Behind The Scenes of Trump’s Haphazard Occupation of LA

This is your TPM evening briefing.

Josh Kovensky

and

Emine Yücel

Aug 12, 2025

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)

Back in June, Major General Scott Sherman had a problem.

He was in command of federalized California National Guard troops stationed in Los Angeles, and had received a bizarre request: immigration authorities wanted military vehicles and National Guard troops to support an operation targeting the city’s MacArthur Park on Father’s Day.

Sherman balked. Gregory Bovino, a CBP sector chief known for his flamboyant antics, purportedly replied by questioning Sherman’s “loyalty” to the United States.

These details emerged during a bench trial currently being held in Los Angeles over Trump’s decision to federalize the California National Guard. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer for the Northern District of California is running a three-day trial this week. The case examines whether the administration broke the Posse Comitatus Act by taking over the California National Guard and deploying it to Los Angeles. Trump ordered the takeover and deployment after protests broke out over Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in Southern California.

During testimony on Monday, California called Sherman as a witness. He told an attorney for the state of California that “intelligence” did not indicate a threat to federal functions near MacArthur Park, but that immigration authorities wanted more than 50 military vehicles to drive through the park as part of the operation. Sherman said that he hesitated to go forward with the idea. When the California attorney asked Sherman whether Bovino questioned his “loyalty” to the United States in response, Sherman confirmed that he had.

The MacArthur Park operation eventually took place on July 7.

During testimony on Tuesday, DOJ attorneys tried to downplay the operation as extremely limited, and only in support of existing immigration enforcement efforts. That goes to a key distinction under the law: while it’s illegal to use the military for domestic law enforcement purposes (the Insurrection Act is the big exception to this, and the administration never invoked it), they can be used in a supporting role. The DoD, for example, has long provided various forms of logistical support to immigration agencies acting along the U.S.-Mexico border.

The Trump administration enlarged the definition of “support” to justify using the military to help immigration authorities carry out a crackdown. On Monday, Trump sent the D.C. National Guard into the nation’s capital; though he has more leeway over how to use the D.C. Guard, it’s another example of the creeping presence of troops in American cities.

What’s key to understand here is that serving as domestic law enforcement is not the mission for the military. It’s not what soldiers join to do; it’s not what they and their commanders spend years training for. The missions are different.

That can be a problem on a purely logistical level. But it’s a more fundamental issue for why any of this is happening. The anecdote that Sherman confirmed shows one small instance of the internal conflict that the inanity of all this is starting to create.

— Josh Kovensky

Federal Judge Finds Trump Admin is Illegally Withholding Funds

A federal judge ruled on Monday that the Trump administration appears to be illegally withholding funds previously authorized by Congress.

U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich, a Trump appointee, said the administration has “obstructed” tens of millions of dollars in funds intended for the National Endowment for Democracy — a nonprofit dedicated to the growth and strengthening of democratic institutions around the world — for months.

“The Court merely finds that the defendants may not withhold appropriated funds under the present conditions: on the grounds that the Endowment’s projects do not align with the Executive’s priorities,” Friedrich wrote in his opinion.

The decision comes as the Trump administration has spent much of this year freezing funds Congress has already appropriated, essentially robbing from the legislative branch its power of the purse. The White House also strong-armed congressional Republicans into voting for a rescissions package to cut funding it had already approved.

Meanwhile, the Government Accountability Office has already issued several opinions saying the Trump administration violated the Impoundment Control Act by withholding federal funds.

The National Endowment for Democracy sued the Trump administration in March because it was unable to access the funds Congress had appropriated for the organization. Shortly after the lawsuit was filed the administration released the majority of the funds in question. But in recent weeks, the group said the administration once again started to slow down releasing the money that is supposed to be available to them without a deadline until they are used up.

— Emine Yücel

The Big, Not-So-Beautiful-For-The-Poor Bill

The Congressional Budget Office released a new analysis on Monday detailing, in yet more detail, how the GOP’s so-called “big, beautiful” bill would make the rich richer and the poor poorer. The megabill will cost households in the lowest decile of the income distribution $1,200 on average — largely due to cuts to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — while boosting income for the highest decile by $13,600, on account of the extension of the 2017 Trump tax cuts.

— Emine Yücel