Legal Battles Erupt Over Trump's Deployment of National Guard in California
President Trump's deployment of National Guard troops in Los Angeles faces legal challenges, with judges ruling his actions illegal and ordering control to be returned to Governor Newsom.
Trump’s Deportations Aren’t What They Seem
The Atlantic
The LA protests, Donald Trump, and immigration
The Economist
Trump’s Assault on California Is Faltering
New York Magazine
Appeals court says Trump can deploy National Guard—for now
World News Group
Is Trump's Troop Deployment to Los Angeles Illegal?
Rolling Stone
Judge Bars Trump's National Guard from Stopping LA Riots
Western Journal
Judge says Trump illegally deployed National Guard to LA
Military Times
Overview
- President Trump deployed National Guard troops to Los Angeles amid protests, claiming it was necessary to protect federal property and personnel.
- California Governor Gavin Newsom opposed the deployment, leading to a lawsuit and a federal judge ruling that Trump acted illegally.
- Multiple judges have ruled that Trump's actions exceeded his authority and violated the Tenth Amendment, ordering the return of control to Newsom.
- An appeals court temporarily blocked a ruling to return control of the National Guard to California, allowing Trump to maintain some deployment.
- The situation highlights tensions between state and federal authority, with ongoing protests against immigration enforcement and Trump's military actions.
Content generated by AI—learn more or report issue.
Read both sides in 5 minutes each day
Analysis
Emphasizes Governor Newsom's criticism of Trump's illegal National Guard deployment and immigration policies.
"The brief detention marked the first time federal troops have detained a civilian since they were deployed to the nation’s second-largest city by President Donald Trump in response to protests over the administration’s immigration arrests."
Associated Press"The protests in Los Angeles have calmed down, but they’ve spread to other cities."
The Economist"The move is another sign of the increasingly militarized response to unrest surrounding Trump's policies."
"The unlawful federalization of National Guard members has interfered with the state's legitimate police power, and thus it violates the Tenth Amendment."
"The district court's order improperly impinges on the Commander in Chief's supervision of military operations, countermands a military directive to officers in the field, and puts federal officers (and others) in harm's way."
"Noem said the immigration raids that fueled the protests would move forward and agents have thousands of targets."
"The appeals court's decision does not mean it will ultimately side with Trump, but it leaves control of the Guard in Trump's hands for the time being."
"Americans are divided over President Donald Trump's decision to activate the military to respond to protests against his crackdown on migrants, with about half supportive of the move, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll that closed on Thursday."
"The hypocrisy of his calling out California Gov. Gavin Newsom and claiming the state is out of control will be highlighted by the fact that Trump says the same thing about red-state governors dealing with widespread protests."
"The appeals court has temporarily blocked a judge's order that would have returned control of the National Guard to California."
Fortune"The immigration raids that fueled the protests would move forward and agents have thousands of targets."
"Judge Breyer's powerful opinion is an excellent start."
"The order, which takes effect at noon Friday, said the deployment of the Guard was illegal and both violated the Tenth Amendment and exceeded Trump’s statutory authority."
Military Times"The district court's order improperly impinges on the Commander in Chief's supervision of military operations, countermands a military directive to officers in the field, and puts federal officers (and others) in harm's way."
"Breyer said the federal government exceeded its authority because it did not notify Newsom, as the statute cited by the administration requires, and wrote that Trump’s actions were illegal, “both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”"
"A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration's deployment of California's National Guard to Los Angeles and called the move illegal."
"The court just confirmed what we all know — the military belongs on the battlefield, not on our city streets."
"The ruling could still be appealed."
"The Republican Texas governor’s move stands in sharp contrast to California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, who has publicly clashed with Trump over his decision to deploy National Guard and Marine personnel in Los Angeles."
Military Times"California leaders claim Trump inflamed the protests by sending in the military when it was not necessary."
Articles (80)
FAQ
President Trump cited federal statutes that allow the use of National Guard troops to suppress the 'danger of a rebellion' or to enforce federal laws when 'regular forces' are unavailable, arguing that recent protests constituted a threat justifying federal intervention[1].
The federal judge ruled that Trump’s deployment was illegal because the sporadic violence seen during protests did not meet the legal definition of 'rebellion' required to override state authority and that the Constitution and Title 10 require the governor's consent for such federalization, which was not obtained[1].
Governor Newsom strongly opposed the deployment, stating that it violated California’s sovereignty and his authority over the National Guard. He accused Trump of overstepping federal power and filed a lawsuit to regain control of the National Guard[2].
The deployment of National Guard troops led to a significant escalation in protest numbers, with crowds growing from over 250 to more than 3,000 as demonstrators rallied against the federal intervention and immigration enforcement[2].
While a federal judge ruled to return control of the National Guard to Governor Newsom, an appeals court has temporarily blocked this decision, allowing President Trump to maintain some deployment pending further legal review[1].
History
- 1M67 articles
- 1M
57 articles
- 1M
56 articles - 1M
51 articles - 1M43 articles
- 1M
33 articles
- 1M21 articles