Tag Archives: Pentagon

Guard Troops

Pentagon Retreats as Guard Troops Exit Los Angeles Amid Immigration Unrest

Leave a reply

In a dramatic turn of events, the Trump administration has begun pulling back California National Guard troops from Los Angeles, marking a partial retreat from its heavily criticized military response to immigration protests. The sudden withdrawal of 2,000 soldiers, deployed amidst raids on local businesses, hints at a quiet shift in federal strategy. As tensions simmer and political voices clash, questions now arise about the future of the remaining forces, the use of federal power, and the fine line between public safety and political theatre—unfolding under a sky still heavy with unrest.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

  • 2,000 California National Guard troops withdrawn from Los Angeles by Trump administration

  • Original deployment of 4,000 troops was in response to protests over immigration raids

  • Federal raids targeted farms, restaurants, and hardware stores in the Los Angeles area

  • Governor Newsom and Mayor Bass criticize federal overreach and call for complete troop withdrawal

  • Trump claimed LA would be “burning” without military presence

  • Federal appeals court allowed Trump to retain control over Guard deployment

  • One brigade remains in the city with no clear timeline for full demobilization

  • Trump silent on withdrawal after returning to Washington from Pittsburgh

In a move signaling a shift in federal strategy, the Trump administration has begun withdrawing half of the National Guard troops it had deployed to Los Angeles in response to weeks of protests triggered by aggressive immigration enforcement. The withdrawal, affecting nearly 2,000 members of the California National Guard, marks a partial rollback of President Donald Trump’s militarized approach to civil unrest across Southern California.

The protests erupted after a wave of immigration raids conducted by federal authorities targeted farms, restaurants, and hardware stores throughout the Los Angeles area. Tensions quickly escalated, prompting the administration to deploy 4,000 California National Guardsmen on June 7, alongside 700 U.S. Marines tasked with protecting federal properties. The scale and nature of the deployment drew swift and intense backlash from California’s Democratic leaders, who questioned the necessity and legality of the president’s actions.

Pentagon officials stated that the decision to release half of the deployed troops came after assessing the ground situation.

“Thanks to our troops who stepped up to answer the call, the lawlessness in Los Angeles is subsiding,”
said Chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell in a statement issued on July 15.

“As such, the Secretary has ordered the release of 2,000 California National Guardsmen (79th IBCT) from the federal protection mission.”

The military deployment was widely seen as a federal show of force amid the unrest. But as demonstrations continued—many of them peaceful—critics increasingly accused the administration of overstepping its authority and fueling tension rather than defusing it. President Trump, defending the original deployment, insisted that federal intervention was essential to maintain order.

“Los Angeles would be burning right now,”
Trump previously claimed,
“if not for the military presence.”

Despite this, Governor Gavin Newsom, who has consistently opposed the militarization of the state’s streets, reiterated his call for a full withdrawal of National Guard personnel.

“While nearly 2,000 of them are starting to demobilize, the remaining guards members continue without a mission, without direction, and without any hopes of returning to help their communities,”
Newsom said in a formal statement.

“We call on Trump and the Department of Defense to end this theater and send everyone home now.”

The governor had earlier taken legal action against the Trump administration over the federalized guard deployment. Newsom and other state officials maintained that the National Guard should serve state emergencies—not be drawn into federal political conflicts.

Meanwhile, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass praised the decision to scale back the military presence. Bass, who had joined legal and civic efforts to oppose the deployment, viewed the withdrawal as a testament to community resilience.

“This happened because the people of Los Angeles stood united and stood strong,”
Bass declared.

“We organized peaceful protests, we came together at rallies, we took the Trump administration to court—all of this led to today’s retreat.”

She added that the city’s fight was far from over.

“We will not stop making our voices heard until this ends, not just here in LA, but throughout our country,”
she said.

According to a Defense Department official who spoke on condition of anonymity, the withdrawn troops belong to one brigade, while another brigade—consisting of several thousand soldiers—remains stationed in the region. Though critics continue to press for full withdrawal, the Pentagon has not indicated a specific timeline for the return of the remaining guardsmen.

The partial drawdown comes even as a federal appeals court ruled in June that the Trump administration could retain operational control over the National Guard under the current mission.

Trump, returning to the White House from a trip to Pittsburgh on Tuesday night, did not respond to a reporter’s question about the withdrawal decision. The president walked past the press pool without offering comment, maintaining silence on a development that has drawn national attention.

As protests continue to ripple across the country over immigration policy and federal enforcement tactics, the events in Los Angeles reflect a broader debate about the limits of presidential authority and the role of the military in managing domestic unrest.

The Pentagon’s decision to withdraw a significant portion of National Guard troops from Los Angeles marks a pivotal moment in the unfolding immigration protest narrative. As military boots leave city streets and political pressure intensifies, the focus shifts to the broader implications of federal power in local crises. While the administration maintains its stance on law and order, the public and state leaders continue to challenge the necessity—and legality—of such deployments. In this evolving landscape, the line between protection and provocation remains thin, and the final act is far from over.

Appreciating your time:

We appreciate you taking the time to read our most recent article! We appreciate your opinions and would be delighted to hear them. We value your opinions as we work hard to make improvements and deliver material that you find interesting.

Post a Comment:

In the space provided for comments below, please share your ideas, opinions, and suggestions. We can better understand your interests thanks to your input, which also guarantees that the material we offer will appeal to you. Get in Direct Contact with Us: Please use our “Contact Us” form if you would like to speak with us or if you have any special questions. We are open to questions, collaborations, and, of course, criticism. To fill out our contact form, click this link.

Stay Connected:

Don’t miss out on future updates and articles.

B-2 Pilots Invited to White House, But Silence Ordered for July 4

Leave a reply

In a mission cloaked in secrecy and soaring ambition, B-2 bomber pilots who struck Iranian nuclear sites under “Operation Midnight Hammer” now face the spotlight—invited to the White House by President Trump, yet urged by defense officials to remain unseen. The June 22 airstrike, hailed by Trump as a total success, has sparked debate over its true impact. While the President promises hero’s applause on July 4, military voices cite security risks and digital threats. Behind the pride and protocol lies a silent tension between celebration and caution.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

  • Strike Operation: “Operation Midnight Hammer” deployed 7 B-2 bombers and Tomahawk missiles targeting Iran’s nuclear sites at Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan.

  • Mission Duration: Pilots flew over 36 hours non-stop from Whiteman AFB in Missouri.

  • Initial Damage Estimate: DIA assessed program setback of a few months, mostly above-ground destruction.

  • Revised View: CIA and Defense Secretary claim “years-long” setback based on updated intelligence.

  • Trump’s Reaction: President Trump slammed the media for “minimizing” the impact and said the pilots were “devastated” by the coverage.

  • Security Protocols: Air Force urges discretion; no public event is planned to honor the crews due to potential risks.

The pilots and aircrews who flew the high-stakes mission striking Iranian nuclear sites earlier this month are facing conflicting messages ahead of the July 4 holiday. On one hand, President Donald Trump has personally invited them to the White House, calling them heroes for their role in what he described as a devastating blow to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. On the other hand, military officials have quietly urged the personnel to maintain a low public profile due to ongoing security concerns.

The mission—dubbed “Operation Midnight Hammer”—involved a daring round-the-world flight by 14 pilots aboard seven B-2 Spirit stealth bombers. These aircraft took off from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri and remained airborne for more than 36 hours as they delivered 14 precision-guided bunker-buster bombs on Iran’s key nuclear facilities at Fordo and Natanz. A third site, Isfahan, was struck using Tomahawk cruise missiles.

While initial reports from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) suggested the strikes had inflicted substantial damage—particularly above ground, sealing off main access points to the underground facilities—the early analysis estimated Iran’s nuclear capabilities had only been delayed by several months. That assessment, first reported by CNN, reportedly infuriated President Trump.

According to two individuals familiar with the classified DIA report, although the entrances to two facilities were damaged or rendered inaccessible, the underground infrastructure largely remained intact. This raised questions about the long-term effectiveness of the operation and became a focal point of public debate.

President Trump, however, pushed back strongly against those claims, stating that the mission was a total success. During a recent public address, he expressed his frustration over what he called media efforts to “minimize” the mission’s impact.

“You know, I got a call from Missouri—great state that I won three times by a lot,” the former president said. “And I got a call that the pilots and the people on the plane were devastated because they [the press] were trying to minimize the attack.”

“I spoke to one of them [who] said, ‘Sir, we hit the site. It was perfect. It was dead on.'”

Trump reiterated that these men should be celebrated, not scrutinized.

“Because they don’t understand fake news, because they have a normal life except they have to fly very big, very fast planes. But it’s a shame. You should be making them heroes.”

In response to growing public attention, the Air Force released a statement cautioning against the release of sensitive operational details. Officials cited the increasing threat of digital surveillance and information warfare tactics used by adversaries, particularly targeting U.S. military assets and personnel.

“Our adversaries are skilled at exploiting the digital realm, collecting and analyzing open-source information, and leveraging advanced technologies to target U.S. military personnel, operations and activities,” the statement said.

“Airmen involved in sensitive missions are briefed on the risks and vulnerabilities posed by the changing information environment to assist in managing the public release of information in a manner that protects the safety and security of personnel and assets.”

Despite President Trump’s plans to honor the B-2 pilots and their crews at the July 4 celebration in Washington—which includes aerial flyovers by B-2s, F-22s, and F-35s—Pentagon sources say no public ceremony is scheduled. Officials also confirmed that the names of the pilots are being withheld, consistent with military protocol in sensitive missions.

Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and CIA Director John Ratcliffe have both offered a different take from the DIA’s preliminary report. Citing newly acquired intelligence, both officials now believe the Iranian nuclear program may have been set back by years, not months.

This new assessment aligns more closely with President Trump’s position, though no full public release of this intelligence has been made.

As the July 4 holiday approaches, the contrast between Trump’s open praise and the military’s cautious posture highlights the tension between public recognition and operational security. For now, the men behind the mission will remain largely out of view—saluted in spirit, but shielded from the spotlight.

As the Fourth of July approaches, the tension between national celebration and national security is on full display. While President Trump seeks to spotlight the B-2 bomber crews as patriotic heroes for their role in the Iran strike, the military remains focused on protecting its personnel from evolving global threats. The contrast underscores the complexities of modern warfare—where victories are measured not only by precision strikes but also by the quiet vigilance that follows. For the pilots behind Operation Midnight Hammer, honor may come not in parades, but in their continued silence.

Appreciating your time:

We appreciate you taking the time to read our most recent article! We appreciate your opinions and would be delighted to hear them. We value your opinions as we work hard to make improvements and deliver material that you find interesting.

Post a Comment:

In the space provided for comments below, please share your ideas, opinions, and suggestions. We can better understand your interests thanks to your input, which also guarantees that the material we offer will appeal to you. Get in Direct Contact with Us: Please use our “Contact Us” form if you would like to speak with us or if you have any special questions. We are open to questions, collaborations, and, of course, criticism. To fill out our contact form, click this link.

Stay Connected:

Don’t miss out on future updates and articles