forces will come down on you at levels never seen before. However, we can easily get a deal done between Iran and Israel, and end this bloody conflict!!!' The post sent the message that Trump's line for getting more directly involved in Israel's assaults would be an attack on American facilities or personnel in the region. Short of that, the US role in the conflict so far has largely been defensive. The Israeli operation against Iran is expected to take 'weeks, not days' and is moving forward with implicit US approval, according to White House and Israeli officials. The Trump administration has not critiqued the weeks-long timeframe in private discussions, an Israeli official told CNN. A White House official said the administration was aware and implicitly supportive of Israel's plans. When asked about how long the conflict could continue, the official said it depended on Iran's response. 'The Trump administration firmly believes this can be solved by continuing negotiations with the US,' the official said, adding that the US was not going to direct Israel to do anything but defend itself. American military planners have long had prepared options for joint US-Israeli actions against Iranian facilities should a US president ultimately decide to try taking out Iran's nuclear facilities, some of which are buried deep underground. There is little to indicate Trump has come close to approving such options, however, and according to an Israeli official, the possibility of offensive US support for Israel's strikes inside Iran had not been discussed on a 'practical basis.' 'We are not there, on a practical basis,' the Israeli official said. 'If at some point, the United States decides to take an offensive role, I don't think we'll be in a position to try and talk them out of it – but that's not our ask,' the official said, adding that such a move would be a sovereign decision of the US. The official explained that the endgame is to make sure that Iran is 'no longer an existential threat' to Israel, with both its nuclear and ballistic missiles program. 'If it's done in conjunction with allies, fine, but if it's not done in conjunction with allies, we have to do it ourselves,' the official said. Inside the White House, there continues to be heavy skepticism about getting involved in the conflict further, according to multiple officials familiar with the matter. Trump remains concerned about getting dragged into a war he didn't start and wanted to avoid, and is acutely aware of the complicated politics at play, those officials said. Though he publicly warned Israel against launching an attack on Iran ahead of Friday's strikes, he said afterward he was supportive of the effort and well aware that it was being planned. Prev Next Trump has long promised not to engage in 'nation building' adventurism overseas, decrying his predecessors for sending American troops to die in wars that generated little benefit back home. 'For at least two decades, political leaders from both parties have dragged our military into missions it was never meant to be' a part of, said Trump told graduating cadets at West Point last month. 'They sent our warriors on nation-building crusades to nations that wanted nothing to do with us, led by leaders that didn't have a clue in distant lands,' he said, vowing to never repeat the mistake. Now, however, he is under pressure from some of his Republican allies to take a more interventionist role. 'If diplomacy fails, going all in for Israel shows that America is back as a reliable ally and a strong force against oppression. It would strengthen our hand in all corners of the world, as well as all other conflicts we face,' Sen. Lindsey Graham wrote on X last week.


CNN
17 minutes ago
- CNN
‘We cannot move in this direction as a nation': Panel reacts to Minnesota assassination
CNN Political Commentators Shermichael Singleton, Karen Finney, Brad Todd and former Democratic Congressman Andy Levin join CNN's Dana Bash to discuss the growing trend of political violence in America, as well as broader protests against President Trump.