SACRAMENTO — California Governor Gavin Newsom on Tuesday continued his warning that American democracy is under attack from within, pointing directly at President Donald Trump’s recent federalization of the California National Guard and aggressive immigration enforcement actions as evidence of creeping authoritarianism.
In a blistering op-ed shared on Fox News, Newsom accused Trump of overstepping constitutional limits, using military force against civilians, and deliberately stoking fear in immigrant communities to consolidate political power.
“Trump is trying to destroy our democracy,” Newsom said. “Do not let him.”
The governor’s remarks come in the wake of sweeping immigration raids and mass arrests across Los Angeles and other areas of Southern California. Federal agents, according to reports from the governor’s office and civil rights organizations, jumped out of unmarked vans and detained individuals on the street and in agricultural fields without warning or warrants.
A nine-months pregnant woman was arrested and later hospitalized. A family with three young children was reportedly held for two days in an office basement without adequate food or water. Several people were deported the same day they were arrested, raising serious concerns about violations of due process and constitutional protections.
Newsom said the raids and arrests have little to do with public safety and everything to do with political theater. Federal data indicates a sharp escalation in arrests of immigrants with no prior criminal history, rising from 860 in January to 7,800 this month—an increase of more than 800 percent.
In contrast, arrests of individuals with criminal charges or convictions rose by 91 percent over the same period. Newsom said these numbers contradict the administration’s claims that it is targeting dangerous individuals. “Trump is lying about focusing on ‘the worst of the worst,’” he said.
The crisis deepened when Trump, without the consent or request of the governor, took control of over 4,000 members of the California National Guard and deployed them to Los Angeles alongside 700 active-duty U.S. Marines. The move marked an unprecedented use of federal military force on domestic soil in peacetime and set off a legal showdown between the state and the federal government.
Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit to block the deployment, arguing that Trump’s order violated the Tenth Amendment and long-standing norms separating military force from civilian law enforcement.
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer issued a temporary restraining order in favor of California, ordering the immediate return of command of the Guard to the state. That ruling was promptly appealed by the Trump administration, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a temporary stay, reinstating Trump’s authority while it considers the case.
During the appellate hearing, Justice Department attorney Brett Shumate argued that the president’s authority to deploy the Guard is absolute under federal statutes related to invasion or rebellion.
Shumate claimed the protests in Los Angeles constituted a rebellion against the United States government and that local authorities were either unable or unwilling to protect federal personnel.
When asked by Judge Mark Bennett whether courts had any role in reviewing the president’s actions, Shumate responded, “There’s no role for the court to play in reviewing that decision.”
Newsom’s legal team forcefully rebutted the administration’s position. State attorney Sam Harbourt told the panel that more than 1,000 arrests had already been made by local law enforcement, with significant mutual aid deployed from other California agencies.
“This is not a rebellion. This is a protest,” Harbourt said, adding that Trump’s actions threaten the constitutional balance between state and federal authority and risk normalizing the use of military power for political ends.
Legal experts have also weighed in.
Stanford Law Professor Robert Weisberg called the administration’s claim that the president’s actions are beyond judicial review “absurd.”
Zachary Price, a law professor at UC Law San Francisco, noted the irony of the administration invoking the specter of rebellion in Los Angeles while downplaying or excusing the January 6 Capitol insurrection.
Price said the Trump administration appears to be bypassing congressional limits on enforcement budgets by using the military to bolster immigration efforts beyond what Congress intended.
As the legal battle plays out, Newsom has continued to highlight the broader implications of Trump’s actions.
In both his address and op-ed, he warned that authoritarian regimes often begin by targeting the most vulnerable, but rarely stop there.
“If some of us can be snatched off the streets without a warrant, based only on suspicion or skin color, then none of us are safe,” Newsom said. “This is about more than California. It’s about all of us.”
Newsom said Trump’s deployment of federal forces is not just illegal and unnecessary, but dangerous. The troops now patrolling Los Angeles were trained for foreign combat—not domestic policing—and their presence has exacerbated tensions rather than defused them.
“We honor their service and bravery,” Newsom said. “But we do not want our streets militarized by our own armed forces.”
The consequences are not merely symbolic. Newsom said that 300 National Guard personnel who typically support California’s wildfire response have been pulled from duty to support Trump’s order, severely undermining the state’s ability to prepare for and respond to fire season. The militarization effort, Newsom said, is costing taxpayers an estimated $134 million—money being spent on a display of power instead of public safety.
Veterans groups and retired military officials have spoken out in support of Newsom’s position. In an amicus brief, former Army and Navy secretaries and retired four-star admirals and generals warned that involving the military in political disputes risks undermining recruitment and morale. Janessa Goldbeck, a U.S. Marine Corps veteran and senior advisor to VoteVets, said, “When a president uses the military to police his own people, we are no longer in the realm of democratic governance—we are witnessing the rehearsal of authoritarian rule.”
The situation has drawn widespread national attention. As the Ninth Circuit prepares to rule on the legality of the deployment, two of the three appellate judges were appointed by Trump, while the third was appointed by President Joe Biden. Legal analysts caution against assuming political bias in the panel’s decision, noting that many conservative judges have ruled against Trump’s overreach in the past.
In public statements and social media posts, Trump has doubled down. He claimed that without the military presence, Los Angeles would be “burning to the ground” and thanked the Ninth Circuit for temporarily restoring his authority over the National Guard.
Newsom has pushed back against the rhetoric and the broader agenda he says it represents.
“This isn’t just about L.A. or California,” Newsom said. “Trump’s order claims authority over any state’s National Guard. California may be first, but it won’t be the last.”
The governor warned that Trump’s broader political agenda includes undermining public institutions, eliminating government watchdogs, threatening academic freedom, and intimidating the press. “We are in a perilous moment,” Newsom said. “We have a sitting president who believes he is bound by no law, including our Constitution.”
Despite the gravity of the situation, Newsom ended his address on a note of defiance and hope. He cited former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis: “In a democracy, the most important political office is that of the private citizen.”
“It’s time for all of us to stand up,” Newsom said. “Do not give in to him. Do not let him win. If we stand together—as neighbors, as communities, as states—we will win.”
The Ninth Circuit is expected to issue a ruling in the coming days. Both sides have signaled that if they lose, they will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Newsom is the one trying to exploit fear for his own political ambitions.