Expert Labels Trump's National Guard Deployment as 'State of Rebellion' in Response to Newsom Challenge

President Donald Trump’s decision to activate the National Guard in response to widespread protests and riots in California has sparked significant controversy and a looming legal battle with the state’s governor. Over the weekend, as tensions flared in Los Angeles and other parts of California, the President signed a proclamation mobilizing National Guard troops, claiming it was necessary to protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers who were facing resistance in carrying out their duties.

California Governor Gavin Newsom swiftly objected to the federal move, labeling it "illegal" and pledging to challenge the deployment in court. Newsom argued that local and state law enforcement agencies had the situation under control and that the presence of the National Guard further inflamed the unrest. "He flamed the fires and illegally acted to federalize the National Guard. The order he signed doesn’t just apply to CA. It will allow him to go into ANY STATE and do the same thing," Newsom stated on social media, raising concerns about the broader implications for state sovereignty.

The legal foundation for Trump's action relies on Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which allows the President to federalize the National Guard during instances of rebellion or when state authorities are unable or unwilling to enforce federal law. However, legal experts caution that the President’s authority is not without limits. Attorney Brad Moss, a national security law specialist, noted that while presidents can technically deploy the National Guard without a governor's consent, there are strict limitations on their use domestically—especially for law enforcement purposes, due to statutes such as the Posse Comitatus Act.

Moss further observed that Trump’s proclamation was "sufficiently vague and nondescript," deliberately omitting direct references to California or Los Angeles County. Despite this, the Department of Defense reported that approximately 2,000 soldiers were ready to be deployed under the President’s orders, with Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth overseeing logistics. U.S. Northern Command subsequently confirmed that 300 members of the California Army National Guard had been dispatched to parts of Los Angeles County to assist with the protection of federal property and personnel.

This federal intervention stands out for its lack of local support. Historically, National Guard deployments have been coordinated closely with state governments, ensuring local backing for federal actions. In this case, the absence of gubernatorial approval has prompted all Democratic governors to issue a joint statement condemning Trump’s move as an "alarming abuse of power."

On the ground, incidents of violence and unrest continued over the weekend. Los Angeles police reported unlawful assemblies outside immigrant detention centers, protests escalating to the throwing of objects at officers, and rioters targeting property—including damaging several self-driving cars and looting local shops. Authorities are now contending not only with physical security challenges but also with the legal and political fallout stemming from this unprecedented clash between state and federal powers.

As the courts prepare to weigh in on the legality of the deployment, the dispute between the White House and Sacramento underscores deep divisions over the proper balance of power between state and federal authorities—a question with implications far beyond California’s borders.