Montana National Guard Under Investigation After Allegedly Using a Helicopter to Steal Shed Antlers
The chief administrative officer for the Montana National Guard has acknowledged some starting allegations involving multiple servicemen, stolen shed antlers, and an unauthorized helicopter landing on a private ranch. In a statement shared to Facebook Wednesday, Major General J. Peter Hronek said he was aware of the alleged incident and supported the investigation that is underway.
'Appropriate adverse and/or administrative actions will take place if the allegations are determined to be true,' Hronek wrote on Facebook around 3 p.m. on May 14. 'If true, this behavior does not align with the values of the Montana National Guard.'
The incident allegedly took place on a private ranch in Sweet Grass County near the foothills of the Crazy Mountains, according to the Big Timber Pioneer, which first broke the story Tuesday. The news outlet says the incident was first reported by ranchers David and Sandy Holman, who called a neighboring rancher after seeing a Blackhawk helicopter landing conspicuously on a neighboring parcel.
'Do you know there is an Army helicopter on your land picking up elk antlers?' the Holmans told the neighboring rancher, Linda McMullin, according to the Pioneer.
McMullen, who said she knows how valuable elk antlers are, called a game warden with Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, and the agency has confirmed that it is actively investigating the situation. No citations or charges have been filed yet in Sweet Grass County Court, but the county sheriff speculated that trespassing and theft could theoretically be on the table.
'It's not the usual trespass call,' he told the Pioneer. 'I've never seen anything like this before.'
In his statement Wednesday, Hronek noted the ongoing investigation by MFWP. This had previously been confirmed by another National Guard official, state public affairs officer Major Ryan Finnegan, who gave some additional insight into the allegations and seemed to imply that the airmen had landed on the private ranch to pick up sheds.
Read Next: Thieves Are Stealing More and More Racks From Hunters in the West — and Their Profits Keep Growing
'I had a chance to talk to our senior pilot who was in contact with the landowner,' Finnegan told reporters. 'Sounds like they have spoken twice. He reached out to ask to be able to give an in-person apology and to coordinate returning the items.'
McMullen also confirmed with reporters that she had spoken with a National Guard official after the alleged incident took place. She said the official told her they would meet in person to bring back the antlers, and then asked her not to press charges. McMullen said 'they should have thought about' what it might mean for their military career before they decided to go through with it.
'Misuse of military equipment erodes the trust we strive to uphold with the people of Montana,' General Hronek said of the allegations. 'Every member of the Montana National Guard is expected to uphold the highest standards of integrity, responsibility, and respect for the law.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
WIRED
15 minutes ago
- WIRED
The ‘Long-Term Danger' of Trump Sending Troops to the LA Protests
Jun 10, 2025 12:24 PM President Trump's deployment of more than 700 Marines to Los Angeles—following ICE raids and mass protests—has ignited a fierce national debate over state sovereignty and civil-military boundaries. LAPD officers and National Guard soldiers stand on patrol as demonstrators protest outside a jail in downtown Los Angeles following two days of clashes with police during a series of immigration raids on June 8, 2025. Photograph:As hundreds of United States Marines deploy in Los Angeles under presidential orders to protect federal property amid growing protests over immigration enforcement, constitutional scholars and civil rights attorneys warn of long-term implications for American democracy and civil-military relations. President Donald Trump revealed Monday that he had ordered the deployment of more than 700 activity-duty Marines out of Camp Pendleton—an extraordinary use of military force in response to civil unrest. The move, widely condemned by his critics, follows Trump's federalization of the National Guard. Some 3,800 guardsmen have since been deployed in California against the objections of its government, spurring debate among legal observers over the limits of the president's power to send troops into American streets. Trump ordered the deployments in response to thousands of Angelenos who took to the streets on Friday in protests. LA residents responded after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents carried out sweeping raids of local businesses, arresting, among others, dozens of day laborers who were vying for work outside a local Home Depot. Larger demonstrations soon formed and remained largely peaceful until residents were engaged by police with riot shields and crowd control weapons. Over the weekend, the clashes between police and protesters escalated across many neighborhoods with large immigrant populations. Numerous buildings were vandalized with anti-ICE messages, and several Waymo autonomous vehicles were set ablaze. Videos captured by protest attendees show police firing upon demonstrators with rubber bullets and other crowd control agents, including waves of asphyxiating CS gas. Members of the press shared images online showing injuries they incurred from the police assault. In widely shared footage, a Los Angeles police officer appears to intentionally target an Australian reporter, Lauren Tomasi, shooting her from feet away with a rubber bullet as she delivers a monologue into a camera. On Monday, CNN correspondent Jason Carroll was arrested live on air. California governor Gavin Newsom condemned Trump's troop deployment in posts on social media, calling the president's actions an 'unmistakable step toward authoritarianism.' His attorney general, Rob Bonata, has filed a lawsuit in federal court claiming the order violated the state's sovereignty, infringing on Newsom's authority as the California National Guard's commander in chief. In response to a request for comment, the Department of Defense referred WIRED to a US Northern Command press release detailing the deployment of Marines and National Guardsmen. Federal troops in the United States are ordinarily barred from participating in civilian law enforcement activities. This rule, known as 'posse comitatus,' may be suspended, however, by a sitting president in cases of civil unrest or outright rebellion. This exception—permitted under the Insurrection Act—allows the president to deploy troops when circumstances make it 'impracticable' for state authorities to enforce federal law by 'ordinary' means. While these powers are most often invoked at the request of a state government, the president may also invoke the act when a state chooses to ignore the constitutional rights of its inhabitants—as happened multiple times in the mid-20th century, when southern states refused to desegregate schools after the Supreme Court's landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision. President Trump, however, has so far not invoked the Insurrection Act, relying instead on a theory of 'inherent authority' advanced by the US Justice Department in 1971 during the height of the anti–Vietnam War protests. This interpretation of presidential power finds that troops may be deployed in an effort to 'protect federal property and functions.' Notably—unlike the Insurrection Act—this does not permit troops to engage in activities that are generally the purview of civilian law enforcement agencies. Trump also invoked statutory power granted to him by Congress under Title 10 of the US Code, which enabled him to federalize elements of California's National Guard. These activations typically occur when guardsmen are needed to support overseas military operations, as happened routinely this century during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Domestically, however, guardsmen are not usually federalized without the agreement of a state's governor—unless the Insurrection Act has been invoked. Legal experts interviewed by WIRED offered a range of opinions on the president's authority to deploy active-duty military troops or federalize the National Guard. While most believe it is likely within Trump's power to ignore Newsom's express objections, doing so without an invocation of the Insurrection Act, they say, is a decision fraught with legal complexities that carries serious implications, from altering—perhaps permanently—the fundamental relationship between Americans, states, and the federal government, to disturbing the delicate balance between civilian governance and military power. Liza Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program, underscores the 'unprecedented' nature of Trump's approach. 'He's trying to basically exercise the powers of the Insurrection Act without invoking it,' she says. A key issue for Goitein is that the memorandum signed by Trump last week federalizing the National Guard makes no mention of Los Angeles or California. Rather, it states that the guardsmen are being mobilized to address protests that are both 'occurring' and 'likely to occur.' In essence, the memo 'authorizes the deployment of federal troops anywhere in the country,' Goitein says, 'including places where there are no protests yet. We're talking about preemptive deployment.' Goitein argues that the administration's justifications could undermine both judicial accountability and civil‑military boundaries. Under the Insurrection Act, federal troops can take on the responsibilities of local and state police. But without it, their authority should be quite limited. Neither the guardsmen nor the Marines, for instance, should engage with protesters acting peacefully, according to Goitein. 'He says they're there to protect federal property,' she says. 'But it looks a lot like quelling civil unrest.' Anthony Kuhn, a 28-year US Army veteran and managing partner at Tully Rinckey, believes, meanwhile, that there is really 'no question' that Trump would be justified in declaring a 'violent rebellion' underway in California, empowering him to ignore Newsom's objections. The images and video of protesters hurling rocks and other items at police and lighting cars on fire all serve as evidence toward that conclusion. 'I know people in California, the governor, the mayor, are trying to frame it as a protest. But at this point,' says Kuhn, 'it's a violent rebellion. You can draw your own conclusions from the pictures and videos floating around.' Kuhn argues that the intentions of the protesters, the politics fueling the demonstrations, don't matter. 'They're attacking federal facilities. They're destroying federal property. So in an attempt to restore the peace, the president has the authority under Title 10 to deploy troops. It's pretty straightforward.' In contrast, Rutgers University professor Bruce Afran says deploying military forces against Americans is 'completely unconstitutional' in the absence of a true state of domestic insurrection. 'There was an attack on ICE's offices, the doorways, there was some graffiti, there were images of protesters breaking into a guardhouse, which was empty,' he says. 'But even if it went to the point of setting a car on fire, that's not a domestic insurrection. That's a protest that is engaged in some illegality. And we have civil means to punish it without the armed forces.' Afran argues that meddling with the expectations of civilians, who naturally anticipate interacting with police but not armed soldiers, can fundamentally alter the relationship between citizens and their government, even blurring the line between democracy and authoritarianism. 'The long-term danger is that we come to accept the role of the army in regulating civilian protest instead of allowing local law enforcement to do the job,' he says. 'And once we accept that new paradigm—to use a kind of BS word—the relationship between the citizen and the government is altered forever.' 'Violent rioters in Los Angeles, enabled by Democrat governor Gavin Newsom, have attacked American law enforcement, set cars on fire, and fueled lawless chaos," Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, tells WIRED. "President Trump rightfully stepped in to protect federal law enforcement officers. When Democrat leaders refuse to protect American citizens, President Trump will always step in.' As the orders to mobilize federal troops have come down, some users on social media have urged service members to consider the orders unlawful and refuse to obey—a move that legal experts say would be very difficult to pull off. David Coombs, a lecturer in criminal procedure and military law at the University of Buffalo and a veteran of the US Army's Judge Advocate General's Corps, says it's hypothetically possible that troops could question whether Trump has the authority to mobilize state guardsmen over the objection of a state governor. 'I think ultimately the answer to that will be yes,' he says. 'But it is a gray area. When you look at the chain of command, it envisions the governor controlling all of these individuals.' Separately, says Coombs, when troops are ordered to mobilize, they could—again, hypothetically—refuse to engage in activities that are beyond the scope of the president's orders, such as carrying out immigration raids or making arrests. 'All they can do in this case, under Title 10 status, is protect the safety of federal personnel and property. If you go beyond that, then it violates the Posse Comitatus Act.' Federal troops, for instance, would need civilian police to step in. At the point, authorities want peaceful protesters to disperse. The San Francisco Chronicle reports that, in a letter on Sunday, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem requested that military troops be directed to detain alleged 'lawbreakers' during protests 'or arrest them,' which legal experts almost universally agree would be illegal under ordinary circumstances. The letter was addressed to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and accused the anti-ICE protesters of being 'violent, insurrectionist mobs' aiming to 'protect invaders and military aged males belonging to identified foreign terrorist organizations.' Khun, who warns there's a big difference between philosophizing over what constitutes an unlawful order and disobeying commands, dismisses the idea that troops, in the heat of the moment, will have an option. 'It's not going to be litigated in the middle of an actual deployment,' he says. 'There's no immediate relief, no immediate way to prove that an order is unlawful.' Khun says that were he deployed into a similar situation, 'me and my junior soldiers would not respond to a nonviolent or peaceful protest.' Asked what protesters should expect, should they engage with federal troops trained for combat overseas, Kuhn says the Marines will hold their ground more firmly than police, who are often forced to retreat as mobs approach. In addition to being armed with the same crowd control weapons, Marines are extensively trained in close-quarters combat. 'I would expect a defensive response,' he says, 'but not lethal force.' Additional reporting by Alexa O'Brien.
Los Angeles Times
20 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Lack of coordination over military deployment poses ‘significant' challenge as immigration protests continue
Hundreds of Marines are expected to stand guard in Los Angeles on Tuesday following another night of unrest in downtown Los Angeles that resulted in arrests and a handful of businesses burglarized. The deployment of 700 active-duty U.S. Marines comes despite California officials insistence that federal help isn't necessary and is actually escalating tensions between authorities and protesters. L.A. Police Chief Jim McDonnell said the deployment poses a 'significant' challenge to law enforcement's efforts to protect the city. McDonnell said Monday afternoon that his department had not received any formal notification that the Marines would be arriving in L.A. 'The possible arrival of federal military forces in Los Angeles — absent clear coordination — presents a significant logistical and operational challenge for those of us tasked with safeguarding this city,' he said. 'The Los Angeles Police Department, alongside our mutual aid partners, have decades of experience managing public demonstrations, and we remain confident in our ability to do so effectively and professionally.' L.A. Mayor Karen Bass also decried the deployment saying, 'We didn't need the National Guard, why on earth? What are they [Marines] going to do?' There have been intense but isolated clashes between protesters and law enforcement for several days as immigration arrests continue across Southern California. Monday's protests were largely calmer than Sunday's melees, which left a trail of foam bullets around the city's center, buildings vandalized, Waymo's set ablaze and many protesters injured from the munitions. Local officials have urged protesters to remain peaceful. Assemblymember Mark González, who represents downtown, said the violence and destruction in Little Tokyo and parts of downtown is 'completely unacceptable.' 'Tagging historic landmarks, launching fireworks at officers, and terrorizing residents is not protest — it's destruction,' he said. 'If you're out here chasing clout while our neighbors are scared and storefronts are boarded up — you're not helping, you're harming. You're playing right into Trump's hands and undermining the very movement you claim to support.' The Marines are expected to join the roughly 1700 California National Guard soldiers in Los Angeles to help protect federal agents and buildings. On Monday evening, a military convoy was seen traveling from Twentynine Palms toward Los Angeles. As midnight approached in downtown, officers used less-lethal munitions and tear gas as they clashed with a few dozen people who remained in downtown Los Angeles. Earlier in the day, a crowd of several hundred rallied in front of the federal building. Officers moved in the late afternoon to push the throng away from the buildings that had been the focus of Sunday's protests and steadily pushed them into Little Tokyo, with the crowd thinning with each push. A few dozen protesters remained scattered around Little Tokyo around 10 p.m. Officers were shooting flash-bangs and less-lethal munitions, while the protesters tried to erect a barrier with recycling bins. At least one car window was shattered, sending glass shards shooting into the crowd. In Orange County, where protesters gathered in front of federal buildings in downtown Santa Ana, police used tear gas, pepper balls and rubber bullets to clear crowds following reports of protesters throwing objects at police. 'What began as a lawful assembly around the Civic Center Plaza, has escalated into objects being thrown towards officers and other members of the public, posing a risk to public safety, property, and the well-being of our community,' the Santa Ana Police Department said in a statement on X. Immigration enforcement agents were spotted Monday at a courthouse and library in Whittier, Home Depots in Huntington Park and Santa Ana and businesses in Fountain Valley, according to officials and media reports. In an interview with Jesse Watters on Fox News on Monday, 'border czar' Tom Homan said that Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids will continue in Los Angeles, in part because of so-called 'sanctuary city' policies that restrict how local law enforcement can cooperate with federal immigration agents. 'ICE ain't leaving,' Homan said, adding that the agency had more than 100 teams working in L.A. on Monday.'We're gonna flood the zone,' 'And based on what L.A. is doing now, we're going to continue to flood the zone. We're gonna be there tonight, we're gonna be there tomorrow, we're going to be there every day in the next four years, arresting public safety threats and illegal aliens. We're not gonna apologize for doing it.' Staff writers Seema Mehta and Laura J. Nelson contributed to this report
Newsweek
30 minutes ago
- Newsweek
More Hispanics Disapprove of Los Angeles Protests Than Approve—Poll
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. More Hispanic Americans disapprove than approve of the Los Angeles protests over President Donald Trump's mass deportations, according to a new poll. Why It Matters U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have conducted raids across the country and have faced large protests in Los Angeles, as Trump's administration pledged to carry out the largest mass deportations in U.S. history. While most protesters were peaceful, there has been violence on the ground. Trump has deployed California's National Guard to assist in quelling the violence, despite objections from Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, and other local officials who said bringing in the National Guard would only escalate the situation. While the raids are following legal directive from federal authorities, protests have erupted amid reports that detainees were being held in the basement of a federal building. ICE denied these allegations, with a spokesperson previously telling Newsweek the agency "categorically refutes the assertions made by immigration activists in Los Angeles." What to Know The protests have drawn national attention and divided Americans as immigration remains a major issue facing the country. Protesters have raised concerns about migrants—many of whom, but not all, are from Latin American countries—facing deportation regardless of whether they have committed violent crimes under Trump's policies. The Mexican flag has emerged as a symbol of the protests. A demonstrator waves a Mexico flag during anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles on June 9, 2025. A demonstrator waves a Mexico flag during anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles on June 9, 2025. RINGO CHIU/AFP via Getty Images A new poll from YouGov reveals how Americans view the protests. A plurality of all Americans, including Hispanic Americans, view the protests negatively. Forty-four percent of Hispanic respondents said they disapprove of the protests, while 39 percent said they approve of them. An additional 17 percent were unsure how they felt. Across all racial and ethnic groups, 45 percent disapproved and 36 percent approved of the protests, according to the poll, which surveyed 4,231 U.S. adults on June 9, 2025. The pollster also found that 38 percent of Americans believe the protests have been mostly peaceful, while 36 percent say they have been mostly violent. Twenty-six percent said they were not sure. Still, 50 percent of Americans—including 55 percent of Hispanic Americans—said they disapprove of Trump's handling of deportation. Thirty-nine percent of Americans, including 35 percent of Hispanic Americans, approve of his handling of deportations. What People Are Saying Governor Gavin Newsom posted on X, formerly Twitter, on Sunday: "I have formally requested the Trump administration rescind their unlawful deployment of troops in Los Angeles County and return them to my command. We didn't have a problem until Trump got involved. This is a serious breach of state sovereignty—inflaming tensions while pulling resources from where they're actually needed. Rescind the order. Return control to California." President Donald Trump, in a post to Truth Social on Tuesday: "If I didn't "SEND IN THE TROOPS" to Los Angeles the last three nights, that once beautiful and great City would be burning to the ground right now, much like 25,000 houses burned to the ground in L.A. due to an incompetent Governor and Mayor." What Happens Next As protests continued, U.S. Marines were also expected to head into Los Angeles on Tuesday following an order from Trump. Coordinated nationwide protests against Trump and his administration's policies are also planned to take place in cities in all 50 states on the president's birthday on June 14.
