Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Domestic Deployment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee questions Marine deployment to Los Angeles; general cites training and rules of engagement
Summary
Members asked whether marines sent to Los Angeles to support homeland operations had the training and constraints needed for domestic deployment. Commandant Eric Smith said marines receive training, that units will not be used for law enforcement, and that standing rules for the use of force are being applied.
The committee probed the deployment of active‑duty Marines to Los Angeles, asking whether those units had received the special training and legal guidance required for domestic operations.
Representative Sara Jacobs and other members raised concerns about placing active‑duty forces in domestic settings where police and National Guard normally operate. General Eric Smith said the marines deployed to Los Angeles had undergone training in de‑escalation, crowd control and less‑than‑lethal tactics. In response to direct questioning he said, “No, ma'am,” when asked whether any marine would be allowed near civilians in Los Angeles before completing the full course of that training; he added that deployed marines had received “four days worth of training.”
Members also asked whether marines could be asked to perform law‑enforcement tasks. Smith emphasized legal limits: the marines are under NORTHCOM direction and were tasked to “protect federal property and federal personnel.” He said marines do not fire warning shots and that unit leaders will ensure compliance with the Posse Comitatus Act. When asked whether the standing rules for the use of force (SRF) governing deployed marines could be made public, Smith responded that the SRF “are currently public.”
Members pressed on timing and consistency of statements from the Pentagon and other officials about whether the units were fully trained before movement. Smith said marines continue to train while deployed and that training is ongoing; he told the committee he would follow up with specifics as needed.
The exchange highlighted congressional concerns about the domestic use of active forces, the adequacy of training for non‑traditional missions, and the need for clear, public rules and oversight when troops operate on U.S. soil.
