Trump pulls National Guard troops from LA protests to fight wildfires

In the United States, National Guard troops were deployed to Los Angeles in early June to assist with protests against federal immigration raids. Approximately 4,000 California National Guard members and around 700 active-duty Marines were sent under the Trump administration's directive, causing significant concerns among state officials. California Governor Gavin Newsom criticized the deployment as unnecessary and illegal, arguing it undermined the state’s ability to respond effectively to wildfires, as National Guard fire crews were left operating at only 40% of their normal capacity. As wildfire season intensified, military leaders expressed the need to shift some of the troops back to their original firefighting roles. Just a few days before the reassignment announcement by the Trump administration, the top military commander overseeing those forces had formally requested the return of 200 troops to California’s wildfire unit. This decision was seen as acknowledgment that the troops originally deployed for protest duty were not essential to handle ongoing unrest. After the administration granted this request, approximately 150 members of the California National Guard were released from their federal protection duties in Los Angeles, with the official rationale being the need to maintain sufficient strength to continue the “Federal Protection Mission.” Nonetheless, the reassignment was a clear indication of the inefficiencies related to this deployment, and the concerns over resource allocation became increasingly vocal among California officials. The situation drew further scrutiny as California faced a critical wildfire season that raised the stakes for effective firefighting resources. Experts warned of the increased risk due to dry conditions and forecasted weather patterns. Against this backdrop, the demand for the National Guard's return to essential firefighting duties illustrated the competing priorities between addressing protests and managing natural crisis responses amid an unusual, politically charged deployment. The legality of using Title 10 to federalize state National Guard units for domestic issues continued to be challenged, further complicating the already contentious relationship between state and federal authorities.