Federal judge denies Gavin Newsom’s desperate attempt to block President Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops in Los Angeles, leaving the Governor powerless to stop federal forces from protecting federal buildings and law enforcement amid escalating immigration protests.
Key Takeaways
- A federal judge rejected California Governor Gavin Newsom’s emergency motion to restrict President Trump’s deployment of approximately 700 Marines and 4,000 National Guard members in Los Angeles.
- President Trump activated the National Guard without Newsom’s consent, citing the need to prevent violence and protect federal property during immigration protests.
- This marks the first time in over three decades that Marines have been mobilized inside the U.S. for civil unrest, with the last deployment occurring during the 1992 Rodney King riots.
- The deployment, estimated to cost $134 million, was initiated following protests sparked by recent ICE operations in Los Angeles.
- Newsom’s lawsuit claims the federal action violates state sovereignty, brings a “warrior culture” to civilian areas, and could have “devastating consequences” for California.
Court Rejects Newsom’s Challenge to Trump’s Military Deployment
In a significant blow to California’s attempt to maintain state control over its National Guard, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer denied Governor Gavin Newsom’s emergency request to block President Trump’s deployment of military personnel in Los Angeles. The President activated approximately 700 Marines and 4,000 National Guard members to protect federal buildings and law enforcement officers amid protests over immigration enforcement operations. While denying the immediate restraining order, the judge has scheduled a hearing for a temporary restraining order, allowing the Trump administration more time to respond to Newsom’s filing.
Newsom and California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed the emergency motion as part of a broader lawsuit against the Trump administration, arguing the President violated the U.S. Constitution by deploying the National Guard without the Governor’s consent. The California officials specifically sought to prevent the use of federalized National Guard and active-duty Marines for law enforcement purposes on city streets, claiming such actions exceeded federal authority and infringed on state sovereignty. The court’s rejection of the emergency motion represents a critical win for federal authority in managing domestic security threats.
Trump Defends Deployment as Necessary Security Measure
President Trump has forcefully defended his decision to send troops to Los Angeles, pointing to the potential for serious unrest if federal forces had not been deployed. “If I didn’t ‘SEND IN THE TROOPS’ to Los Angeles the last three nights, that once beautiful and great City would be burning to the ground right now, much like 25,000 houses burned to the ground in L.A. due to an incompetent Governor and Mayor,” Trump said.
“We believe ICE agents should be allowed to be safe in doing their operations, and we have deployed National Guard and the Marines to protect them in the execution of their duties,” Said Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
While the President has not invoked the Insurrection Act, he has relied on his presidential authority to protect federal property and personnel. The deployment comes in response to protests that erupted following ICE operations in Los Angeles that included arrests and detainment of individuals. The federal government maintains that the military presence is essential to deter violence and protect immigration officers carrying out their lawful duties, especially as demonstrations have spread to other cities including San Francisco and Dallas.
California Claims Federal Overreach and Constitutional Violations
Governor Newsom has been vocal in his opposition to the federal deployment, characterizing it as an unprecedented military action against American citizens. “The federal government is now turning the military against American citizens. Sending trained warfighters onto the streets is unprecedented and threatens the very core of our democracy. Donald Trump is behaving like a tyrant, not a President. We ask the court to immediately block these unlawful actions,” Newsom stated.
“Defendants, including President Trump and Secretary of Defense Hegseth have sought to bring military personnel and a ‘warrior culture’ to the streets of cities and towns where Americans work, go to school, and raise their families,” Said Newsom argued in court filings.
California officials contend that the deployment not only violates state sovereignty but also escalates tensions and potentially promotes civil unrest. The state’s lawsuit argues that federal forces engaging in civilian law enforcement activities beyond guarding federal buildings exceeds constitutional boundaries. Despite these arguments, the court has thus far sided with the federal government’s position that it has the authority to deploy forces to protect federal interests, highlighting the ongoing tension between state and federal control during crisis situations.
Historic Deployment Raises Concerns About Precedent
This deployment marks the first time in over three decades that Marines have been mobilized inside the United States for civil unrest, with the last occurrence during the 1992 Rodney King riots in Los Angeles. The estimated $134 million operation has raised significant concerns about the precedent it might set for future federal interventions in state affairs. Despite the substantial military presence, reports indicate that most demonstrations have remained peaceful, though some confrontations have occurred between protesters and authorities.
“Following President Trump’s doubling down on the militarization of the Los Angeles area through the takeover of 4,000 more California National Guard soldiers and the unlawful deployment of the U.S. Marines, Governor Newsom and Attorney General Bonta are filing an emergency request for the court to block President Trump and the Department of Defense from expanding the current mission of federalized Cal Guard personnel and Marines, Stated President Trump.”
As the legal battle continues, with the Trump administration granted until 2 p.m. ET Wednesday to respond to Newsom’s filing, the court’s initial decision signals a preference for federal discretion in military deployments. This developing situation highlights the fundamental tension between state authority and federal power in managing domestic crises, particularly when immigration enforcement—a priority of the Trump administration—is at the center of the conflict.
