California Fights Trump’s Use of National Guard in Immigration Crackdown

California Governor Gavin Newsom is fighting back against what state officials call an "unprecedented and unlawful" federal takeover of California’s National Guard, as legal tensions with President Donald Trump escalate over the deployment of military forces in Los Angeles.

California has requested the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to deny Trump's request to halt a lower court ruling. That ruling prevented his administration from utilizing over 4,000 California National Guard members for federal immigration enforcement within Los Angeles.

The brief argues that Trump overstepped his authority when he invoked a rarely used federal law—10 U.S.C. § 12406—to seize control of the state’s National Guard without the governor’s consent. This move marked the first time in U.S. history a president had unilaterally federalized a state’s National Guard over the objection of its governor.

“This isn’t about protecting federal buildings,” the state’s lawyers wrote. “This is about turning soldiers into immigration police—without legal authority, without local consent, and without public accountability.”

What Triggered the Conflict?

The legal battle stems from ongoing protests in Los Angeles against aggressive federal immigration raids. Though most protests have been peaceful, there have been isolated incidents of vandalism and civil unrest. In response, Trump authorized the federalization of 4,000 National Guard troops and deployed them to L.A.—joined by 700 active-duty Marines—to assist Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

California officials say this move has not only stripped the state of critical resources during wildfire season but also dangerously escalated tensions in the city.

What the State Argues

The state’s opposition lays out several key arguments:

• No Legal Justification: The Trump administration claims the protests constitute a "rebellion" under federal law, but California contends that’s an overreach. The legal standard for such action requires “open, organized, and armed resistance,” not protest-related civil unrest.

• Governor’s Role Ignored: Federal law requires that such orders be issued “through the governor.” California says Trump bypassed this entirely, stripping the state’s elected leadership of its lawful role.

• Political Overreach: The filing accuses Trump of using military force to serve political goals—namely, his hardline immigration agenda—rather than to address any legitimate threat.

“This kind of power grab threatens the balance of our federal system,” California argued, warning that the administration’s interpretation of the law would give presidents sweeping new authority to deploy troops in response to everyday protests.

What’s Next

A hearing on the preliminary injunction is scheduled for June 20. In the meantime, California is asking the court to maintain the restraining order that prevents the federal government from continuing to use its National Guard for immigration enforcement.