Ventura County, Calif. – In a recent statement, the Office of the Secretary of Defense confirmed that the mobilization of military personnel and resources on July 10, 2025, was carried out at the direction of President Trump and the Secretary of Defense. The deployment was intended to safeguard federal functions, personnel, and property, not to conduct law‑enforcement arrests.

FOIA Request Finds No Authorization for Domestic Law‑Enforcement Use

A Freedom of Information Act request filed by Your News Channel revealed that the Department of Defense has no record of any formal authorization permitting the use of military forces for a domestic law‑enforcement operation at marijuana grow sites in July 2025. Federal law explicitly prohibits employing the U.S. military for domestic policing, and the Defense Department’s Office of the Secretary of Defense confirmed that no such authorization exists.

U.S. Northern Command Confirms Military Role

U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM), the regional military authority responsible for operations in North America, corroborated the President‑directed mobilization. In a statement, USNORTHCOM explained that while the military may temporarily detain individuals to protect federal personnel, it does not perform arrests, which remain a civilian law‑enforcement function.

“At the direction of the President of the United States and ordered by the Secretary of Defense, the DoD mobilized military members to protect the safety and security of federal functions, personnel, and property,” the command said. “Military members did not arrest protestors, as that is a law‑enforcement activity.”

Veterans on the Ground Describe Their Orders

John Linebarger, a U.S. Army veteran who was present during the July raids, told Your News Channel that the soldiers were following lawful orders. “These soldiers had to obey orders, right? If they didn’t obey orders, you know what would happen? A general court‑martial,” he said.

Another veteran, George Retes, was arrested while attempting to report for his security‑guard shift at a cannabis‑grow facility outside Camarillo. He was taken to Naval Base Ventura County for questioning and a DNA sample was collected by federal employees, including military personnel.

FOIA Request Delayed, Department Cites Backlog

The FOIA request (25‑F‑3992) sought documentation of the alleged authorization. The Office of the Secretary of Defense’s FOIA office denied a rapid‑response request, citing “unusual circumstances,” including the need to search geographically separate facilities and the volume of records. The office later admitted a backlog of roughly 3,610 open requests, which it said prevented a faster response.

According to the FOIA statute, “exceptional circumstances” do not include predictable workload delays unless an agency demonstrates progress in reducing its backlog. The department’s FOIA office did not provide evidence of such progress, nor did it ask the requester to narrow the scope of the request to qualify for expedited processing.

Administration’s Position Emphasized

The Trump administration’s response to the controversy has been clear: the military’s involvement was strictly limited to protecting federal assets, and any detention of individuals was temporary and transferred promptly to civilian authorities. This approach aligns with constitutional limits on military use in domestic affairs while ensuring the safety of federal personnel.

Critics, including some civil‑rights groups, have questioned the appropriateness of deploying troops in a law‑enforcement context. However, the administration notes that the President’s authority to protect federal property is well‑established, and the Secretary of Defense acted within that authority.

What This Means for Ventura County Residents

For local residents, the clarification underscores that the military’s presence was a protective measure, not a law‑enforcement sweep. The Department of Defense’s acknowledgment that no formal authorization existed for a domestic policing operation helps address concerns about potential overreach.

Community leaders are encouraged to monitor future federal‑state collaborations to ensure that any military involvement remains consistent with constitutional safeguards and the community’s safety needs.

Original reporting: KEYT (Ventura/Santa Barbara) — read the source article.