President Trump’s deployment of 4,700 troops to Los Angeles faces opposition from California officials as Pentagon reveals the 60-day mission will cost American taxpayers $134 million.
At a Glance
- The Pentagon estimates a $134 million cost for the 60-day deployment of 4,000 National Guard members and 700 Marines to Los Angeles
- Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth defended the necessity of the deployment despite objections from California officials
- California Governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass argue troops are unnecessary and have sued the Trump administration
- Trump suggested some areas of Los Angeles could be considered under insurrection
- Democratic lawmakers expressed concerns about using military for what they consider a law enforcement matter
Pentagon Reveals Costs and Justification
The Pentagon has disclosed that President Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles will cost approximately $134 million over the planned 60-day mission. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth provided this cost estimate to Congress while defending the administration’s decision to deploy military personnel in response to ongoing protests against Trump’s immigration policies. The significant expenditure includes travel, lodging, and meals for the troops, with funding drawn from existing operations and maintenance accounts in the defense budget.
Hegseth emphasized the necessity of the deployment during congressional briefings, despite strong objections from Democratic lawmakers who question the use of active-duty military personnel for what they consider a domestic law enforcement issue. The deployment consists of 4,000 National Guard members and 700 Marines who have been ordered to assist local law enforcement in maintaining order during the civil disturbances. Pentagon officials maintain that the federal response is proportionate to the scale of unrest in the region.
The Trump administration’s military response to unrest in Los Angeles is expected to cost $134 million for 60 days of operations, a senior Pentagon official told lawmakers on Tuesday.
Follow live updates here. https://t.co/rWRpeOMULP
— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) June 10, 2025
State and Local Opposition
The federal deployment has met with significant resistance from California state and local officials. Governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass have publicly stated that the troops are unnecessary, arguing that local law enforcement is capable of handling the situation. This disagreement highlights the tension between federal authority and state sovereignty during domestic disturbances. The state of California has taken legal action against the Trump administration, filing a lawsuit that claims the deployment violates state sovereignty.
California officials have expressed concern that the military presence could escalate tensions rather than reduce them. The lawsuit represents an extraordinary conflict between state and federal authorities over the appropriate response to civil unrest. Local officials maintain that they were not adequately consulted before the deployment decision was made, further straining relations between California’s leadership and the federal administration during this crisis.
Presidential Authority and Insurrection Act Questions
President Trump has defended his decision to deploy troops, suggesting that some areas of Los Angeles could be considered under insurrection. When questioned about potentially invoking the Insurrection Act, which would grant broader powers to use military forces for domestic law enforcement, Trump did not rule out the possibility. He claimed, without providing evidence, that protesters are “paid insurrectionists,” a characterization that has been challenged by observers on the ground and local officials familiar with the nature of the demonstrations.
The deployment raises significant questions about the scope of presidential authority to use military forces domestically. The Insurrection Act, rarely invoked in modern times, allows a president to deploy armed forces within the United States under specific circumstances including civil disorder. Constitutional scholars and military experts have noted that the current situation presents complex legal questions about the balance between maintaining public order and respecting state authority over law enforcement matters.
Military Role and Congressional Oversight
Democratic lawmakers have expressed serious concerns about the use of active-duty troops for what they consider should be handled by law enforcement agencies. Congressional oversight committees have requested additional information from the Pentagon regarding the rules of engagement for deployed troops and the specific mission parameters. The involvement of Marines, who are typically deployed for international conflicts rather than domestic situations, has drawn particular scrutiny from congressional representatives concerned about potential mission creep.
Defense officials have emphasized that the military personnel will operate in a supporting role to local law enforcement rather than taking the lead in addressing protesters. Despite these assurances, questions remain about how the deployment will unfold in practice and what metrics will be used to determine when the military presence is no longer required. The Pentagon has indicated that the 60-day timeframe could be adjusted based on conditions on the ground and assessments from military commanders working alongside local authorities.
