Federal court leaning toward Trump retaining National Guard authority in LA

President Donald Trump might just keep his grip on the California National Guard in Los Angeles, despite a lower court’s attempt to hand the reins back to Governor Gavin Newsom.

Newsmax reported that a federal appeals court hearing this week signaled a strong likelihood of siding with Trump in a heated dispute over who controls state National Guard troops deployed in LA amid protests over immigration enforcement.

Let’s rewind to early June, when Trump announced the deployment of the California National Guard to protect federal property in downtown Los Angeles after protests erupted following immigration arrests across the city.

This wasn’t just any deployment—it’s the first time since 1965 that a president has activated a state National Guard without a governor’s consent, a move that harkens back to President Lyndon B. Johnson’s actions during a civil rights march in Alabama.

Newsom wasn’t thrilled, filing a lawsuit claiming Trump overstepped his bounds, inflamed tensions, and misused resources when Guard members should be gearing up for wildfire season.

Last week, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer agreed with Newsom, ruling that Trump’s use of federal law to deploy the Guard was improper since the LA protests didn’t qualify as a “rebellion.”

Appeals Court Pushes Back on Ruling

Breyer’s order demanded Trump return control to Newsom, but it didn’t touch the Marines also sent to LA, focusing solely on the Guard troops.

Trump’s team quickly appealed, and a three-judge appellate panel—two of whom were appointed by Trump during his first term—temporarily blocked Breyer’s ruling while the legal fight continues, potentially all the way to the Supreme Court.

During the hearing on Tuesday, the judges hinted they’re not buying the idea that courts should meddle in a president’s broad authority under federal law to call up the Guard.

They weren’t fully on board with the Justice Department’s argument that courts can’t even review Trump’s decision, but their skepticism of Newsom’s position was clear as day.

Judge Jennifer Sung, a Biden appointee, told California’s lawyer, “If we were writing on a blank slate, I might agree with you.” Translation: precedent and law might not be on your side, pal.

Meanwhile, federal attorney Brett Shumate pushed hard, stating, “It is essential that this injunction be stayed; otherwise, lives and property will be at risk.”

That’s a dramatic plea, but with vandalism and violence having prompted a curfew in LA just last week—since lifted by Mayor Karen Bass—there’s a kernel of concern worth noting.

Newsom’s Plea Falls on Skeptical Ears

Newsom, ever the vocal critic, declared before the hearing, “I’m confident that common sense will prevail here.”

Common sense to him apparently means keeping federal boots off California streets, but the appellate panel might define it differently.

Breyer’s ruling leaned heavily on the idea that protests, even rowdy ones, don’t equate to rebellion, stating, “The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of ‘rebellion.’” Fair point, but when federal property is at stake, should the definition be so narrow in a president’s toolkit?

Here’s the rub: while progressive voices cheer Newsom’s stand against what they see as federal overreach, the reality is that presidents have historically wielded significant power over the Guard in times of crisis—and this panel, with its Trump-appointed majority, seems poised to remind everyone of that.

The left’s narrative of state sovereignty sounds noble, but national security isn’t a game of local politics. We’ll have to wait and see how quickly the court rules, but the tea leaves suggest Trump’s authority might stand firm.