'Making America militarized again': Use of military in U.S. erodes democracy, veteran advocates say
Such incidents are happening because of the Trump administration's decision to send troops to Los Angeles, said Brandi Jones, organizing director for the Secure Families Initiative, a nonprofit that advocates for military spouses, children and veterans.
"We've heard from families who have a concern that what their loved ones have sacrificed and served in protection of the Constitution, and all the rights it guarantees, are really under siege right now in a way they could never have expected," Jones said Thursday during a virtual news conference.
On the eve of Independence Day, veterans, legal scholars and advocates for active-duty troops warned that sending troops to quell protests in California's largest city threatens democratic norms. Under a 147-year-old law, federal troops are barred from being used for civilian law enforcement.
Dan Maurer, a retired lieutenant colonel who is now a law professor at Ohio Northern University, described this state of affairs during the news conference as "exactly the situation we fought for independence from," adding that President Trump is "making America militarized again."
Though 150 National Guard troops were released from protest duty on Tuesday, according to a news release from U.S Northern Command, around 3,950 remain in Los Angeles alongside 700 Marines, who are protecting federal property from protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement actions.
Read more: As Marines arrive in L.A., military experts raise concerns: 'This could spiral out of control'
Trump has defended the deployment of troops in Los Angeles, saying on his social media platform that the city "would be burning to the ground right now" if they were not sent. He has suggested doing the same in other U.S. cities, calling the L.A. deployment "the first, perhaps of many," during an Oval Office news conference.
Troops in L.A. were federalized under Title 10 of the United States code, and their purview is narrow. They do not have the authority to arrest, only to detain individuals before handing them over to police, and they are only obligated to protect federal property and personnel, according to the U.S Northern Command.
Though Marines detained a U.S. Army veteran in early June, the most active involvement they and the National Guard have had in ICE's activity is providing security during arrests, according to reports from Reuters and the CBS show "Face the Nation."
"The administration has unnecessarily and provocatively deployed the military in a way that reflects the very fears that our founding fathers had," Maurer said. "Using the military as a police force in all but name."
"The closer they [the military] act to providing security around a perimeter ... the closer they act to detaining individuals, the closer they act to questioning individuals that are suspected of being illegal immigrants, the closer the military is pushed to that Posse Comitatus line," Maurer said, referring to the law that prohibits use of troops in a law enforcement capacity on American soil. "That is a very dangerous place to be."
Other speakers argued that the use of troops in Los Angeles jeopardizes service members, placing them in a environment they were never trained for, and pitting them against American citizens.
Read more: National Guard arrives in Los Angeles as fallout from immigration raids continues
"Our Marines are our nation's shock troops, and it's entirely inappropriate that they're deployed in the streets of Los Angeles," said Joe Plenzler, a Marine combat veteran who served as platoon commander, weapons platoon commander and company executive officer for the 2nd Batallion 7th Marines, which is now deployed in downtown L.A.
Plenzler recalled that more than half of the men he served with in 2nd Batallion came from Spanish-speaking families, and some were in this country as legal permanent residents with green cards and had yet to enjoy all the benefits of citizenship.
"Think about what might be going through their heads right now, as they're being ordered to help ICE arrest and deport hardworking people who look a lot like people they would see at their own family reunions," Plenzler said.
Plenzler also contrasted the training Marines receive with those of civilian law enforcement.
"We are not cops," Plenzler said. "Marines aren't trained in de-escalatory tactics required in community policing. We don't deploy troops in civilian settings, typically because it increases the risk of excessive force, wrongful deaths and erosion of public trust."
During the 1992 L.A. riots, Marines responded with the LAPD to a domestic dispute. One officer asked the Marines to cover him, and they, mistakenly believing he was asking them to open fire, fired 200 rounds into the home.
"Our troops are under-prepared, overstretched and overwhelmed," said Christopher Purdy, founder of the nonprofit veteran advocacy group The Chamberlain Network and a veteran of the Army National Guard.
Read more: Veterans' advocates warn of low morale amid L.A. deployment: 'This is not what we signed up for'
"Guard units doing these missions are often doing them with minimal preparation," Purdy said, stating that many units are given a single civil unrest training block a year.
"When I deployed to Iraq, we spent weeks of intense training on cultural competency, local laws and customs, how we should operate in a blend of civil and combat operations," Purdy said. "If we wouldn't accept that kind of shortcut for a combat deployment, why are we accepting it now when troops are being put out on the front line in American streets?"
Each speaker reflected on the importance of holding the federal government accountable, not only for its treatment of active-duty troops, but also for how these men and women are being used on American soil.
"I reflect this Fourth of July on both the promise and the responsibility of freedom. Military family readiness is force readiness," Jones said. "At Secure Families Initiative, we're hearing from active-duty families: You can't keep the force if families are stretched thin — or if troops are used against civilians."
Added Maurer: "The rule of law means absolutely nothing if those that we democratically entrust to enforce it faithfully ignore it at will. And I think that's where we are."
Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's tax plan won't help Tesla, but 2 other EV companies got a stock boost
Rivian and Lucid stocks rose after Trump's tax bill passed in the House. The bill extends 2017 tax cuts and ends $7,500 EV tax credits in the fall. Analysts say the credit cut could decrease Tesla's sales volume even further. President Donald Trump's tax bill led to a big stock boost for two Tesla rivals. American electric vehicle makers Rivian and Lucid rose as much as 4.6% and 8.8%, respectively, on Thursday. The gains came after an analyst note from BNP Paribas said that the two companies stand to benefit from Trump's tax bill ending EV tax credits. On Thursday, the House passed the final version of the bill, which would extend the president's 2017 tax cuts and make key changes to the tax system. The bill would also end the $7,500 EV tax credit awarded to buyers on September 30. The tax credit removal is expected to lower demand for EVs, and bigger automakers could be hit harder. Per the new bill, cars made by companies that sold more than 200,000 accepted EVs between December 31, 2009, and December 31, 2025, do not qualify for the tax credit. Tesla delivered more than 336,000 vehicles in the first quarter of 2025 alone. Rivian delivered 8,000 vehicles in the same quarter, while Lucid delivered 3,109 vehicles. Like Tesla, Rivian has been struggling with deliveries. Rivian's cars don't qualify for the tax credit, but the company has relied on a leasing loophole for customers to use it. Rivian does not qualify because a requirement mandates that a significant portion of the car battery's materials should be sourced from the US or its trade partners. Lucid vehicles qualify for the $7,500 federal EV tax credit . Tesla and Lucid are down 22% and 28.5% so far this year. Rivian's stock is down 2% in the same time period. The loss of the EV tax credit could be a big hit to Tesla, analysts say. Last month, Seth Goldstein, an equity strategist at Morningstar, told Business Insider that the expedited elimination of the EV tax credit would be "the biggest area that could impact Tesla." "Consumers have increased long-range EV choices at similar price points as Tesla," Goldstein said. "It's on Tesla to make the case for consumers to even slightly pay up today versus some other EVs." Goldstein added that tax credit elimination could decrease sales volume, which the automaker has been struggling with. JPMorgan analyst Ryan Brinkman wrote in a note last month that Trump's bill, combined with other proposed legislation, including ending the California Air Resources Board Program, threatened more than half of Tesla's 2025 profits. Brinkman said that the $7,500 consumer tax made up 19% of Tesla's 2024 earnings before interest and tax. Read the original article on Business Insider Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Tesla sales slump once again as Musk pays price for Trump ties
Tesla saw its sales fall to a three-year low as the electric car maker continues to suffer from Elon Musk's political views. Customer deliveries fell by 14 per cent in the second quarter of the year, marking one of the company's biggest ever year-over-year declines. Analysts have attributed the drop in demand for Tesla vehicles to Mr Musk's allegiance to US President Donald Trump, which has seen the company's share price drop by more than a quarter since he took office. There have been dozens of protests at Tesla dealerships in the US over Mr Musk's association with the Trump administration, while the tech billionaire's backing of far-right politicians in Europe has also prompted boycotts of the brand. 'Tesla continues to face persistent headwinds in key markets, particularly in China and Europe, where sales have softened due to intensifying competition and growing concerns over brand reputation,' Liz Lee, an associate director at Counterpoint Research, told The Independent. 'In parts of Europe, the political backlash associated with Elon Musk has further dampened demand, prompting localised boycotts.' Tesla's CyberTruck, often referred to as the 'MagaMobile' due to the type of customers it typically attracts, recorded roughly 5,000 sales between April and June, despite the automaker planning for a production capacity of over 250,000 units per year. The Tesla boss has seen his relationship with Mr Trump turn sour in recent weeks, having stepped down from his role at the White House and criticised the US president's 'big beautiful bill'. Mr Musk described the legislation last month as a 'disgusting abomination' for adding to the growing US deficit, while also cutting incentives for electric cars. The feud between the two continued this week, with Mr Trump claiming that Mr Musk has received more government subsidies 'than any human being in history'. He also hinted that Tesla and Mr Musk's other companies should be reviewed by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Tesla's closest rival, the Chinese car manufacturer BYD, saw its sales hit a new high in June. A regulatory filing posted to the Hong Kong stock exchange on Wednesday revealed that BYD's electric vehicle sales have already topped 1 million in 2025. Tesla, which outsold BYD as recently as last year, has only managed 720,803 sales in the first six months of the year. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
‘WTF Is Happening': Gambling Reacts to Proposed Trump Tax Changes
The latest version of President Donald Trump's tax bill includes a notable change to how poker players and sports gamblers are taxed, one that could further upend an industry undergoing rapid upheaval. Under current rules, gamblers who itemize can deduct all their losses against their winnings, meaning if they break even (or lose money) in a given year, they don't owe additional money in taxes. The bill's Section 70014 would update the tax code, capping the deduction to 90% of losses. More from $16M Trump Payout Greases Skids for Paramount-Skydance Deal What Are Sports Prediction Markets? Key Questions Answered Kalshi, Polymarket Crack $1B Valuations, Ride Political Wave That means a bettor who made $500,000 and lost $500,000 over a year, for no net gain, would owe taxes as if they made $50,000. Some bettors who lost money would still end up with an additional tax bill. The change is projected to generate about $1.14 billion in extra tax revenue in the nine years from 2026-2034, according to estimates by the Joint Committee on Taxation. The bill, formally known as H.R.1, is currently awaiting approval by the House of Representatives, and the House version does not include this provision. Should the language eventually become law, however, the shift could negatively impact many of the industry's most avid customers. 'Seriously, WTF is happening [right now]?' Alex Kane, CEO and founder of betting exchange Sporttrade, said on X. 'No one serious about betting is going to bet anymore, or at least not going to report that they do.' The tax change 'could hurt every gambler in America. Not just pros. Not just high rollers. Everyone,' professional gambler Rob Pizzola, who is Canadian, said on X. 'Potential disaster looming with the 'Big Beautiful Bill,'' Tony Dunst, a professional poker player, said on X. 'Imagine you end up down on the year in gambling AND owe taxes on your play 🤮' It's unclear how much this shift might impact gaming operators. On one hand, professional gamblers are important parts of the poker and DFS ecosystems. On the other hand, regulated sportsbooks typically limit pro bettors—DraftKings CEO Jason Robins said in 2021 that people who bet on sports for profit are 'not the kind of players we want.' The bill's broader impact may also result in financial savings for the wealthiest people in the U.S., and that could mean more discretionary spending for them at sportsbooks or casinos. 'The bill in its current form is negative for the online gaming industry,' Jordan Bender, an equity research analyst at Citizens, said in an email. 'The adjustment on tax will increase the likelihood that poker players, whales and VIPs will find other ways to gamble outside the legal framework, including moving to the illegal gambling market. If this text ultimately passes, we believe it will take time to understand the real impact for the gambling companies like DraftKings and FanDuel, but revenue could be impaired as a result.'Only about 10% of U.S. taxpayers itemize, and Bender added that the average consumer will be 'largely unimpacted by the change.' Representatives for DraftKings (Nasdaq: DKNG) and FanDuel (NYSE: FLUT) declined to comment. In addition to possibly pushing people toward illegal offshore sportsbooks, the proposed changes could also nudge more bettors toward event futures markets, like those offered by Kalshi, which have upended the sports betting industry in recent months by offering the opportunity to risk money on sports outcomes. Event futures markets are regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and governed as an investment, so Trump's bill does not apply. Losses in prediction markets can be written off against other more traditional investments. The tax structure for futures wins and losses 'is not perfect, but it is a model that looks more aligned with how sharp bettors think,' Pizzola said on X. While the cap on gambling loss deductions was a late addition to the bill's language, it was already on the radar of the American Gaming Association. Two months ago, AGA CEO Bill Miller sent a letter to the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Committee on Finance outlining his organization's tax priorities. The third item mentioned is the deduction of gaming losses, according to a copy of the letter viewed by Sportico. 'It is not only critical to maintain this deduction for taxpayers who itemize, but—as a matter of fairness—Congress should consider allowing for non-itemizers to net their gambling wins and losses for purposes of reporting adjusted gross income,' the letter said. Gambling loss deductions have been in the spotlight before. In the discussion leading up to the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the initial tax overhaul from Trump's first administration, there was talk of eliminating the loss deductions entirely. Many in the industry have worried that fighting hard against smaller reductions could reopen those more extensive conversations. An AGA representative declined to comment on the current language in the proposed tax bill. If the bill is approved by the House of Representatives, there would still be opportunities to reverse the changes in the future. In an interview with Fox News earlier this week, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson said the House planned to put forth two more reconciliation bills during this congressional session, and lawmakers are already publicly talking about potential changes to this specific part. 'Buried within the BS Republican Budget bill is a provision that harms poker players and those who gamble by limiting loss deductions,' Dina Titus, a Democratic congresswoman from Nevada, said Wednesday on X. 'I'm working on a legislative fix that fairly treats gaming losses in the tax code.' Best of Most Expensive Sports Memorabilia and Collectibles in History The 100 Most Valuable Sports Teams in the World NFL Private Equity Ownership Rules: PE Can Now Own Stakes in Teams Sign in to access your portfolio