Fact check: Have Marines been deployed to domestic protests in other major US cities and at what cost?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, Marines have indeed been deployed to domestic protests in major US cities, specifically Los Angeles, at a significant financial cost. The deployment involved 700 active-duty U.S. Marines sent to Los Angeles in response to immigration protests ^{[1] [2]}. The Pentagon confirmed the cost at $134 million for a 60-day deployment period, as stated by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ^{[3] [4] [5]}.

The Marines were deployed to protect federal property and personnel, including federal immigration agents, during protests against immigration policies ^[2]. These troops are authorized to temporarily detain people if threatened or harassed before turning them over to civilian law enforcement, which raises significant legal concerns about the use of active-duty military in domestic law enforcement ^[6].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks crucial historical context about previous military deployments for domestic civil unrest. The analyses reveal a long history of such deployments, including the 1863 New York City Draft Riots, the 1932 Bonus Army attack, and the 1992 Los Angeles Riots ^[7]. This historical precedent demonstrates that military deployment for domestic law enforcement is not unprecedented but remains controversial.

Key missing context includes:

• The deployment was made without the consent of the state's governor, which represents a significant federal override of state authority ^[8]
• Other cities mentioned experiencing protests include Austin, Dallas, Boston, and Chicago, though specific Marine deployments to these locations are not confirmed ^[4]
• The potential for military deployment to other cities amid ongoing public pushback against immigration policies seeking mass deportation ^[6]
• The complex legal and constitutional questions surrounding the use of active-duty forces in domestic law enforcement roles ^[2]

Beneficiaries of different narratives:

• Federal immigration enforcement agencies benefit from military protection during controversial deportation operations
• State and local officials who oppose federal immigration policies benefit from highlighting the unprecedented nature of deploying Marines without state consent
• Civil liberties organizations benefit from emphasizing the constitutional concerns about military involvement in civilian law enforcement

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question appears neutral and factual in its framing, seeking specific information about deployments and costs without making claims. However, it could be incomplete in scope by focusing only on "other major US cities" when the primary confirmed deployment has been to Los Angeles.

Potential areas of bias or incomplete framing:

• The question doesn't acknowledge the specific context of immigration enforcement that triggered these deployments, which is crucial for understanding the scope and purpose
• It doesn't address the legal and constitutional controversies surrounding the use of active-duty military for domestic law enforcement
• The framing as "domestic protests" might minimize the specific nature of immigration-related demonstrations and the federal response to state resistance to deportation policies

The question itself doesn't contain misinformation but could benefit from more specific context about the immigration enforcement backdrop that prompted these unprecedented deployments ^{[2] [6]}.