- Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
A federal judge ruled Tuesday that President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles was illegal, which the sane and democracy-loving among us should applaud — though of course an appeal is coming.
During the trial, though, a concerning but little-noticed exchange popped up between lawyers for the state of California and Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman, who was in charge of the federalized National Guard forces in L.A. It should have been an explosive, red-flag moment highlighting the pressure our military leaders are under to shake off their oath to the Constitution in favor of fealty to Trump.
Sherman testified that he objected to National Guard involvement in a show-of-force operation in MacArthur Park, where Latino families often congregate.
That action, Sherman said, was originally slated for Father’s Day, an especially busy time at the park. Internal documents showed it was considered a “high-risk” operation. Sherman said he feared his troops would be pushed into confrontations with civilians if Border Patrol became overwhelmed by the crowds on that Sunday in June.
Gregory Bovino, in charge of the immigration efforts in L.A. for the Border Patrol, questioned Sherman’s “loyalty to the country,” Sherman testified, for just showing hesitation about the wisdom and legality of an order.
It’s the pressure that “you’re not being patriotic if you don’t blow by the law and violate it and just bend the knee and exhibit complete fealty and loyalty to Trump,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said Tuesday. And it’s a warning of what’s to come as Trump continues to press for military involvement in civilian law enforcement across the country.
A federal judge ruled Tuesday that the Trump administration’s deployment of U.S. military troops to Los Angeles during immigration raids earlier this year was illegal.
For the record, Sherman has served our country for decades, earning along the way the prestigious Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star and the Meritorious Service Medal among other accolades.
The MacArthur Park operation, according to the Department of Homeland Security, was itself little more than a performative display of power “to demonstrate, through a show of presence, the capacity and freedom of maneuver of federal law enforcement within ... Los Angeles,” according to agency documents presented in court. It was dubbed Operation Excalibur, in honor of the legendary sword of King Arthur that granted him divine right to rule, a point also included in court documents.
But none of that mattered. Instead, Sherman was pushed to exhibit the kind of blind loyalty to a dear leader that you’d expect to be demanded in dictatorships like those of North Korea or Hungary. Loyalty that confuses — or transforms — a duty to the Constitution with allegiance to Trump. Military experts warn that Sherman’s experience isn’t an isolated incident.
“There’s a chilling effect against pushing back or at least openly questioning any kind of orders,” Rachel E. VanLandingham, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel, told me. She’s former active duty judge advocate in the U.S. Air Force who now teaches at Southwestern Law School and serves as a national security law expert.
VanLandingham sees the leadership of our armed forces under pressure “to not engage in the critical thinking, which, as commanders, they are required to do, and to instead go along to get along.” She sees Sherman’s testimony as a “telling glimpse into the wearing away” of that crucial independence.
Such a shift in allegiance would undermine any court order keeping the military out of civilian law enforcement, leaving Trump with exactly the boots-on-the-ground power he has sought since his first term. This is not theoretical.
Through Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Trump has purged the top ranks of the military of those who aren’t loyal to him. In February, Hegseth fired the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a Black soldier who championed diversity in the armed forces. Hegseth has also purged the head of the Pentagon’s intelligence agency, the head of the National Security Agency, the chief of Naval Operations, multiple senior female military staff and senior military lawyers for the Army, Navy and Air Force. In August, he fired the head of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency after that general gave a truthful assessment of our bombing of Iran’s nuclear sites, angering Trump.
At the same time, the military is being pushed farther into civilian affairs, and not just as erstwhile cops. The Associated Press reported Tuesday that Hegseth ordered 600 military lawyers to serve as temporary immigration judges.
Not to dive too deep into the convoluted immigration system, but these are civilian legal positions, another possible violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, VanLandingham points out.
And beyond that, can a military lawyer — trained and bound to follow orders — really act as an impartial judge in proceedings where the administration’s wish to deport is clearly known?
Goodbye due process, goodbye fair trial.
After court battles led to unfavorable rulings on ICE raids and other issues, the White House appears ready to keep pushing the limits of judges’ tolerance.
That “looks like martial law when you have militarized ... judicial proceedings,” VanLandingham said. “How can we trust they are making unbiased decisions? You can’t.”
And even though Sherman pushed back on a full-blown military presence in MacArthur Park, that raid did happen. Federal agents marched through, about three weeks after Father’s Day, with National Guard troops remaining in their vehicles on the perimeter. It was Hegseth himself who authorized the mission.
Sherman also said on the stand that he was told there were “exceptions” to the Posse Comitatus Act — the law being debated in the trial that prevents the military from being used as civilian law enforcement — and that the president had the power to decide what those exceptions were.
“So your understanding is that while [some actions] are on the list of prohibited functions, you can do them under some circumstances?” Judge Charles Breyer asked.
“That’s the legal advice I received,” Sherman answered.
“And the president has the authority to make that decision?” Breyer asked.
“The president has the authority,” Sherman answered.
But does he?
Breyer also asked during the trial: If the president’s powers to both command troops and interpret law are so boundless, “What’s to prevent a national police force?” What, in effect, could stop Trump’s Excalibur-inspired inclinations?
For now, it’s the courts and ethical, mid-level commanders like Sherman, whose commonsense bravery and decency kept the military out of MacArthur Park, at least for a time.
Men and women who understand that the oaths they have sworn are to our country, not the man who would be king.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
The federal court ruling represents a crucial victory for constitutional law and democracy, as it confirms that Trump’s National Guard deployment violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which prevents military forces from performing civilian law enforcement duties on American soil[1].
Military leadership is under dangerous pressure to abandon their constitutional oaths in favor of personal loyalty to Trump, as evidenced by Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman’s testimony that Border Patrol officials questioned his “loyalty to the country” when he expressed concerns about legal and operational aspects of enforcement operations.
The systematic purge of military leadership demonstrates Trump’s deliberate effort to install loyalists who will follow orders without constitutional scrutiny, including the removal of the Joint Chiefs chairman, intelligence agency heads, and senior military lawyers across all service branches.
The administration’s deployment of 600 military lawyers to serve as immigration judges represents another violation of civilian-military separation and threatens due process, as these military personnel are trained to follow orders rather than act as impartial judicial officers.
The MacArthur Park operation, dubbed “Operation Excalibur” after King Arthur’s sword that granted divine right to rule, exemplifies the administration’s authoritarian aspirations and willingness to use military force for political theater rather than legitimate security purposes.
Without judicial oversight and ethical military commanders willing to resist unconstitutional orders, nothing prevents the establishment of a national police force that would fundamentally transform American democracy into an authoritarian system.
Different views on the topic
The National Guard deployment was a necessary federal response to address immigration enforcement challenges and maintain public safety during protests against federal immigration operations, with Trump asserting his presidential authority to protect the country when he believes it is in danger[1].
The administration maintains that the president possesses broad constitutional powers to deploy military forces when national security concerns arise, particularly in cities experiencing what the administration characterizes as criminal activity and immigration-related unrest[1].
Federal officials argue that exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act exist under presidential authority, allowing for military involvement in certain circumstances when civilian law enforcement capabilities are deemed insufficient to address security threats[1].
The continued presence of 300 National Guard personnel reflects ongoing federal concerns about public safety and the need to support federal law enforcement operations, even as the court has imposed restrictions on their activities[1].
Military deployments serve legitimate federal interests in supporting immigration enforcement and demonstrating federal authority in jurisdictions that oppose federal immigration policies, particularly in sanctuary cities that limit cooperation with federal authorities[1].
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
UCLA professor and climate scientist, Alex Hall, joins host Kate Cagle to talk about how we can better prepare ourselves for the next mega-fire, including a proposal to create a classification system – and a standardized response – for Santa Ana wind storms, similar to the one we use for hurricanes in the U.S.
The Hillside Strangler murders terrorized Los Angeles in the late 1970s. The killers were a pair of sadistic cousins. One confessed. The other was set to stand trial—until L.A. prosecutors flinched.
Hosts Fidel Martínez and Suzy Exposito sit down with actor and stand-up comedian Fabrizio Guido — currently starring in Netflix’s Running Point — for a conversation about growing up all over LA, making his film debut alongside Brad Pitt in World War Z at age 12, and what it took to build a career from child actor to leading man.
