Introduction
The recent deployment of 2,000 additional National Guard troops to Los Angeles has sparked controversy and concern, especially given the region’s diverse population and ongoing immigrant rights demonstrations. A CBS News article reported on these developments, focusing on the stated purpose of the deployment—protecting federal property—and included criticism from California officials. This fact check examines several claims made in the article to determine what is accurate, what’s misleading, and what readers deserve to know.
Historical Context
The practice of deploying National Guard troops under Title 10 of the U.S. Code allows federal control over state military forces—without a governor’s consent—to safeguard national security interests, including protection of federal property or personnel. The Trump administration had previously used similar authority during national protests in 2020. In 2025, escalating immigration raids in Los Angeles triggered mass protests, prompting another wave of federal force in the city. The legal and political tensions between federal and state authorities—particularly with California leadership—continue to shape public reactions to such troop movements.
Fact-Check: Specific Claims
Claim #1: “Another 2,000 California National Guard troops are being deployed to the Los Angeles area.”
This claim is misleading due to a lack of updated clarification in the article’s early narrative. While the article initially suggests the deployment is new, it later acknowledges that the 2,000 troops referenced had already been announced the previous week and were not additional. According to U.S. Northern Command, this group was part of a previously approved federal mobilization under the June 9 order. The figure remains accurate, but the language could easily mislead readers into believing that a fresh group is being sent to Los Angeles.
Claim #2: “The soldiers will support the protection of federal functions, personnel, and property.”
This claim aligns with the official justification offered by the Pentagon and USNORTHCOM. Title 10 provides legal grounds for such support, especially when federal facilities or staff may be at risk. As confirmed by the Department of Defense, the authorized mission is focused on defending federal installations and personnel amid local instability. However, critics point out that the vagueness of “federal functions” leaves room for broad interpretation. Even though the stated legal purpose is accurate, the article fails to explore how this language has historically been used to justify other actions, including immigration enforcement support.
Claim #3: “The troops have been diverted from critical wildfire work and work at the border, now twiddling their thumbs for Donald Trump’s political theater.”
This statement, made by a spokesperson for Governor Gavin Newsom, contains both factual context and subjective framing. While it is accurate that some California National Guard troops had been previously assigned to wildfire response and border assignments, the assertion that they are “twiddling their thumbs” is a characterization rather than a verifiable fact. According to official Pentagon briefings and training schedules released by USNORTHCOM, these troops were preparing in crowd control, de-escalation tactics, and rules of engagement as part of their federal protection mission. The statement reflects political opposition and adds editorialized language that detracts from a purely factual analysis.
Claim #4: “The president’s deployment of federal troops domestically under Title 10 is facing a legal challenge from Newsom.”
This claim is accurate and verifiable. Governor Gavin Newsom did file a lawsuit challenging the use of Title 10 to place state-controlled National Guard troops under federal command without his consent. The U.S. District Court initially issued a temporary block on the deployment, which was quickly overturned by an appeals court. The case was under active review by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals as of June 18, 2025. Legal scholars confirm that while Title 10 grants the president authority under certain conditions, it remains subject to judicial review when contested on constitutional or jurisdictional grounds.
Conclusion
The CBS News article generally reports factual information but demonstrates occasional inconsistency in clarity and neutrality. The largest issue is the framing of the deployment as a new action when it had already been announced, a distinction not made until mid-article. Additionally, while legal justifications such as Title 10 are correctly cited, the article doesn’t delve deeply into the implications or previous precedent of such authority. Quotes from state officials use emotionally charged language, which, while newsworthy, are presented without sufficient counterbalance. Readers should be aware that, while the deployment is real and legally grounded, both federal aims and local criticisms deserve deeper context to avoid reinforcing assumptions about intent.
Take Action Now
Stay ahead of misinformation and get clarity on evolving news stories. Download the DBUNK App.
Download the DBUNK App
Link to Original Article
CBS News – 2,000 more National Guard troops being deployed to Los Angeles, Pentagon says
