Former national security leaders filed an amicus brief in Newsom v. Trump, warning against the potential harms of the federalization of the California National Guard and the deployment of Marines in LA to the core missions of the troops and the status of the military as an apolitical organization.
San Francisco, CA — Eight former service secretaries and general and flag officers—including members of Count Every Hero—filed an amicus brief in Newsom v. Trump in the Northern District of California. The brief was not filed in support of either party in the case; rather, it seeks to elevate the risks posed by the deployment of federal military personnel in California to the apolitical nature of the military and democratic norms.
In the brief, former U.S. Army and Navy secretaries and retired four-star admirals and generals emphasized that domestic military deployments should be rare and strictly regulated. These deployments, when not adhering to established legal frameworks like the Posse Comitatus Act, can divert military resources, expose personnel to missions for which they are not adequately trained, and politicize the military. For these reasons, the leaders stated that deployment of federal military personnel to respond to civil unrest should be a last resort.
The leaders argued that engaging military personnel in domestic law enforcement contexts diverts them from their primary missions of national security and disaster relief, potentially compromising public safety and the safety of service members. The U.S. Marine Corps is the nation’s “expeditionary force in readiness,” prepared to respond rapidly to threats against the nation but has only deployed domestically in rare and extreme circumstances. The National Guard provides domestic civil support, natural disaster relief, border security, election support, and other support as requested by civilian leaders, including law enforcement support in the event of civil unrest. But their civil unrest response has been “narrowly limited, especially in situations calling for the performance of core law enforcement functions, which the Guard is neither trained nor primarily intended to execute.”
While the service members deployed in Los Angeles are not authorized to perform law enforcement themselves and are intended to protect federal personnel and property, placing them in law enforcement contexts is dangerous for both the service members and the public. As the former national security leaders said, “in practice, the distinction between force protection and law enforcement operations is not always clear,” and the military does not receive extensive training in how to legally and safely operate in domestic law enforcement contexts to aid their decisionmaking. The leaders emphasized that involving the military in domestic political affairs risks undermining the apolitical nature of the military, affecting morale, recruitment, and public trust.
This case underscores the importance of maintaining clear boundaries between military and civilian spheres. These former national security leaders remain committed to defending these principles, ensuring that military power is used appropriately and that democratic institutions are upheld.
Read the full amicus brief here.