Trump, Newsom Clash in Historic Trial Over Military Control in American Cities

Paul Riverbank, 8/12/2025Historic trial challenges Trump's authority to deploy military forces in American cities during protests.

A Constitutional Showdown in San Francisco

The streets of Los Angeles have gone quiet, but the echoes of last summer's controversial National Guard deployment now reverberate through a San Francisco courtroom. I've spent decades covering the delicate dance between federal and state powers, but rarely have I seen a case with such far-reaching implications for presidential authority.

Monday marked the opening of what might be the most significant trial you've never heard of. At its core lies a deceptively simple question: Just how far can a president go in deploying military forces on American soil?

The case stems from President Trump's decision to send roughly 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines into Los Angeles during immigration protests – a move that California Governor Gavin Newsom fought tooth and nail. Having covered similar deployments over the years, I can tell you this one was different. The sheer scale, the timing, the circumstances – it all felt unprecedented.

Let me paint you the picture that emerged in court. Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman took the stand, describing how troops established security perimeters and detained protesters for local police. Meanwhile, Marines stood guard at a federal building housing a detention center – a detail that perfectly encapsulates the complexity of this case.

The government's argument? Necessity. DHS officials pointed to attacks on law enforcement officers with rocks and fireworks. "The violence reduced drastically after troops arrived," insisted Ernesto Santacruz Jr., LA's DHS field office director. I've heard similar justifications before, but the legal ground here is shakier than usual.

Judge Charles Breyer initially sided with Newsom, arguing these protests hardly constituted a "rebellion" – the legal threshold for federalizing the Guard. But then something interesting happened: the Ninth Circuit stepped in, granting the president "highly deferential" review. It's the kind of legal ping-pong that makes constitutional scholars salivate.

Here's what keeps me up at night: While most troops have left California, about 250 Guard members remain. More importantly, Trump's signaling an appetite for similar deployments in other cities. The precedent set here could reshape presidential power for generations.

The trial continues, but don't let the legal jargon fool you. This isn't just about the Posse Comitatus Act or arcane constitutional provisions. It's about the fundamental balance between federal authority and state sovereignty – a tension as old as the republic itself.

I'll be watching closely as this plays out. After thirty years covering politics, I've learned that the most important stories often hide in plain sight, wrapped in technical language and procedural details. This one's worth your attention.

A Constitutional Showdown in San FranciscoThe streets of Los Angeles have gone quiet, but the echoes of last summer's controversial National Guard deployment now reverberate through a San Francisco courtroom. I've spent decades covering the delicate dance between federal and state powers, but rarely have I seen a case with such far-reaching implications for presidential authority.Monday marked the opening of what might be the most significant trial you've never heard of. At its core lies a deceptively simple question: Just how far can a president go in deploying military forces on American soil?The case stems from President Trump's decision to send roughly 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines into Los Angeles during immigration protests – a move that California Governor Gavin Newsom fought tooth and nail. Having covered similar deployments over the years, I can tell you this one was different. The sheer scale, the timing, the circumstances – it all felt unprecedented.Let me paint you the picture that emerged in court. Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman took the stand, describing how troops established security perimeters and detained protesters for local police. Meanwhile, Marines stood guard at a federal building housing a detention center – a detail that perfectly encapsulates the complexity of this case.The government's argument? Necessity. DHS officials pointed to attacks on law enforcement officers with rocks and fireworks. "The violence reduced drastically after troops arrived," insisted Ernesto Santacruz Jr., LA's DHS field office director. I've heard similar justifications before, but the legal ground here is shakier than usual.Judge Charles Breyer initially sided with Newsom, arguing these protests hardly constituted a "rebellion" – the legal threshold for federalizing the Guard. But then something interesting happened: the Ninth Circuit stepped in, granting the president "highly deferential" review. It's the kind of legal ping-pong that makes constitutional scholars salivate.Here's what keeps me up at night: While most troops have left California, about 250 Guard members remain. More importantly, Trump's signaling an appetite for similar deployments in other cities. The precedent set here could reshape presidential power for generations.The trial continues, but don't let the legal jargon fool you. This isn't just about the Posse Comitatus Act or arcane constitutional provisions. It's about the fundamental balance between federal authority and state sovereignty – a tension as old as the republic itself.I'll be watching closely as this plays out. After thirty years covering politics, I've learned that the most important stories often hide in plain sight, wrapped in technical language and procedural details. This one's worth your attention.