LOS ANGELES — In an extraordinary clash between state and federal authority, California is at the epicenter of a growing constitutional crisis after President Donald Trump ordered the federalization of the California National Guard and the deployment of active-duty U.S. Marines to Los Angeles without the consent of the state.
Despite clear legal restrictions against such a move, Trump’s actions have sparked legal challenges, political outrage, and protests across the state and beyond.
Governor Gavin Newsom addressed Californians in a statewide broadcast, warning that what the country is witnessing is not a response rooted in law enforcement, but a dangerous slide into authoritarianism.
“Trump is pulling a military dragnet across LA,” the Governor said, “well beyond his stated intent to just go after violent and serious criminals.”
The governor’s speech, delivered from the Capitol, emphasized not only the unlawfulness of the move but also its implications for the entire country.
He warned that, if allowed to stand, this could mark a turning point in American democratic governance — where federal troops can be deployed on U.S. streets at the whim of a president, bypassing constitutional checks and the consent of governors.
The president’s own statements, and those of his administration, further underscore the hypocrisy of this action.
In 2020, during protests in Portland, Trump publicly stated that the federal government could not call in the National Guard unless a governor requested it.
“We have to go by the laws,” he said at the time. His own Homeland Security Secretary, Kristi Noem, echoed this in 2024, warning that if President Biden ever tried to federalize the Guard it would constitute a “direct attack on states’ rights.”
No such attempt ever materialized under Biden’s administration. But under Trump, that very red line has now been crossed — and in the state where resistance was most expected.
On June 7, just one day after demonstrations began in Los Angeles in response to ICE raids and detentions, President Trump issued a memorandum authorizing the Department of Defense to bring 2,000 National Guard troops under federal control for a period of 60 days.
His memo declared that the protests constituted a form of rebellion against federal authority and directed the Secretary of Defense to commandeer state militias in coordination with governors. Yet that “coordination” never occurred. Governor Newsom has confirmed publicly that he was neither informed of nor consented to the federalization of California’s Guard.
This order wasn’t even limited to California. Its language opened the door for the president to assert control over the National Guard in any state, threatening to erode state sovereignty nationwide. Legal experts warn that, if left unchecked, this move could upend the traditional balance of power enshrined in the Constitution between the federal government and the states — and endanger the Guard’s vital role in emergency response, disaster recovery, and law enforcement support at the state level.
What makes the situation even more inflammatory is the scale and cost of the deployment. To date, President Trump has activated over 4,000 National Guard troops and deployed 700 active-duty Marines to the Los Angeles area. The Pentagon has estimated the 60-day operation will cost U.S. taxpayers approximately $134 million in travel, lodging, and operational support.
According to the Department of Defense, this means more U.S. troops are now stationed in Los Angeles than in Iraq and Syria combined — a stark and telling fact. Meanwhile, the protests that supposedly warranted this military surge had already largely subsided by the time the Guard arrived, with local law enforcement already having restored calm and enforced order.
Veterans across the country have expressed alarm and outrage at the president’s actions.
Janessa Goldbeck, a U.S. Marine Corps veteran and senior advisor to VoteVets, denounced the move as a blatant misuse of the armed forces: “The President’s decision to deploy active-duty Marines to Los Angeles is not only inflammatory and escalatory — it is a deliberate attempt to recast the military as a domestic tool of political intimidation. This is not normal. It is not necessary. And it is not cheap.”
Shawn VanDiver, a Navy veteran and founder of the San Diego Chapter of the Truman National Security Project, emphasized the dangerous precedent: “Asking the U.S. military to take up arms against American citizens is a betrayal of everything we swore to defend.”
Others echoed similar sentiments, warning that such deployments corrode military morale, undermine the purpose of the Guard, and put both service members and civilians at risk.
The backlash has been equally strong from elected officials. California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed suit against President Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and the Department of Defense, arguing that the president’s actions violate the U.S. Constitution and federal law.
Bonta’s office noted that the deployment is illegal because it did not follow the required statutory procedures — namely, that the president must act “through” the state’s governor when federalizing the National Guard under Title 10 of the U.S. Code. Newsom’s office, in turn, stated unequivocally that no such coordination or request occurred, and therefore the move was an unlawful seizure of state authority.
The legal argument hinges in part on whether the protests in Los Angeles constitute an “insurrection” or “rebellion” under federal law. Trump administration attorneys argued in federal court that they do — that immigration-related protests challenging ICE enforcement rise to the level of rebellion against the government.
Citing an obscure 1827 Supreme Court decision, Martin v. Mott, Justice Department lawyer Christopher Edelman insisted the president alone has the power to determine what military force is “necessary” to suppress such threats — not governors, and not federal courts.
California officials rejected this interpretation, calling it a dangerous distortion of the law and a flimsy excuse for a political maneuver designed to provoke fear and chill dissent. The case is now before U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, who has scheduled a hearing to determine the legality of the deployment.
Meanwhile, the consequences on the ground have been far-reaching. Hundreds of California National Guard personnel who ordinarily support wildfire suppression, emergency rescue, and border drug interdiction have now been reassigned to armories and federal buildings in Los Angeles.
This comes at the worst possible time, as peak fire season begins and the state faces elevated wildfire risks amid climate-driven heat and drought. Governor Newsom responded swiftly, launching a new hiring campaign for CAL FIRE to help offset the diminished firefighting capacity. The campaign, anchored by the new website JoinCALFIRE.com, aims to recruit thousands of firefighters, resource managers, and support staff over the next several years.
But the long-term implications go well beyond emergency response. At the core of the issue is a fundamental question about American democracy: Can the President of the United States use the military to intimidate the population, crush protests, and override state authority without meaningful checks?
Many believe the answer must be no — and they see Trump’s actions as a direct test of that principle. “We signed a blank check to defend our country, not to hurt our own people,” said Chef Basil Kimbrew, a disabled veteran and chair of the California Democratic Party Veterans Caucus. “Veterans and active-duty soldiers do not take up fighting against our American people. We have a responsibility to defend against dictatorship, and that’s what we are trained to do.”
At ground level in Los Angeles, the deployment has produced the opposite of its intended effect. Protesters who had gathered in modest numbers prior to the National Guard’s arrival swelled into the thousands once troops appeared on city streets in full combat gear. Videos and images show peaceful demonstrators, many of them young and unarmed, standing face-to-face with heavily armed soldiers and Marines, sparking scenes that critics describe as designed to intimidate rather than protect.
Observers on the ground say the federal response has inflamed tensions, drawn more crowds, and exposed the extent to which Trump’s actions have been counterproductive.
“They’re not supposed to be here,” said Albert, a protester and son of Mexican immigrants. “Trump is making us look like we’re animals.” Another protester, Viviana, described the scene as a “recipe for disaster” that was heightening fears in immigrant communities already targeted by ICE operations.
As graffiti cleanup crews moved through downtown Los Angeles on Wednesday, trying to restore a sense of calm, thousands of troops remained stationed outside federal buildings. Their orders, according to Major General Scott Sherman, include not only crowd control but assisting ICE officers in future immigration raids. While they are technically not authorized to arrest civilians, they are permitted to detain individuals until local authorities arrive — a policy many critics argue violates constitutional norms and further blurs the line between military and civilian law enforcement.
The president’s deployment of troops against the will of California’s elected leadership has placed the nation at a precipice. Legal challenges are pending, protests are continuing, and the moral authority of the presidency is being called into question.
For now, California continues to resist what it sees as an illegal and undemocratic action. Whether the courts, the Congress, or the American people will draw the line remains an open and urgent question.
“The president’s deployment of troops against the will of California’s elected leadership ”
But not against the will of the people.
“What is your opinion of President Trump’s decision in recent days to deploy National Guard and federal military in downtown Los Angeles?
Approve: 59%
Disapprove: 39%
Undecided: 2%”
https://insideradvantage.com/insideradvantage-national-survey-fifty-nine-percent-approve-trumps-deployment-of-national-guard-and-troops-in-l-a/
We’ll see what happens with public opinion, but your largely making a political argument on a legal article.
“thousands of troops remained stationed outside federal buildings”
Yup, the feds are allowed to protect federal buildings.
“Title 40 of the U.S. Code (§ 1315):
Grants the Department of Homeland Security authority to protect federal buildings and properties through the Federal Protective Service (FPS).”
For clarification: This is not a point of dispute
California argues that the federalized troops have exceeded the narrow purpose of protecting federal property and personnel, and instead are engaging in—or are poised to engage in—general law enforcement activities, which the state contends is unlawful.
I read the response brief from the DOJ.
The DOJ contends that California’s complaint seeking an injunction on the President’s federalization of the National Guard in Los Angeles is merely a “crass political stunt.”
The DOJ accuses Governor Newsom of launching a political stunt to stop the President from exercising his constitutional authority to deploy federal forces to protect federal property and personnel in Los Angeles.
The DOJ defends President Trump’s decision to federalize the California National Guard and deploy Marines as lawful and necessary due to escalating violence.
The President invoked 10 U.S.C. § 12406, which authorizes him to federalize the National Guard during:
Invasion or risk of invasion
Rebellion or threat of rebellion
Inability to execute federal law with regular forces
The DOJ argues this authority is discretionary and non-reviewable by courts (citing Martin v. Mott, Dalton v. Spector).
No Governor’s veto or consent is required under § 12406; the statute only mandates that federal orders be transmitted “through” the Governor.
DOJ says Trump did consult Newsom by phone before the deployment, and the procedural requirements were fulfilled.
The DOJ rejects California’s argument that the deployment violates the Tenth Amendment or the Posse Comitatus Act, stating that:
The Guard and Marines are protecting federal property, not enforcing law against civilians.
Protective duties do not amount to domestic law enforcement prohibited under the Act.
Observers believe that the brief is wrong on the facts and law.
For example, the DOJ asserts that the President was entitled to domestically deploy these 4,000 troops – under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 – based on the President’s conclusions that the protests constituted a “rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States” and that “regular forces” (i.e., L.A. local law enforcement) were “unable” to execute federal law.
We’ll find out what judge Breyer thinks this afternoon.
“We’ll find out what judge Breyer thinks this afternoon.”
A Bill Clinton appointee.