Expert Labels California ‘State of Rebellion’ as Newsom Challenges Trump with National Guard Deployment

President Donald Trump's decision to activate the National Guard in California over the weekend has sparked a heated legal and political battle, with Governor Gavin Newsom asserting the move was illegal and pledging to challenge it in court. The deployment came amid escalating protests and riots in several areas of the state, particularly targeting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities and officers, which Trump argued necessitated immediate federal action.

In an official proclamation, the president stated that mobilizing National Guard troops was essential to protect ICE personnel, who he said were encountering resistance as they attempted to carry out arrests of undocumented immigrants. Trump cited Title 10 of the U.S. Code, specifically section 12406, which provides the president authority to federalize the National Guard in the event of a rebellion or obstruction of federal law. However, legal experts quickly noted the law's application is typically reserved for instances of widespread insurrection, adding another layer of controversy to the move.

The National Guard, a unique military force under both state and federal jurisdiction, is ordinarily commanded by state governors. However, under certain circumstances, the president can assume control. In this instance, Trump’s order authorized 2,000 soldiers to federal status, with Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth responsible for logistics. Notably, the order did not mention California or any specific locale, leaving many details vague and raising questions about its scope and intent.

Following the president’s decision, U.S. Northern Command confirmed that 300 California Army National Guard soldiers were deployed to areas of Los Angeles County to, as officials stated, "support the protection of federal personnel and federal property." Scenes across Los Angeles over the weekend included police facing off with protesters, reports of unlawful assemblies near detention centers, and outbreaks of violence that saw property destruction, looting, and self-driving cars set ablaze.

What distinguishes this deployment is the absence of gubernatorial support. Historically, presidents have called on the National Guard to safeguard federal assets but have usually coordinated such moves with state leaders. This time, Governor Newsom and several other Democratic governors voiced unified opposition, issuing a joint statement condemning the action as an "alarming abuse of power." Newsom went further, accusing Trump of aggravating tensions: "He flamed the fires and illegally acted to federalize the National Guard," Newsom posted online, warning it sets a precedent for similar interventions in other states.

The legal ramifications of the president’s order are expected to be tested in federal court. While experts acknowledge that the president can, in theory, deploy the National Guard absent a governor’s approval, significant constitutional and statutory restraints exist regarding their use within state borders. The debate has quickly centered on the Posse Comitatus Act, a federal statute designed to limit the use of military forces in domestic law enforcement, now thrust into the spotlight as the dispute unfolds.

As litigation looms, the situation in California remains tense. State and local officials insist they had begun to stabilize unrest prior to the federal intervention, while the White House maintains that swift action was necessary to maintain order and protect federal interests. With both sides dug in, the clash underscores deep divisions over the balance of federal and state power in times of civil unrest—and raises pressing questions about the future role of the National Guard on American streets.