Defense Secretary Claims Military Mobilized for Domestic Law Enforcement Operation Last Year Without Permission
VENTURA COUNTY, Calif. (KEYT) – In response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by Your News Channel, the highest office at the Department of Defense stated it has no records of any form of authorization for a domestic law enforcement operation last year.
Federal law explicitly prohibits the use of the U.S. military for domestic law enforcement.
Punishment for violations of the law include fines or imprisonment of up to two years or both.
Officials with the Office of Secretary of Defense confirmed last week that at the highest levels of the federal agency, no authorization currently exists regarding the use of military personnel, resources, nor a military installation during law enforcement raids at marijuana grow locations in July of last year.
That claim was made after Your News Channel had confirmed with U.S. Northern Command, the regional military authority responsible for military actions in North America, the exact opposite.
A U.S. Army veteran at the scene the day of the raids and interviewed by Your News Channel, John Linebarger, notably explained that military members present during the raids shouldn't be the subject of protester's ire.
"These soldiers had to obey orders, right? If they didn't obey orders, you know what would happen? A general court martial," the U.S. Army veteran explained on July 10, 2025.
Around the same time, another Army veteran, George Retes, was trying to report to his shift as a security guard at a Glass House Brands grow location outside of Camarillo, but he was instead arrested at the scene and transported to Naval Base Ventura County where he was questioned and a DNA sample collected by a group of federal employees, including members of the military.
Below are images from Mr. Retes' account of what happened and shared with federal courts as part of his ongoing civil claim regarding his arrest and multi-day detention in July of last year.
According to the Office of the Secretary of Defense/Joint Chiefs of Staff last week, their office currently has no record of any form of authorization for the use of military personnel, vehicles, nor Naval Base Ventura County for the domestic law enforcement operation.
Your News Channel confirmed through an FOIA request with U.S. Northern Command on Aug. 21, 2025, that, "At the request of other federal agencies, the SECDEF [Secretary of Defense] can order USNORTHCOM [U.S. Northern Command] to provide military facilities to enable their operations. However, Naval Base Ventura County was not requested [for the July 10, 2025, law enforcement operation]."
The regional military authority added, "At the direction of the President of the United States and as ordered by the Secretary of Defense, the DoD [Department of Defense] mobilized military members to protect the safety and security of federal functions, personnel, and property. Military members did not arrest protestors, as that is a law enforcement activity. Military members may temporarily detain an individual to stop an assault of, to prevent harm to, or to prevent interference with federal personnel performing their duties. Any temporary detention will end when the detained person(s) can be safely transferred to the custody of appropriate civilian law enforcement personnel."
U.S. Northern Command confirmed it did not have any record of a request to use Naval Base Ventura County for domestic law enforcement operations on July 10, 2025, but did mobilize military members and resources, "[a]t the direction of the President of the United States and ordered by the Secretary of Defense".
In order to confirm details about the order noted by U.S. Northern Command, Your News Channel author submitted Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request 25-F-3992 with the highest level of the U.S. military, the Office of the Secretary of Defense/Joint Chiefs of Staff (OSD/JCS), the origin of the orders to mobilize military members and assets for domestic law enforcement actions.
Instead of providing the requested documents in accordance with the timeframe detailed in federal law, the FOIA Office for the OSD/JCS denied the request for a rapid response arguing, "there are unusual circumstances which impact our ability to quickly process your request."
The FOIA Office defined the, "special circumstances" discovered once the office began "processing" Your News Channel's request as one or more of the following: A.) "the need to search for and collect records from a facility geographically separated from this office" B.) "the potential volume of records responsive to your request" and/or C.) "the need for consultation with one or more other agencies or DoD [Department of Defense] components having a substantial interest in either the determination or the subject matter of the records".
None of those provided scenarios could apply to records that do not exist.
The FOIA Office for OSD/JCS added that the request had been placed in the "complex processing queue", but would only receive a response in the order in which the request was received before admitting their office was behind on "approximately 3,610 open requests" at the time.
Notably, the Freedom of Information Act states, "the term 'exceptional circumstances' does not include a delay that results from a predictable agency workload of requests under this section, unless the agency demonstrates reasonable progress in reducing its backlog of pending requests."
The same federal law also notes, "Regulations under this subparagraph may provide a person making a request that does not qualify for the fastest multitrack processing an opportunity to limit the scope of the request in order to qualify for faster processing."
The FOIA Office for the Office of Secretary of Defense did not provide a demonstration of a reduction in its stated backlog, only stating its backlog precluded it from complying with federal law, and at no time was Your News Channel author asked to limit the scope of the request.
Your News Channel author appealed the decision to not fast track the request the same day as the denial, arguing the potential unlawful activities posed an ongoing issue, left service members legally liable and implicated the highest levels of the federal government.
On April 21 of this year, the FOIA Office provided a response to our appeal for an expedited response.
They concluded that, "Although your request concerns a federal government activity, you have not established that the requested records are a matter of current exigency to the American public, nor that delaying a response would compromise a significant recognized interest."
On Sep. 9, 2026, the FOIA Office for the OSD/JCS issued its final determination regarding FOIA request 25-F-3992.
"After thorough searches of the electronic records and files of OUSW(P) [Under Secretary of War for Policy] and JS [Joint Staff], no records of the kind you described could be identified. We believe that search methods were appropriate and could reasonably be expected to produce the requested records if they existed."
When Your News Channel reached out noting that U.S. Northern Command had already stated on-the-record that such authorizations did exist at one point last year and they had acted on those orders on July 10, 2025, the FOIA Office for the OSD/JCS directed all of our questions to "the Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of War for Public Affairs".
The Freedom of Information Act does not require requesters to contact any public affairs office to complete their FOIA request, but it does require, "each agency shall make available its FOIA Public Liaison, who shall assist in the resolution of any disputes between the requester and the agency".
That decision to add additional steps to complete an FOIA request, a denial to answer questions, and the contradictory statements were all shared with the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Defense by Your News Channel.
The federal watchdog states on its website that it, "operates as an independent and objective agency within the Department" of Defense, but the office directed our concerns back to the FOIA Office for the Office of Secretary of Defense/JCS, the same office that had already redirected our questions to an internal press office.
When Your News Channel reached out to the designated press office the day of the redirect, the office did not have any responsive documents and shared they do not participate in fulfilling FOIA requests.
Your News Channel reached out repeatedly to the Office of Secretary of Defense, U.S. Northern Command, the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Defense, and Naval Base Ventura County and have received no response.
The resolution argued the Defense Secretary had abused his office and issued unlawful orders regarding operations in Iran, in Venezuela, and on the high seas.
The decision to insulate the Secretary's Office from responsibility for ordering the mobilization of military members and an installation for domestic law enforcement in response to Your News Channel's inquiries appears to match some of the claims made in the impeachment resolution.
"I didn't give anybody heads-up," Congressman Massie explained to members of the press yesterday. "When they found out I was doing the Epstein discharge petition, they canceled two weeks of Congress, and I think if they found out I was going to do this, they might have canceled even more days."
On the morning of the following day, Sep. 16, 2026, House leadership cancelled all business scheduled for the remainder of the week and members will not have the opportunity to vote on the impeachment resolution before upcoming elections in November.
