National Guard Troops Voice Discontent Over Trump’s LA Deployment: Morale Hits Rock Bottom

The sun beat down on camouflaged Humvees blocking Los Angeles intersections as National Guard troops found themselves caught in a political crossfire. Sent by the Trump administration to “support” ICE raids targeting immigrants, these citizen-soldiers now face public scorn and internal turmoil. “They gave Disneyland tickets to the people who worked in the wildfires,” one anonymous soldier confessed to the New York Times. “Nobody’s handing out Disneyland tickets now.” This National Guard deployment – opposed by California Governor Gavin Newsom and deemed unnecessary by local law enforcement – has become a flashpoint for military ethics and morale.

The Unfolding Crisis: National Guard Deployment in Los Angeles

The mission began as a highly controversial political maneuver. Despite California officials confirming they had protest situations under control, the Trump administration invoked the Alien Enemies Act to justify sending nearly 3,000 troops to Los Angeles. Photographs quickly surfaced showing soldiers sleeping on concrete floors and idling in military vehicles without clear objectives. Unlike disaster relief missions where Guardsmen are hailed as heroes, this operation drew immediate public backlash:

• Protesters routinely jeered troops guarding federal buildings
• Commuters cursed convoys clogging freeways during rush hour
• Family members questioned whether soldiers should obey federal orders
• Internal records reveal at least 105 troops sought behavioral health counseling during the deployment

The situation deteriorated so severely that commanders reported incidents of soldiers defecating in Humvees and shared showers – acts of protest that led to “tightened bathroom security” at their base. Military analysts note this deployment marks a dangerous precedent in using state militias for domestic immigration enforcement, a role far outside their traditional disaster response duties. The California National Guard’s own website emphasizes their primary focus on “community support” during emergencies, making this federal directive particularly jarring.

Collapsing Morale and Military Retention Fallout

Within the ranks, resentment simmers just below the surface. Six soldiers who spoke anonymously to the New York Times described widespread disillusionment, with many believing they were pawns in a “fake mission” designed to intimidate rather than protect. “The moral injuries of this operation will be enduring,” one Guard official warned. “This is not what the military of our country was designed to do.” The data reveals alarming trends:

Retention Impact	Numbers	Significance
Troops with expiring enlistments	72	Scheduled to end service during deployment
Immediate discharges	2	Left service rather than continue mission
Refusals to reenlist	55	Over 76% of eligible troops abandoning service
Command reassignments	2+	Battalion leaders objecting to mission removed

This exodus compounds existing military recruitment challenges documented in recent Pentagon reports. The Government Accountability Office has repeatedly warned about retention risks when deploying National Guard units for politically charged domestic operations. For many citizen-soldiers who joined to serve communities during wildfires or floods, being weaponized against fellow Americans represents an unforgivable breach of trust. “Protesters see us as the enemy now,” one Guardsman lamented. “We’re just following orders, but it feels wrong.”

Constitutional Concerns and Legal Challenges

Legal scholars across prominent institutions like Yale Law School have raised red flags about the deployment’s legality. The 1878 Posse Comitatus Act strictly limits military involvement in domestic law enforcement, with narrow exceptions not applicable to immigration operations. Governor Newsom’s ongoing lawsuit argues the deployment violates states’ rights under the 10th Amendment, noting California never requested military assistance. Constitutional attorney Gloria Browne-Marshall summarizes the concern: “Using soldiers as immigration agents blurs lines that have protected American democracy for centuries.”

The situation echoes past controversies when National Guard units were deployed during civil rights protests, leading to the 1957 Little Rock integration crisis. Modern military ethics guidelines from institutions like the U.S. Army War College emphasize that soldiers retain the right – and duty – to question unlawful orders. This principle now faces its sharpest test in decades as troops balance oath against conscience on the streets of Los Angeles.

The sight of American soldiers confronting American citizens over immigration enforcement represents a fracture in civil-military relations that may take generations to heal. As one Guardsman poignantly asked reporters: “What happens when you stay enlisted long enough to become the villain against your will?” For military families nationwide watching this unprecedented National Guard deployment unfold, the answer may determine the future of voluntary service in America. Contact your representatives to demand accountability for this dangerous militarization of domestic policy.

Must Know

What legal authority allowed Trump to deploy the National Guard?
The administration cited the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, though constitutional scholars widely dispute its applicability. Normally, governors must request or consent to federalized National Guard deployments. California’s ongoing lawsuit argues this violates states’ rights under the 10th Amendment and the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act restricting military law enforcement.

How are National Guard troops responding to the mission?
Internal documents reveal widespread dissent, with 105 soldiers seeking behavioral health support. At least two commanders were reassigned after objecting, and numerous incidents of protest have occurred, including intentional property damage. Morale is reportedly at historic lows according to military analysts.

What’s the impact on National Guard retention?
Of 72 soldiers whose enlistments ended during deployment, only 17 agreed to reenlist – a 76% refusal rate that dwarfs typical retention figures. Military experts warn this signals a crisis for future recruitment of citizen-soldiers.

Are troops actively participating in ICE arrests?
While officially in “support” roles guarding federal buildings, soldiers report being positioned near active ICE operations. Legal experts warn their presence enables enforcement actions that would otherwise require more manpower, effectively facilitating deportations.

How does this affect local communities?
Los Angeles residents describe an atmosphere of military occupation, with checkpoints and convoys disrupting daily life. Community leaders note trust in law enforcement has eroded, particularly in immigrant neighborhoods now facing joint police-military patrols.