A federal judge, Charles Breyer, has been examining the legality of President Donald Trump’s activation of the National Guard in response to anti-immigration protests and riots in Los Angeles, raising concerns about whether the president followed the law. The hearing, conducted on Thursday, focused on whether Trump’s use of the National Guard, which is a state-based military force under the dual control of the president and the governor, was lawful.
Breyer, a Clinton appointee, compared the situation to a monarchy, reiterating that the U.S. is a constitutional government and that the president cannot wield unlimited power. The judge’s inquiry comes as California’s Governor Gavin Newsom filed a lawsuit challenging Trump’s actions, arguing that the president exceeded his authority by federalizing the National Guard without proper legal grounds. The debate centers on Title 10, which outlines the mechanisms a president can use to federalize National Guard members.
Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth relied on Title 10 to deploy soldiers, asserting they went through the state governor’s consent. However, the law creates ambiguity about whether such consent is actually required. The National Guard is a state-based military force under the dual control of the president and governors, typically activated with a governor’s approval. But in this case, the law leaves room for debate about the necessity of such consent.
Breyer questioned whether Trump’s invocation of Title 10 was lawful, citing that the law requires a rebellion or similar scenario, which the attorneys for Newsom claim did not exist. The judge’s remarks came as he weighed arguments presented by DOJ Civil Division head Brett Shumate, who argued that the courts do not have authority to review the legality of Trump’s actions under Title 10.
Newsom’s attorneys argued that Trump and Hegseth exceeded their authority by federalizing the National Guard without proper legal justification, violating Title 10 and the Administrative Procedure Act. Newsom, a possible 2028 presidential contender, has strongly opposed Trump’s deployment of the military in his state, claiming it exacerbated the riots and led to increased violence and property damage.
The situation underscores the constitutional tensions between the federal government and state authorities, with the judiciary now tasked with determining the legality of the president’s actions. Breyer, who has not yet ruled but indicated the decision could come as early as Thursday evening, is weighing the legal arguments presented by both sides, which could have significant implications for future executive actions involving the National Guard.