In a significant legal victory for the Trump administration, a federal appeals court recently ruled that President Trump has the authority to maintain control over the National Guard troops deployed in Los Angeles. This decision marks a departure from the historical norm, as typically, the deployment of National Guard troops in a state requires the consent of the governor. The last time such an event occurred without a governor’s approval was back in 1965.
Governor Gavin Newsom of California, who had opposed Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops in L.A., expressed disappointment at the court’s ruling. However, he also acknowledged the court’s rejection of unchecked presidential power. The legal battle between Trump and Newsom over the use of the California National Guard has led to a series of conflicting court rulings, leaving the path forward uncertain.
Legal experts, such as CBS News legal contributor Jessica Levinson, have weighed in on the decision, highlighting the complexities surrounding the issue. Levinson noted that the National Guard troops in L.A. will continue to operate under the direction of the Trump administration, despite objections from the governor. She emphasized the significance of this ruling in determining the balance of power between the federal government and states.
Moreover, MSNBC political analyst Eugene Robinson provided historical context for Trump’s control over the National Guard, citing past instances where Presidents Kennedy and Johnson federalized state National Guards to enforce civil rights laws. Robinson pointed out that opposition from governors in such cases did not prevent presidents from taking action. This historical precedent sheds light on the current debate surrounding Trump’s authority over the California National Guard.
The ruling by the appeals court raises important questions about the limits of presidential power and the relationship between the federal government and states. While Trump sees this decision as a “big win,” critics argue that it sets a concerning precedent for unchecked executive authority. As the legal battle continues to unfold, the implications of this ruling on states’ rights and the division of powers in the U.S. remain a topic of debate.
Overall, the court’s decision to uphold Trump’s control over the National Guard troops in L.A. has sparked a contentious legal battle that underscores the complex dynamics of federal-state relations. As the situation evolves, it will be crucial to monitor how this ruling shapes future interactions between the federal government and states.
#NationalGuard #PresidentialPower
References:
– https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2025/0620/Trump-National-Guard?icid=rss
– https://www.cbsnews.com/video/why-trump-allowed-keep-national-guard-la/
– https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/20/us/trump-california-la-national-guard.html
– https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2025/06/21/msnbcs-robinson-trumps-following-precedent-on-national-guard-in-ca/
