The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has condemned California Governor Gavin Newsom’s request to limit the federal government’s use of the National Guard in Los Angeles during a surge of violent anti-ICE riots as a ‘crass political stunt.’ The DOJ filed its response ahead of a scheduled court hearing, asserting that Trump’s deployment of the National Guard under Title 10 was a lawful exercise of executive power and that the state’s legal challenge to this action is baseless.
Newsom, a Democrat, had accused Trump of inciting chaos by unnecessarily deploying the military to protect ICE agents and federal buildings. He argued that local and state law enforcement had already contained the situation and that the National Guard’s involvement was both excessive and politically motivated. However, the DOJ dismissed these claims as unfounded, calling them an attempt to undermine the President’s constitutional authority. The agency argued that Trump’s actions were necessary to protect federal assets and maintain order after the riots escalated, with local authorities struggling to contain the violence.
The DOJ’s legal filing emphasized the President’s role as Commander in Chief, with the power to deploy the National Guard in the event of an invasion or rebellion. The agency cited historical precedents, such as former President Dwight Eisenhower’s use of the military to enforce school desegregation and former President Richard Nixon’s mobilization during a postal strike, to support its stance. The DOJ also noted that the statute governing National Guard deployment does not require consultation with the state governor, only that the President’s orders be conveyed through the Governor.
Newsom’s office responded by calling the DOJ’s claims incorrect, accusing Trump of violating the Constitution by using the military as a tool for political retribution. A spokesperson for Newsom stated that the administration fully understands the legal process and continues to challenge the President’s actions, citing repeated statements by Trump and his aides that such a move would be illegal without the Governor’s approval.
Despite the DOJ’s arguments, the case will eventually be decided by a federal judge, who will determine whether to issue a restraining order or preliminary injunction to block the federal government’s intervention. With the situation in Los Angeles remaining volatile, the legal battle over the National Guard’s role in the city’s unrest continues to highlight broader tensions over executive authority, civil rights, and the limits of federal power.