Trump Triumphs: Court Backs President's Power Over National Guard in California

Paul Riverbank, 6/20/2025Court upholds Trump's control of National Guard in California, challenging state authority.

Let me break this down for you. The appeals court just handed President Trump a major victory, upholding his controversial decision to maintain federal control over National Guard troops in Los Angeles. What makes this particularly fascinating is that he did this without Governor Newsom's blessing – something we haven't seen since the height of the civil rights era in '65.

Now, I've spent countless hours analyzing the legal framework surrounding National Guard deployments, and here's what stands out: The court's reasoning centered heavily on presidential statutory authority. While they acknowledged some procedural hiccups in notifying Newsom, they essentially said the governor's approval wasn't necessary. Pretty remarkable stuff.

The backdrop to all this is equally compelling. Trump deployed these troops following immigration enforcement protests in LA. While he claimed it was about "restoring order," Newsom – and I'm quoting directly here – argued it "inflamed tensions, usurped local authority and wasted resources." Classic federal-state tension that we've seen play out time and again.

What's particularly interesting about this ruling is the makeup of the panel. Two of the three judges were Trump appointees, but don't let that fool you – during oral arguments, all three judges seemed to lean toward broad presidential authority in these matters. This stands in sharp contrast to District Judge Breyer's earlier ruling, which had questioned the deployment's legality.

I've got to tell you, this decision could have far-reaching implications. We're looking at a potential precedent-setter for presidential authority to deploy military forces within U.S. borders. And with whispers about similar enforcement actions being considered in other Democratic-led cities, this ruling couldn't be more timely.

From where I sit, this case perfectly encapsulates the ongoing evolution of federal-state relations in our modern political landscape. While the underlying lawsuit continues its journey through the courts, this ruling has, for now at least, tipped the scales decidedly in favor of presidential authority – even when state governors push back.

The real question now is how this might reshape the relationship between federal and state governments going forward. But that's a discussion for another day.

The ongoing power struggle between federal and state authorities took a dramatic turn yesterday, as the 9th Circuit delivered what I'd call a landmark ruling on presidential authority over National Guard deployments. Having covered similar jurisdictional disputes throughout my career, I can't overstate the significance of this decision.Let me break this down for you. The appeals court just handed President Trump a major victory, upholding his controversial decision to maintain federal control over National Guard troops in Los Angeles. What makes this particularly fascinating is that he did this without Governor Newsom's blessing – something we haven't seen since the height of the civil rights era in '65.Now, I've spent countless hours analyzing the legal framework surrounding National Guard deployments, and here's what stands out: The court's reasoning centered heavily on presidential statutory authority. While they acknowledged some procedural hiccups in notifying Newsom, they essentially said the governor's approval wasn't necessary. Pretty remarkable stuff.The backdrop to all this is equally compelling. Trump deployed these troops following immigration enforcement protests in LA. While he claimed it was about "restoring order," Newsom – and I'm quoting directly here – argued it "inflamed tensions, usurped local authority and wasted resources." Classic federal-state tension that we've seen play out time and again.What's particularly interesting about this ruling is the makeup of the panel. Two of the three judges were Trump appointees, but don't let that fool you – during oral arguments, all three judges seemed to lean toward broad presidential authority in these matters. This stands in sharp contrast to District Judge Breyer's earlier ruling, which had questioned the deployment's legality.I've got to tell you, this decision could have far-reaching implications. We're looking at a potential precedent-setter for presidential authority to deploy military forces within U.S. borders. And with whispers about similar enforcement actions being considered in other Democratic-led cities, this ruling couldn't be more timely.From where I sit, this case perfectly encapsulates the ongoing evolution of federal-state relations in our modern political landscape. While the underlying lawsuit continues its journey through the courts, this ruling has, for now at least, tipped the scales decidedly in favor of presidential authority – even when state governors push back.The real question now is how this might reshape the relationship between federal and state governments going forward. But that's a discussion for another day.