Trump retains control California National Guard after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that former President Trump lawfully federalized the state’s National Guard during protests in Los Angeles. This decision overturns a lower court’s ruling and allows the federal government to maintain command of the Guard—for now. The case highlights ongoing conflict between presidential authority and state sovereignty.
Context: What Triggered the Deployment?
In early June 2025, Los Angeles became the center of large-scale protests following workplace immigration raids ordered by federal agents. Demonstrations intensified, with participants clashing with law enforcement and obstructing access to several federal buildings.
Governor Gavin Newsom initially called for restraint and wanted California’s own law enforcement and Guard units to manage the situation. However, the Trump administration disagreed, citing threats to federal personnel and property.
On June 7, Trump invoked federal law—Title 10, U.S. Code § 12406—to take control of California’s National Guard and sent in 4,000 Guard troops along with 700 Marines. The stated aim was to protect federal assets from violent interference.
Legal Breakdown: Courts Weigh In
District Court Decision – June 12
U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer ruled that Trump had exceeded his constitutional authority. According to the court, domestic deployment of National Guard troops under federal control requires a clear case of insurrection or obstruction that state authorities cannot manage—criteria that were not met.
The court stated that the protests, while serious, were being addressed by state and local forces and did not justify a federal takeover. The judge issued an injunction to return control of the Guard to Governor Newsom.
Appeals Court Ruling – June 19
On appeal, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled in Trump’s favor, at least temporarily. The panel, consisting of two Trump-appointed judges and one Biden appointee, decided that there was enough legal justification to keep the federal troops in place until further proceedings.
The judges said the federal government presented sufficient evidence that the protests interfered with federal operations. These included:
- Attacks on federal vehicles and personnel
- Vandalism and occupation of federal buildings
- Disruption of immigration enforcement operations
As a result, the court lifted the district court’s injunction and allowed the Trump administration to maintain federal control of the California National Guard during ongoing hearings.
What the Ruling Means
Trump Keeps Command — For Now
The most immediate effect of the appeals ruling is that Trump retains operational command over the California National Guard. This means that Governor Newsom cannot order the troops to withdraw or reassign them without federal approval.
Federal vs. State Power
This situation underscores the long-standing tension between state and federal government over control of the National Guard. While the federal government has constitutional power to deploy troops in times of rebellion or invasion, the definition and limits of that power are debated.
California argues that Trump’s actions were politically motivated and unjustified. The federal government claims it had to act because state forces were unable or unwilling to protect federal interests.
Limits of Judicial Oversight
Though courts can review presidential actions, especially in domestic troop deployments, the legal bar for overturning such actions is high. The appeals court emphasized that a president must have a legal and factual basis—but it need not be airtight—to invoke federal control.
Reactions: Washington and Sacramento Respond
Trump’s Response
Following the appeals court decision, Trump took to social media, declaring the ruling a victory for “law and order” and a rebuke of what he called “weak, failing Democrat governors.” He reaffirmed that the federal government has the right to protect its people and property when states cannot or will not act.
The Department of Justice also issued a statement saying the federal government acted within the framework of Title 10, and that it had a duty to enforce federal law and ensure the safety of federal employees.
California’s Response
Governor Gavin Newsom strongly criticized the ruling, stating that it sets a dangerous precedent for federal overreach. He said, “The president is not a king. States have rights, and California will defend them.”
California Attorney General Rob Bonta said the ruling was deeply disappointing and could undermine the balance of power between the federal government and states. He indicated that California would continue fighting the decision in court.
Legal and Military Experts Weigh In
Legal scholars and retired military officials expressed concern about the broader implications of the decision. Some warned that the ruling could embolden future presidents to use National Guard troops to quell political opposition under the guise of protecting federal property.
Others noted that the legal framework supporting the decision is based on precedent from the 1800s, which may not fully address today’s political realities.
What Happens Next?
Ongoing District Court Proceedings
The legal process is far from over. The original case will now return to the district court, where Judge Breyer will review more evidence and decide whether to issue a permanent injunction against the federal takeover.
Potential Supreme Court Review
Depending on how the district court rules, the case could again be appealed to the Ninth Circuit or even to the Supreme Court. Legal experts believe this could become a landmark case regarding domestic deployment of the military and the limits of executive power.
Broader Implications
Civil Liberties at Risk?
The case raises major concerns about the use of military forces in domestic settings. The Posse Comitatus Act generally prohibits the use of federal troops for civilian law enforcement. Critics argue that Trump’s deployment of Marines alongside National Guard units violates this principle.
Supporters of the deployment argue that federal assets were under direct attack and the situation warranted intervention.
Precedent for Future Presidents
If courts ultimately uphold Trump’s actions, it could provide future presidents with more legal authority to deploy troops during civil unrest—even over the objections of state governors.
This could have a chilling effect on civil protests and may shift the balance of power significantly toward the executive branch.
Key Takeaways
| Key Point | Summary |
|---|---|
| Who’s in control? | Trump currently controls the California National Guard. |
| Why does it matter? | It’s a major test of federal vs. state authority. |
| What’s next? | More hearings at the district court and possibly the Supreme Court. |
| What’s at stake? | Limits of presidential power and protection of civil liberties. |
Conclusion
The appeals court ruling allowing Trump to retain control of the California National Guard is a critical moment in the ongoing struggle over the balance of power between the federal government and the states. As protests, legal challenges, and political debates unfold, the final outcome of this case could redefine the role of the National Guard and the boundaries of presidential authority for years to come.
Read Next – Fed Stagflation Risks: Why the Fed Isn’t Calling It That
