- “We are removing the National Guard from Chicago, Los Angeles, and Portland, despite the fact that CRIME has been greatly reduced by having these great Patriots in those cities, and ONLY by that fact.” – President Donald Trump
- “Trump’s rambling here is the political version of ‘you can’t fire me, I quit.'” – Gov. Gavin Newsom
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — President Donald Trump’s announcement that federal troops would be withdrawn from major U.S. cities came Wednesday alongside a decisive court setback that forced his administration to abandon its effort to maintain federal control over the California National Guard, ending what state officials called an unprecedented and unlawful domestic military deployment.
Hours before Trump posted on social media claiming credit for pulling the National Guard out of Chicago, Los Angeles and Portland, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated its prior administrative stay and allowed a lower court order to take effect, returning command and control of the California National Guard to Gov. Gavin Newsom .
The Trump administration formally withdrew its request to keep the stay in place, clearing the way for state control to resume.
“We are removing the National Guard from Chicago, Los Angeles, and Portland, despite the fact that CRIME has been greatly reduced by having these great Patriots in those cities, and ONLY by that fact,” Trump wrote in a social media post Wednesday. “Portland, Los Angeles, and Chicago were GONE if it weren’t for the Federal Government stepping in.” Trump added that the federal government might return “in a much different and stronger form” and accused Democratic mayors and governors of incompetence.
California officials said Trump’s statement was a political attempt to recast a loss in court as a voluntary decision.
“We’ve long known the federalization of @TheCalGuard is illegal,” Newsom said in a post on X, responding to Trump’s post. “This admission by Trump and his occult cabinet members means this illegal intimidation tactic will finally come to an end.”
Newsom said the administration’s retreat followed sustained losses in the courts. “We won in court and forced him to,” Newsom said. “Trump’s rambling here is the political version of ‘you can’t fire me, I quit.’”
In a separate statement released by his office, Newsom said the Trump administration, Attorney General Pam Bondi and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had backed down in the Ninth Circuit, resulting in the return of the Guard to state control and “conclusively ending their deployment in an American city, against American citizens.”
“I’m glad President Trump has finally admitted defeat: we’ve said all along the federalization of the National Guard in California is illegal,” Newsom said.
“The President deployed these brave men and women against their own communities and without regard for the constitution and federal law,” Newsom said. “We welcome our California National Guard servicemembers back to state service, where they can continue to serve and protect the people of California — long delayed due to Trump’s political theater.”
“I direct California National Guard leadership to work expeditiously to return state service members home to be with their families as soon as possible following their demobilization from federal service,” he added.
The Ninth Circuit’s order came after the court asked the Trump administration to justify why an administrative stay should remain in place following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. Illinois.
In that decision, the high court ruled 6-3 in favor of the State of Illinois and rejected what states described as a nearly unlimited view of presidential power to federalize National Guard troops.
After that ruling, federal lawyers informed the Ninth Circuit that they no longer opposed lifting the stay and formally withdrew their motion to pause the lower court’s injunction .
California Attorney General Rob Bonta characterized the outcome as a sweeping rebuke of executive overreach and a significant affirmation of constitutional limits on presidential authority.
“For six months, California National Guard troops have been used as political pawns by a President desperate to be king,” Bonta said. “From the political display in MacArthur Park to their unlawful participation in indiscriminate immigration raids, the militaristic deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles streets has left lasting scars in Angeleno communities.
“There is a reason our founders decided military and civilian affairs must be kept separate; a reason that our military is, by design, apolitical,” Bonta said. “Now, in the face of a stinging rebuke by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Trump Administration is backing away from its efforts to federalize and deploy California National Guard troops.”
Bonta praised attorneys in his office for their work defending the state’s authority and said the broader constitutional stakes remain unresolved.
“I’m incredibly proud of my team who worked nights and weekends to defend the Constitution and bring about an end of the President’s unlawful overreach of executive power,” he said. “While our rule of law remains under threat, our democratic institutions are holding. My office is not backing down — and we’re ready for whatever fights lie ahead.”
The deployment of California National Guard troops had formally ended earlier this month after the Ninth Circuit declined to block the district court’s injunction regarding their use in Los Angeles, though the Guard remained under federal control until Wednesday’s order. With the administration’s withdrawal of its stay request, the district court’s ruling on federalization is now fully in effect, restoring the Guard to state authority for the first time since it was federalized earlier in 2025.
State officials framed the episode as a defining confrontation over the domestic use of military force, with Newsom and Bonta arguing that the courts had reasserted clear constitutional boundaries after months of aggressive federal action.
Trump, meanwhile, offered no acknowledgment of the court rulings in his social media post, instead warning that federal intervention could return and predicting that crime would increase without a National Guard presence.
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.
Ultimately, I hate politics. Especially this type, where each side uses it to bash the other.
Newsom is not going to be president, and this type of pandering reinforces that.
Unfortunately, I’m not sure if the pandering by Bonta will prevent him from becoming governor.
Regarding the “actual” issue in this article, Trump reportedly has other avenues he can use if he wants to try this again. Though I hadn’t heard much lately, regarding the type of disturbances/protests that occurred when he first took control of the guard.
Ultimately not sure what this has to do with this subject. Nationalizing the federal guard for LA was clearly an overreach by the President, and Newsom and Bonta were obligated to fight it.
Did you not read the quotes that you put in the article?
Also, were Newsom and Bonta “obligated” to oppose the use of the guard in the first place?
Trump may not be done with this. I’m assuming that the chose not to appeal to the Supreme Court, but the news reports I saw (as well as Trump’s own comments) suggest that we may see this again using a different justification.
In which case, some pastor is likely to end up with orange pepper spray in his face, again.
Note that I’m not “taking a side” regarding this issue, so I’m neither celebrating the decision or opposing it.
I’m sick of politicians using this type of thing to further their own careers.
Unfortunately that’s how Trump talks and how Newsom has decided to troll Trump. But the core issue is far far more important.
The core issue being that Newsom is an opportunist – you said so yourself. I’m not sure if he has any true political friends – just like Trump.
But there is a fundamental difference between these two. Trump isn’t really an opportunist in the same way. He ultimately doesn’t care who he offends.
Regarding the use of the guard, I never did know why Trump chose to do so. Seems to me that it’s ultimately related to his crackdown on illegal immigration.
I wonder how all of the additional funding he received (via the “Big Beautiful Bill”) is impacting his ability to deport illegal immigrants.
One thing for sure is that Trump is far more-effective (in regard to his goals) this term, than he was in his first term.
Another thing we’ve seen is just how many U.S. institutions (e.g., businesses, school districts, etc.) count on illegal immigrants. Enough so where Trump briefly backed down, in regard to apparent complaints from a couple of industries.
The core issue being the misuse / overreach of federal power by trump which for once he was forced to concede
BTW, at the same time, we reported on one of failures of Newsom – https://davisvanguard.org/2026/01/care-court-falling-short/
I read that other article, as well.
Yes – you were never happy with that approach in the first place.
Truth be told, there’s never going to be enough money to deal with the severely mentally-ill, unless they go back to “housing” them (essentially by force) in a big building with other mentally ill people. And even then, that’s how we got to “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest”, though most of those fictional patients were there voluntarily.
There’s never enough for dealing with mental illness but there’s always enough to incarcerate and it costs three times more at least to do it that way. It’s crap. It’s a lack of political will.
That could be. (Any other comments regarding that subject should be made in the other article. Nurse Ratched said so.)
I’m not so sure Newsom won’t be President. My second biggest nightmrare.