TRUMP VS NEWSOM – Guard Clash ESCALATES!

The battle over who commands the California National Guard goes into the legal arena, drawing lines between state sovereignty and federal authority.

At a Glance

• Federal appeals court allows Trump’s continued deployment of National Guard in L.A. while reviewing a lower court’s decision.
• The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will hear the controversy on June 17.
• Governor Newsom claims federal actions breach constitutional limits, citing state sovereignty infringement.
• President Trump argues federal troops are essential to protect against protests and protect federal properties.

The Tug-of-War Intensifies

Federal versus state authority is at the forefront in California as President Trump asserts control over the California National Guard amidst ICE raids and mounting protests in Los Angeles. Governor Gavin Newsom contests these actions, arguing that Trump has exceeded his authority by overriding state governance. A temporary restraining order initially favored Newsom’s stance, but a swift administrative stay by the Ninth Circuit keeps Trump’s forces in place until the scheduled hearing.

Watch coverage here.

The deployment allegedly flares tensions amidst politically charged environments. Newsom swiftly moved to limit the troops’ scope to non-law enforcement tasks, hoping to contain what he calls federal overreach. Yet, the administration insists that such measures are critical to preserving order and protecting federal interests amidst intense public demonstrations.

The Lawsuit and Legal Allegations

Governor Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta launched a legal attack against the President’s moves, asserting his orders breach the Tenth Amendment by intruding into state-managed operations. The lawsuit deems the deployment “provocative” and incompatible with the principles enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. The administration lobbies back, claiming the necessity of federal military presence to safeguard national security in times of protests.

“Donald Trump is creating fear and terror by failing to adhere to the U.S. Constitution and overstepping his authority. This is a manufactured crisis to allow him to take over a state militia, damaging the very foundation of our republic. Every governor, red or blue, should reject this outrageous overreach. This is beyond incompetence — this is him intentionally causing chaos, terrorizing communities, and endangering the principles of our great democracy. It is an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism. We will not let this stand.” – Governor Gavin Newsom.

Newsom frames Trump’s decision as an assault on democracy, considering it detrimental to California’s autonomy over its militia. Advocates, including military veterans, echo concerns regarding the normalization of utilizing armed forces to curb free speech and peaceable assembly in American cities, raising questions about potential political motivations behind these deployments.

Federal Presence: Legitimate or Overreach?

In defending the federalized Guard’s legality, Trump’s team invokes statutes perceived to permit federal involvement in extreme situations, indicating that the President retains such powers “through state officials.” Yet, many, including Judge Charles Breyer, challenged this viewpoint by stating, “The president is of course limited to his authority. That’s the difference between a constitutional government and King George.”

“The truth is, the president is looking for any pretense to place military forces on American streets to intimidate and quiet, those who disagree with him. It’s not just immoral. It’s dangerous. And it’s illegal.” – Attorney General Rob Bonta.

This conflict with Los Angeles at the epicenter revives debates on states’ rights versus centralized power. As tensions run high, the broader implications of the court’s imminent decision reach beyond California’s borders. Eyes across the nation watch to see whether constitutional confines will restrain presidential authority or embolden federal reach in domestic matters.