President Donald Trump has ordered the deployment of the National Guard in California to assist with law enforcement efforts during protests and riots, a move that has drawn immediate legal and political criticism from Governor Gavin Newsom, who vowed to sue the president. The decision, invoking Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which authorizes the federalization of the National Guard in response to rebellion, has raised serious questions about the limits of executive power and the balance of authority between federal and state institutions. Legal experts have noted the contentious nature of the move, with particular focus on the potential legal challenges and the broader implications for constitutional governance.
The National Guard, a military force under the dual control of governors and the federal government, has typically been used for disaster response and national emergencies. While presidents have historically used the National Guard to protect federal personnel and property, Trump’s move was unusual due to the lack of state governor support. Attorney Brad Moss, a specialist in national security law, emphasized that Trump’s proclamation was overly vague and did not specifically identify California or Los Angeles County, which has raised concerns over the legality and scope of the presidential authority.
The deployment, which involved sending 2,000 National Guard soldiers under Trump’s command and delegating logistics to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, has been met with widespread criticism from Democratic governors, who called the action an ‘alarming abuse of power.’ Newsom, the California governor, went a step further, blaming Trump for exacerbating the riots and suggesting that the president’s order could be used to federalize the National Guard in any state. This has further intensified the political conflict, with Newsom asserting that the move violates the Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts the use of the military for law enforcement purposes.
Los Angeles police reported incidents of unlawful assembly, vandalism, and looting as tensions escalated over the weekend, with some protesters throwing concrete bottles and other objects. The National Guard’s presence has been seen as a necessary measure to restore order and protect federal interests, but the action has also sparked debates over the appropriate use of military force in domestic disputes. As legal challenges loom, the situation underscores the complex relationship between federal authority, state sovereignty, and the role of the National Guard in maintaining public safety and order.