Eyes in the Sky, Boots on the Ground: Surveillance and Military Force Meet U.S. Immigration Protests

immigration protests National Guard

Welcome to this week’s installment of The Intelligence Brief… as tensions continue to rise in American cities like Los Angeles following the deployment of National Guard troops in response to U.S. immigration protests, experts are sounding alarms over the use of military-grade surveillance, including Predator drones, to monitor and suppress protests. In our analysis this week, we’ll be tackling 1) the unprecedented use of domestic military force on U.S. soil, 2) how military drones and surveillance technology further marks what experts warn is a dangerous erosion of democratic norms, 3) why civil liberties advocates are raising alarms over intimidation tactics and blurred lines between civilian law enforcement and military power, and 4) recent events that have some commentators speculating about whether the recent deployments could be intended as “political show” used to distract from other issues.

Quote of the Week 

“It is not routine, using our military force to enforce criminal laws in our country.”

– U.S. Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois


RECENT NEWS from The Debrief


National Guard Crackdown Raises Authoritarian Alarms

The domestic deployment of military force amid protests in Los Angeles and other American cities stoked concerns over authoritarian overreach, with National Guard troops taking to the streets, and now reports of surveillance drones being utilized in response to recent immigration protests.

The historic use of the military on U.S. soil has come to represent one of the sharpest federal crackdowns in response to domestic dissent in recent memory, giving rise to political tensions that experts are warning may blur the lines between preserving national defense and political intimidation.

Historic Use of the National Guard on U.S. Soil

The deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles by the Trump Administration, actions taken in response to growing protests against immigration raids, has been described as the most extensive use of military force on American soil in recent memory.

During a Senate Appropriations Committee defense subcommittee hearing this week, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told lawmakers that the deployment “is getting ahead of a problem, so that if in other places, if there are other riots in places where law enforcement officers are threatened, we would have the capability to surge National Guard there if necessary.” The Defense Secretary’s remarks seemingly alluded to the possibility of additional deployments, regardless of the positions of state and local government officials on such military actions being taken by the federal government.

Similarly, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt issued a warning to protesters in U.S. cities, framing any civil unrest as “lawlessness” and a justification for further deployments.

According to The Guardian, reports appear to reveal low morale among troops deployed to Los Angeles, with many expressing discomfort at being thrust into a politically charged situation. Military family advocacy groups say dozens of National Guard and Marine service members have voiced unease, feeling their mission has little to do with genuine national security.

Escalating Rhetoric Over Immigration Protests

President Trump, while speaking at the recently renamed Fort Bragg in North Carolina at an event where military members were reportedly screened for allegiance prior to attending, delivered a highly partisan speech where he warned about enemies of the American people.

“Time and again, our enemies have learned that if you dare to threaten the American people, an American soldier will chase you down, crush you and cast you into oblivion,” Trump said at the event, making no distinctions between supposed “enemies” of America and peaceful demonstrators who have participated in the protests in Los Angeles and other cities.

Asked about the President’s position on what form of protests he finds acceptable, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt fired back at NOTUS White House correspondent Jasmine Wright, saying “Of course the president supports peaceful protests,” before charging that Wright asking for clarity on the matter had been “a stupid question.”

Critics of the White House’s recent statements have argued that the administration’s rhetoric mirrors the language of foreign autocrats, according to the Washington Post, which reported that such incidents bear similarity to those in countries where “leaders more frequently deploy their military forces within their own borders.”

Currently, California has asserted that the Trump administration’s actions are an overreach of federal power and has sued to block uninvited troop deployments within its borders. Beyond the West Coast, similar protests have erupted in cities including Philadelphia, Chicago, and San Francisco, coinciding with a planned “No Kings Day” meant to challenge Trump’s expanding executive power.

Predator Drones Over LA?

Adding to the mounting concerns over military action in American cities, now flight tracking data has confirmed that an MQ-9 Reaper drone was reportedly flying in what appeared to be a surveillance pattern over Los Angeles during protests last weekend.

The drone, which was determined to have been flying in a hexagonal path over Paramount and downtown LA, later broke from this pattern and headed toward the U.S.-Mexico border. Data and audio recordings by an aviation enthusiast later verified that the drone was being operated by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, who subsequently confirmed the flight.

Amid the recent National Guard deployments, adding the use of military-grade aerial surveillance in a U.S. city during civilian protests has further stoked the fires of concern for civil rights advocates by seemingly equating political dissent with a national security threat. In contrast, during an appearance on Fox & Friends First, news contributor Brett Velicovich said that the use of drones is “perfectly legal” and that occasionally the aircraft are used for domestic operations.

Regardless of the legality of such operations, civil liberties groups nonetheless warn that the line between surveillance in the promotion of upholding the law, and intimidation of political protestors is becoming increasingly blurred.

A Political Show Meant as a Distraction?

The events of recent days have aroused suspicions among some that the recent military deployments could have less to do with upholding the law and instead be offering a distraction from other news, including negative headlines and even President Trump’s alleged ties to Jeffrey Epstein.

In a bombastic series of postings on X following his departure from work with the Trump Administration, Tesla and SpaceX founder Elon Musk launched into criticism of Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill,” calling it a “disgusting abomination.”

However, Musk didn’t stop there. “Time to drop the really big bomb,” he wrote in a subsequent posting on X, where he then claimed that President Trump “is in the Epstein files.”

“That is the real reason they have not been made public,” Musk wrote. “Have a nice day, DJT!” Musk has since expressed regret over the statements, apparently removing the post that included the allegations about Trump’s associations with the late American financier and convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

According to Politifact, while Trump is well known to have had associations with Epstein, there is currently no documented evidence that he ever visited a notorious private island where, according to prosecutors, Epstein is believed to have hosted underage girls as part of his sex trafficking operations.

Fundamentally, amid the questions involving state sovereignty and overreaches of surveillance technologies, some also warn that National Guard deployment alongside domestic police raises the potential for safety concerns as immigration protests continue in U.S. cities.

“The military is a tool that should be used as a last resort, not a first response,” according to Sarah Streyder of the Secure Families Initiative, who told The Guardian, “It does not feel that the tool is being calibrated accurately to the situation.”

As tensions mount and deployments continue, advocates like Streyder and countless others—among which are also many disenchanted Americans in Trump’s own political base—fear the clear boundary between military force and civilian law enforcement is being dangerously eroded.

That concludes this week’s installment of The Intelligence Brief. You can read past editions of our newsletter at our website, or if you found this installment online, don’t forget to subscribe and get future email editions from us here. Also, if you have a tip or other information you’d like to send along directly to me, you can email me at micah [@] thedebrief [dot] org, or reach me on X: @MicahHanks.

Here are the top stories we’re covering right now…