What Sparked the Fact-Check
The article outlining Speaker Mike Johnson’s support for former President Trump’s deployment of federal troops to Los Angeles generated intense online discussion, especially over whether Republicans are using California’s unrest as political theater to advance their policies. A DBUNK user asked us to investigate whether this incident is being used to push legislation with minimal scrutiny — and whether key details were left out of the coverage.
The Bigger Picture: Unrest and Federal Response
California has long been a political counterpoint to conservative federal leadership, particularly on immigration. The protests in Los Angeles over Immigration and Customs Enforcement mirror historical tensions between state and federal governance, dating back to the Civil Rights era. Deployments of federal forces into states without clear consent have been flashpoints before — notably in Portland in 2020 and during the civil rights era desegregation conflicts. Against this backdrop, any federal action — especially involving military personnel — carries significant constitutional, legal, and political weight.
Breaking Down the Key Claims
Claim #1: Trump Deployed 4,000 National Guard Troops and 700 Marines to Los Angeles
This claim is partially false. While Trump has made statements suggesting he would consider deploying federal forces to address what he calls “lawlessness,” there is no verified proof from the Department of Defense, the National Guard Bureau, or independent reporting that 4,000 National Guardsmen and 700 Marines were actually deployed to Los Angeles. No federal deployment of Marines can occur without legal processes governed by the Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts such military involvement in domestic law enforcement. As of June 10, 2025, no public Pentagon memo or defense department statement confirms this specific and large-scale federal troop deployment. We found no Department of Defense release detailing this figure.
SOURCE: Department of Defense Guidelines, CNN Fact Check
Claim #2: The Proposed Immigration and Tax Bill (OBBBA) Would Add $3 Trillion to the Deficit
This claim is true. According to a nonpartisan analysis from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBBA) — promoted by Speaker Johnson during his comments — would indeed add an estimated $3 trillion to the federal deficit over the next ten years. This is primarily due to the extension of Trump-era tax cuts and simultaneous increases in military and border security spending, without sufficient revenue offsets. The bill also proposes cuts to assistance programs like Medicaid and SNAP, raising concerns among progressive policymakers.
SOURCE: Congressional Budget Office, Brookings Institution
Claim #3: Johnson Suggested Newsom be “Tarred and Feathered”
This claim is true and accurate as presented. In both the article and verified raw video footage of Johnson’s press conference, the speaker did, in fact, make this inflammatory statement. Though he said it with some rhetorical flair, the comment received widespread media attention and condemnation due to its violent historical connotation. The phrase “tarred and feathered” references a form of public torture from the 1700s, associated with mob justice and vigilante violence, and is widely considered inflammatory in a modern context.
SOURCE: New York Times, C-SPAN Coverage
Claim #4: Republicans Are Using the Violence in California to Justify Rapid Legislation
This claim has a basis in fact. Johnson leveraged the Los Angeles unrest to push the passage of the OBBBA legislation in his remarks, a bill that was already contentious due to its sweeping scope. The strategy — tying emergency events to broader legislative goals — is a well-known political maneuver. Though not illegal or improper on its own, this method can compress debate and sideline nuanced discussion. The article mentions this clearly: “Johnson took the opportunity to plug the House-passed tax and immigration bill…” As legislative urgency increases due to perceived crisis, transparency around such efforts warrants public scrutiny.
SOURCE: Politico, FactCheck.org
Our Final Verdict
The article by ABC News presents statements and developments with reasonable accuracy; however, it stops just short of providing full context regarding the legality and logistics of a potential military deployment. The framing, particularly the repetition of provocative statements like “tarred and feathered,” could lead readers to focus more on sensational quotes than policy mechanics. Despite this, core claims — about the bill’s deficit impact, Johnson’s statement, and the strategic legislative push — are grounded in verifiable facts. There is no clear indication that the article misleads, although it would benefit from citing more on-the-record government sources regarding troop movement.
Help Us Keep the Truth Alive
If you’re concerned about media accuracy, join the movement. Download the free DBUNK app to instantly check claims, flag misleading stories, and make informed decisions in seconds. Truth should never be buried — and with DBUNK, it won’t be.
Read the original article here: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/speaker-johnson-backing-trumps-la-actions-newsom-tarred/story?id=122689990
