Nearly two months after President Donald Trump took the extraordinary step of deploying the National Guard^[1] to Los Angeles to quell public unrest over immigration raids, the Pentagon on Wednesday announced that it was withdrawing more than a thousand troops.

The departure of about 1,350 members of the National Guard, ordered by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, represents just the latest rollback of troops from L.A. this month since more than 5,000 National Guard members and Marines were deployed to the city in June.

Sean Parnell, chief spokesman for the Pentagon, said that approximately 250 California Guard members would remain in L.A. to protect federal agents and buildings.

"We greatly appreciate the support of the more than 5,000 Guardsmen and Marines who mobilized to Los Angeles to defend Federal functions against the rampant lawlessness occurring in the city," Parnell said in a statement.

Mayor Karen Bass, who had dubbed the deployment^[2] an "armed occupation," was quick to celebrate the troops departure.

"Another win for Los Angeles," Bass said^[3] on X Wednesday night. "We will continue this pressure until ALL troops are out of L.A."

The troops' presence in Los Angeles -- and their role of protecting federal agents conducting immigration raids -- was fiercely contested. President Trump said the troops were necessary to maintain order as the administration ramped up its immigration raids and protesters covered downtown buildings in graffiti, set Waymos on fire and clashed with Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.

But many of California's key Democratic leaders said there was no need for federal troops in the city: local law enforcement could handle the protesters, they said, and the presence of federal troops in highly militarized gear only inflamed tension in the region. They also argued that federal officials had deployed the troops illegally.

Just a day after the first convoys of National Guard troops rumbled into L.A. on June 8, Gov. Gavin Newsom sued federal officials, saying that the deployment exceeded federal authority and violated the 10th amendment in an "unprecedented usurpation" of state power. Newsom also complained that the deployment had diverted the California National Guard from critical duties such as combating wildfires and interrupting the drug trade at the U.S.-Mexico border and across California.

His office released a statement responding to the latest draw down Thursday.

"President Trump is realizing that his political theater backfired. This militarization was always unnecessary and deeply unpopular," the statement said. "The President must do the right thing to end this illegal militarization now because the economic and societal impacts are dire. The women and men of our military deserve more than to be used as props in the federal government's propaganda machine."

Over the weeks, as the L.A. protests subsided, the troops did not appear to have a clear role and many appeared to be bored^[4]. By July, a source within Newsom's office with knowledge of the military operation told The Times that only about 3% of the troops were taking part in daily missions.

"There's not much to do," one Marine told The Times as he stood guard earlier this month outside the Wilshire Federal Building in Westwood.

The majority of National Guard members were left largely milling about the Joint Forces Training Base in Los Alamitos in an operation that the Pentagon had estimated would cost about $134 million.

On July 15, the Pentagon withdrew nearly 2,000 California National Guard soldiers^[5] from L.A. and on July 21 it withdrew 700 active-duty Marines^[6].

© 2025 Los Angeles Times.

Visit latimes.com^[7].

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.^[8]

Thousands of Army^[1] Reserve soldiers are being forced to scramble for new assignments after the service abruptly ordered the dismantling of its helicopter units, a sweeping move that has caught commanders off guard and upended aviation operations across the country.

The cuts, which are set to eliminate all of the reserve's helicopter units by the end of the summer, are part of Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George's broader push to modernize the force by shedding legacy formations and redirecting resources toward emerging technologies such as drones and artificial intelligence.

But the transition has left troops questioning both the pace and planning of the changes. Military.com spoke with 16 Army Reserve aviators, including commanders and senior noncommissioned officers, who expressed frustration with what they described as a chaotic and poorly communicated rollout. All requested anonymity, citing concerns about retaliation, as they were not authorized to speak publicly.

Read Next: Air Force Rebrands Facebook Page to Combat Rumors, Leaked Memos and Reddit Threads^[2]

"There was no heads-up, no briefing," said one senior noncommissioned officer. "Just an email saying aviation's going away and we need to find somewhere else to go."

News began trickling out within the aviation community's inner circle in February when Brig. Gen. Roger Deon, the head of Army Reserve Aviation Command, began meeting with commanders to give them a warning that the Pentagon had its sights on Army Reserve aviation for cuts, multiple senior officers with direct knowledge described.

The plan to cut all of the component's aviation didn't materialize until May, and that information took longer to reach the rank and file.

"That's whirlwind-fast for government work," one aviator noted, expressing frustrations with the rapid closure of units.

Some reserve aviation units are now working to find alternative roles for their pilots and full-time personnel, including potential placements with federal agencies such as U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Opportunities within the National Guard^[3] or the active-duty Army are limited and often require relocation, adding another layer of complexity for service members and their families.

For junior enlisted soldiers and part-time reservists in support roles such as mechanics, crew chiefs and administrative staff, the road ahead is even more complicated. Transferring into a new unit or occupational specialty can take months of retraining, a process that can be especially burdensome for reservists balancing military obligations with full-time civilian jobs or college coursework.

"There was no time to plan," one senior reserve aviator told Military.com. "This was all put on us to just figure out; there's been no support on this."

It's unclear how many soldiers will be affected. Maj. William Allred, an Army Reserve spokesperson, declined to say, noting operational security. However, the number of soldiers in formations is routinely publicized information.

"While the soldiers in the Army Reserve Aviation Command will be impacted by the cuts, they will have the opportunity to continue their military service in other units where their skills can be utilized," Allred said in a statement to Military.com.

Army Reserve aviation as a whole includes about 4,600 soldiers, including some fixed-wing aircraft formations, though helicopter units make up the lion's share of the force, with units in California, Washington state, Texas, Kansas, Colorado, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, New Jersey and Kentucky.

Changing components isn't easy. Parts of National Guard service may also be less attractive to reservists, some of those soldiers explained. The reserve often compensates troops for travel and hotels during their weekend duty obligations, a perk that is absent in the National Guard -- much to the chagrin of reservists who have been interviewed and are looking to switch components.

And Guard service often carries heavier demands. The component is routinely tapped for both overseas deployments^[4] and domestic missions, including disaster relief, border security and civil unrest response, duties that can sometimes be a greater burden on part-time soldiers compared to their reserve counterparts. Acquiring federal benefits is also more complicated.

The Army Reserve has not yet developed a comprehensive plan for soldiers to exit their contracts, but if they join the National Guard, they may also be required to repay generous enlistment bonuses of up to $20,000. The Army Reserve declined to comment on questions related to bonuses.

"We were told if we received a bonus, we'd have to pay it back," one enlisted soldier said.

Unlike their active-duty counterparts, reservists can't easily pivot to new units, particularly in large states or places with significant geographical gaps between units. Many people balance civilian jobs and family obligations, making relocation nearly impossible. Others have highly specialized skills -- such as air medical -- that are now disappearing.

Some units are scrambling to land spots in the National Guard, with upcoming weekend drills hosting recruiters^[5], but that option comes with limited slots and often requires troops to sign new multi-year contracts.

"It's mostly been on our own accord, [to] find a new home, to figure it out," another soldier noted.

Meanwhile, lawmakers in both parties are growing increasingly frustrated with the Army's disjointed rollout of major force structure changes, criticizing what they see as a lack of transparency and strategic coherence.

While there's broad agreement on Capitol Hill that the service needs to modernize and move beyond a doctrinal framework that's remained largely unchanged for decades, many say the Army has failed to articulate its plans clearly.

Several Capitol Hill aides expressed concerns to Military.com that there is a perception reforms are being implemented in an ad hoc and overly hasty manner, leaving Congress in the dark.

One of the units on the chopping block is the 1st Assault Helicopter Battalion, 158th Aviation Regiment, a Texas-based formation with a record of responding to domestic emergencies, including relief efforts following Hurricane Harvey in 2017.

"You've come into my house, where I was born and raised, in this county, and you're taking something away from me, and I want to know why," Rep. Morgan Luttrell, R-Texas, told George and Army Secretary Dan Driscoll during a budget hearing last month.

Related: Decades of Troubles for Air Force Maintainers Set to Get Worse with Job Consolidation ^[6]

A long-standing Air Force^[1] Facebook page created to represent its top enlisted leader has been renamed and rebranded^[2] as a news source -- an apparent move by the service to control online conversation and messaging within the ranks.

The Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force page, which has more than 200,000 followers on the social media platform, was renamed earlier this month "the Airman's Dispatch" with a mottos of "your source for trusted updates -- by airmen, for airmen," as well as "Truth moves fast. So do we."

The change, according to comments provided to Military.com by Chief Master Sgt. David Flosi, the service's top enlisted leader, was focused on having a reliable source for quick updates about the issues that matter most to airmen, such as physical fitness standards, uniform updates and deployment^[3] changes.

Read Next: Marine Sergeant Dies After Collapsing During Fitness Test in Florida^[4]

"We took an existing platform with over 200,000 followers and turned it into a more reliable tool for timely information sharing," Flosi said in an emailed statement to Military.com. "This isn't about one person anymore; it's a team effort. We're partnering with subject matter experts across the staff to push timely updates, explain policy changes, and give full context behind what's happening."

Many airmen often learn about policy changes throughout the service by reading leaked memos and communications through social media sites such as Reddit or the wildly popular Air Force amn/nco/snco Facebook page -- where troops often share insider information about developments facing the enlisted.

Some users and administrators of those sites expressed skepticism about Flosi's new initiative, arguing that it ultimately will just be another avenue for public affairs messaging and will discourage the transparency of those pre-existing pages.

"Rumors move fast, whether through Facebook groups, Reddit threads, or memo screenshots," Flosi said. "This page provides confirmed updates, clear explanations, and [helps] airmen understand what's real, what's still evolving, and what to expect next."

Katherine Kuzminski, the director of studies at the Center for a New American Security, told Military.com that the creation of the page could be a good resource for the rank and file if it's executed properly and actually provides timely updates to airmen.

"To a certain extent, I think this is a healthy and a good thing," Kuzminski said, adding the caveat that "if there is truly a up-to-date, clear, consistent message coming from the service and particularly for the enlisted force, coming from the chief master sergeant of the Air Force to the force, that can get ahead of a lot of speculation or concern that service members may have."

But she added that there is potential for the new page to go haywire if it strays from just providing memos and updates to the force.

"If instead, it gets into kind of partisan debates with other counter-information, that's where it could be risky," she added.

That type of messaging is already occurring in other parts of the military.

The Department of Defense's public affairs communications, since being overseen by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, have taken on a more combative tone -- challenging lawmakers, partisan messaging by pundits, and even attacks on the veracity of media reports.

Military.com reported that further changes to the military's once apolitical public messaging are already taking shape^[5] within the Army^[6], and potentially the Navy^[7], as political and partisan spokespeople join the fold.

The Airman's Dispatch hasn't taken on a political or overtly combative tone since its rebrand, but its creation led to some mixed reviews, criticisms and questions from commenters.

"The force will always hear it first from Air Force amn/nco/snco," one person commented, referencing what has long been seen as the go-to social media page for insider updates.

"Understanding the reasoning behind the recent lack of communication on social media will go a long way in helping airmen grasp your intent," one user said, adding, "This is a great idea!"

"Why not create a new page for the Airman's Dispatch instead of repurposing this page?" one account asked.

Flosi told Military.com that, even though the original page changed, he is "very much connected to the Airman's Dispatch, just as my predecessors were connected to the CMSAF Facebook page." He added that he often communicates through internal Microsoft Teams channels, sends notes to the field and makes frequent base visits.

But it's unclear how far ahead of public affairs messaging the new Facebook page will be and how forward it will be with sharing developments. For example, U.S. Forces Korea published a news release Tuesday about lengthening deployments.

The Airman's Dispatch posted a Department of Defense memo on the South Korea deployment on Wednesday morning, mostly reiterating the information within the official correspondence and news release. Many of the policy updates provided on the page link to already released information from public affairs pages.

"The more they can share, the less speculation there will be and thus less dependence on those kind of back-channel conversations that are happening on Reddit or other social media sites among airmen," Kuzminski said. "So it would be in their best interest to make sure they're getting out timely information, or being the lead in getting information out, before people are independently, privately worrying about what changes are coming."

Military.com learned that at least three pages that sprang up this month with similar or related names parodying the new Airman's Dispatch page, including those that were verified with a blue checkmark, had been removed.

When asked by Military.com, Flosi said "we do not have anything to do with Meta verification, account approval or removal," referring to the company that owns Facebook. Spokespeople for the top enlisted leader did not respond when asked whether they had complained or flagged those accounts to Meta.

When the administrator of the popular Air Force amn/nco/snco Facebook page was reached for comment about his reaction to the creation of the Airman's Dispatch page, he spoke frankly.

"We were here before CMSAF Flosi, and we'll be here after CMSAF Flosi," he said.

Related: Army Puts Political Operative in Charge of Public Affairs, Stoking Concerns of Creeping Partisanship^[8]