LOS ANGELES — Federal attorneys argue that President Donald Trump’s continued federal control of California National Guard troops stationed in Los Angeles remains lawful due to an alleged ongoing “danger of rebellion,” despite California’s insistence that the deployment violates constitutional limits on presidential power and undermines state authority over its Guard.
According to reporting by the San Francisco Chronicle, federal attorneys told a court that Trump’s decision to keep about 100 California National Guard members deployed on the ground in Los Angeles under federal command is still legally justified, even though the demonstrations that prompted the deployment have largely subsided. California, by contrast, maintains that the deployment unlawfully overrides the governor’s authority and exceeds the president’s constitutional powers.
The Chronicle reports that National Guard troops have been present in Los Angeles since June 2025, when Trump federalized roughly 4,000 Guard members in response to protests against deportation operations. While those demonstrations eventually died down, federal lawyers argued Friday that the president could legally keep troops deployed “indefinitely” at a given mission site.
During a tense, 90-minute hearing, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer expressed skepticism about the federal government’s position. Cited the Chronicle, federal attorney Eric Hamilton “argued president can keep troops federalized indefinitely, without judicial review,” suggesting that Congress would be the only potential check. Judge Breyer responded that under such reasoning, troop deployments could last “forever.”
California Attorney General Rob Bonta forcefully rejected the federal government’s arguments. According to the Chronicle, Bonta said, “The National Guard is not the president’s traveling private army to deploy where he wants, when he wants, for as long as he wants.” He further argued that emergency circumstances no longer exist, stating, “No crisis lasts forever.”
The Department of Justice pointed to violence during the “No Kings Day” demonstrations in Los Angeles on June 6 as justification for maintaining the deployment, urging the court not to “ignore the situation,” according to the Chronicle. Bonta’s legal team responded that these incidents were isolated and that the vast majority of protests were peaceful.
Judge Breyer pressed the DOJ to provide evidence that local law enforcement was unwilling or unable to protect federal property. The Chronicle reports that government lawyers referenced a recent incident in which a man attempted to throw Molotov cocktails at federal buildings. The devices did not detonate, and federal officers, not National Guard members, quickly apprehended the suspect.
Deputy Attorney General Meghan Strong told the court that the incident “is a good example of why the National Guard should not be there or still has to be continued,” noting that Guard members “didn’t respond or assist at all.” Strong further stated that “no legal basis exists for even a single soldier to be present in LA,” according to the Chronicle, adding that “the damage is done the moment a single member of the National Guard is unlawfully federalized.”
Initial reactions to Trump’s decision to federalize the troops were sharply negative. The Chronicle reports that both Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass opposed the move, arguing that local law enforcement was capable of handling the situation.
The number of federally controlled Guard members was later reduced from 4,000 to 300. About 200 of those troops were sent back to Oregon, leaving roughly 100 still deployed in Los Angeles.
According to the Chronicle, other judges have already issued rulings blocking Trump from sending National Guard troops to Oregon and Illinois under similar circumstances.
Bonta has said he would be “very glad” if Judge Breyer rules on whether the remaining California Guard troops must be returned to state control. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals previously overturned an injunction issued by Breyer in a related matter but has not yet decided whether the Guard’s role amounted to unlawful law enforcement activity.
The San Francisco Chronicle notes that the dispute continues to raise fundamental questions about the limits of presidential power, state sovereignty, and the use of military forces in response to largely peaceful demonstrations, issues that sit at the center of national debates over policing, militarization, and civil rights in the United States.
Primary Source: San Francisco Chronicle, “DOJ lawyers argue there’s still ‘a danger of rebellion’ in California,” by Sara DiNatale.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
