Highlights:
- California sues President Trump and the Department of Defense over unauthorized federalization of CalGuard.
- Governor Newsom calls Trump’s order a step toward authoritarianism and an abuse of power.
- The lawsuit alleges violation of the U.S. Constitution and Title 10 authority, bypassing state consent.
- Attorney General Bonta accuses Trump of manufacturing chaos for political ends.
- The President’s actions come after immigration raids and protests in Los Angeles.
Lead
LOS ANGELES – Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a landmark lawsuit on Monday against President Donald Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and the U.S. Department of Defense, alleging an illegal and unconstitutional takeover of a California National Guard unit. The move comes days after President Trump threatened the Governor and ordered the deployment of 2,000 federalized troops to Los Angeles amid unrest following controversial immigration enforcement raids.
Background
The lawsuit, filed in federal court, argues that the President’s actions violated the U.S. Constitution and exceeded his legal authority under Title 10 by bypassing the required consent from California’s Governor. The lawsuit details how President Trump’s order was issued under the pretense of quelling a “rebellion,” a claim Governor Newsom and AG Bonta argue is both exaggerated and unsupported by facts on the ground.
In a searing public statement, Governor Newsom said, “This is a manufactured crisis to allow him to take over a state militia, damaging the very foundation of our republic… It is an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism. We will not let this stand.”
Federal Action Escalates Following ICE Raids
Federal agents with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) began sweeping raids across Los Angeles on June 6, arresting at least 44 individuals, including minors, according to the Department of Homeland Security. The lack of coordination with local law enforcement and reports of excessive force sparked widespread protests in immigrant neighborhoods. Despite some isolated incidents, most protests were nonviolent and controlled by local authorities without requesting federal aid.
Governor and AG Respond with Legal Action
Attorney General Bonta described the federalization as “unlawful, unprecedented,” adding: “There is no invasion. There is no rebellion. The President is trying to manufacture chaos and crisis on the ground for his own political ends.”
According to the lawsuit, the Governor — who serves as the Commander-in-Chief of the California National Guard under the state Constitution — was not consulted, as required under 10 U.S.C. § 12406. The plaintiffs assert that the protests never escalated to a level warranting federal intervention and that local and state authorities had the situation under control.
Trump’s Memo and Military Orders
President Trump issued a memorandum on June 7 authorizing 2,000 National Guard troops into federal service for 60 days and citing a “rebellion.” This directive was issued broadly, with no state-specific justification, and bypassed coordination with governors. Critics argue this sets a dangerous precedent for unilateral federal control over state militias.
Notably, the protests had already calmed by the time troops arrived. Yet, President Trump continued to claim on social media that Los Angeles was “out of control,” inflaming tensions further. The lawsuit warns of national implications if such federal overreach goes unchecked.
Historical Context and Legal Basis
The suit emphasizes that this is only the second time in modern U.S. history that 10 U.S.C. § 12406 was invoked alone — the first being in 1970 when President Nixon used the National Guard to deliver mail. It also marks the first instance since 1965 of deploying state guard units without gubernatorial request. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, a Trump appointee, had previously cautioned that such actions would “be a direct attack on states’ rights.”
Constitutional and Operational Violations
- Violation of the Governor’s command authority over the state militia.
- Absence of required gubernatorial consent under 10 U.S.C. § 12406.
- No invasion or rebellion to justify federalization under the Insurrection Act or Constitution.
- Diverting CalGuard resources from vital state missions like wildfire response and drug interdiction.
Trump’s Own Words Contradict Federal Move
In a 2020 ABC Townhall, Trump explicitly stated: “We can’t move in the National Guard… unless we’re requested by a governor.” This public record, cited in the complaint, highlights the inconsistency in Trump’s recent actions and his earlier constitutional acknowledgment.
Outlook
As the legal battle unfolds, California’s lawsuit may set a precedent for how far presidential power can go in mobilizing state forces. The case also tests the resilience of the federal-state balance in emergencies and raises constitutional questions ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
A global media for the latest news, entertainment, music fashion, and more.
