In the wake of a turbulent summer marked by widespread protests and controversial law enforcement responses, the deployment of the National Guard in several major American cities has sparked intense debate among both officials and those on the front lines. Starting in May 2025, President Donald Trump ordered the National Guard into cities such as Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Chicago, Portland, and Memphis, in direct response to protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids. According to NPR, these actions have left many guardsmen questioning the very nature and legality of their missions, while city officials in Los Angeles have found themselves defending their own roles in balancing public safety and civil liberties.
The initial deployment occurred in Los Angeles, where protests erupted over ICE operations. As the summer wore on, the presence of the National Guard became a familiar—if unsettling—sight in other cities as well. This ramping up of military presence was not universally welcomed, particularly among the guardsmen themselves. NPR reported that a group of Ohio National Guardsmen created an anonymous Signal group chat in January 2025 to share their growing concerns. One member, identified only as J, confessed, "I really went to a dark place when they sent the troops to [Los Angeles], and then eventually [Washington, D.C.], and now, Chicago. This is just not what any of us signed up for, and it’s so out of the scope of normal operations."
For these guardsmen, the shift from the Guard’s traditional humanitarian role to policing American streets has been jarring. J, who previously participated in what he called “humanitarian-esque missions” such as disaster relief, expressed deep discomfort with the new assignments. "And then you want me to go pick up trash and dissuade homeless people in D.C. at gunpoint. Like, no dude. It’s so disheartening every time I see another city – and I just wonder, ‘who’s going to stand up to this?'"
Others in the group, like A and C, echoed these sentiments, highlighting confusion and anxiety over the lack of clear communication regarding their objectives. A told NPR, “What exactly are we going to be doing? Are we going to have leave? And those answers aren’t very clear – but in the past, it’s always been very clear.” The lack of transparency and the unusual nature of their orders led to mounting frustration and a sense of alienation from their traditional mission.
The psychological toll has not gone unnoticed. C, another guardsman, shared, “I’ve been in therapy. Lots of therapy has taken me to the point where at least I can be OK if I have to say goodbye. That sucks. Is this tarnishing my service? Is it undoing everything I thought I was fighting for?”
Financial pressures compound the emotional strain. Most National Guard members juggle full-time civilian jobs alongside their service. Lengthy deployments disrupt their livelihoods, adding another layer of hardship. According to NPR, the negative public sentiment towards the Guard—once seen as a force for good in times of disaster—has only deepened their distress.
Legal questions swirl around the deployments as well. President Trump’s attempts to send the National Guard into cities like Portland and Chicago have met with significant legal resistance. Federal judges have questioned the legality of these actions, particularly when the Guard is used to support ICE’s mass deportation efforts—a move widely considered illegal under U.S. law. J was unequivocal about his refusal to participate: “There is no way I would participate in that.”
These concerns resonate with a broader debate about the appropriate use of military force in domestic affairs. “I swore an oath to the Constitution, not a person,” C explained. “I just really, really implore my peers and everybody outside looking in, to just think about that. Really think about that, and think about what that means. And if there are questions, ask them. Keep talking.”
The controversy extends beyond the Guard’s ranks. In Los Angeles, a separate but related legal battle has played out over the city’s handling of protests against ICE. Los Angeles city attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto responded to criticism following her office’s decision to appeal a federal judge’s order stemming from these protests. According to her editorial published on November 11, 2025, the lawsuit in question arose from protests in downtown Los Angeles, where there were allegations that LAPD officers used crowd control munitions inappropriately, including against journalists.
Feldstein Soto was quick to clarify her position: "I have never endorsed and in fact strongly oppose harming reporters or violating policies. I unequivocally support the First Amendment rights of the public to peaceful assembly and speech as well as the First Amendment’s protections for freedom of the press as guaranteed under the U.S. and California constitutions." She noted that her office has worked with the LAPD to provide training on press protections and emphasized her commitment to safeguarding all Angelenos—protesters, journalists, police officers, and city employees alike.
The city’s appeal, she argued, is a "measured, obligatory step rooted in common sense to protect everyone." The preliminary injunction issued by the Central District Court of California, in her view, placed the LAPD in an untenable position by making them responsible for the actions of other law enforcement agencies brought in under mutual aid protocols. Feldstein Soto explained, “The appeal focuses on key flaws in the ruling: for example, anyone who self-identifies as ‘press’ can position themselves dangerously close to or behind police lines, potentially escalating risks for everyone involved.”
She insisted that the city’s actions were not about punishing journalists or stifling free expression, but about ensuring public safety and preventing chaos. “Dismissing this as ‘anti-press bias’ or claiming that I or the city seek ‘brutal punishment’ for anyone ignores the reality: I was duty-bound to appeal to protect the broader public interest, ensuring that safeguards like proper credentialing of journalists are appropriate to prevent harm without stifling free expression.”
Feldstein Soto also expressed solidarity with efforts for immigrant rights, police reform, and social justice, but warned against allowing destructive elements to hijack otherwise peaceful movements. She concluded, “Los Angeles doesn’t have to sacrifice public safety to fight for just causes.”
As the legal and ethical debates continue, the stories from inside the National Guard and city government reveal a nation wrestling with the boundaries of protest, policing, and the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. For the guardsmen and officials caught in the middle, the summer of 2025 has been a test of conscience, duty, and the enduring struggle to balance security with liberty.
