Listen to the article
Trump Federalizes California National Guard Amid Immigration Protests in Los Angeles
President Donald Trump took the extraordinary step of federalizing the California National Guard on June 7, deploying troops to Los Angeles in response to protests against his administration’s immigration enforcement policies. The move has sparked a significant constitutional showdown with California Governor Gavin Newsom, who insists local authorities had the situation under control.
“The federal government’s move is purposefully inflammatory and will only escalate tensions,” Newsom said in a statement shortly after the president’s action.
The confrontation stems from intensified immigration enforcement operations that began in May, when White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem pushed Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to dramatically increase arrests of undocumented immigrants.
“We are looking to set a goal of a minimum of 3,000 arrests for ICE every day, and President Trump is going to keep pushing to get that number up higher each and every single day,” Miller stated during a May 29 Fox News appearance.
The situation in Los Angeles escalated on June 6 when ICE agents conducted raids at a Home Depot parking lot where day laborers gathered and at the headquarters of a clothing company called Ambiance. Protesters gathered outside the clothing company, leading to confrontations that included the arrest of California labor union leader David Huerta on charges of “conspiracy to impede an officer.”
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass condemned the operations, saying, “These tactics sow terror in our communities and disrupt basic principles of safety in our city.” Miller responded on social media platform X with a direct challenge: “You have no say in this at all. Federal law is supreme and federal law will be enforced.”
As protests continued and occasionally escalated to include property damage and skirmishes with police, Trump signed a memo on June 7 calling for the deployment of at least 2,000 National Guard soldiers to Los Angeles. The president later accused Newsom and Bass on his Truth Social platform of being unable to do their jobs, declaring the federal government would “solve the problem, RIOTS & LOOTERS, the way it should be solved!!!”
The legal battle over the president’s authority quickly moved to the courts. Newsom filed a lawsuit on June 9, arguing that Trump lacked the authority to call in the National Guard and had violated constitutional principles of federalism. The president cited Title 10 of the U.S. Code, section 12406, which permits federalization of National Guard troops in cases of rebellion against federal authority or when regular forces are unable to execute federal laws.
The statute has rarely been invoked—the last instance was in 1970 during a mail strike under President Richard Nixon.
U.S. District Court Senior Judge Charles Breyer initially granted a temporary restraining order on June 12, writing that the president had not “followed the congressionally mandated procedure for his actions” and had acted illegally by exceeding his authority and violating the 10th Amendment’s balance of federal and state power.
However, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals quickly issued a stay on the lower court’s ruling while the appeal progresses, allowing National Guard troops to remain under federal control in Los Angeles. The appeals court subsequently ruled on June 19 that the president had likely “lawfully exercised his statutory authority” and that judicial review of such decisions “must be highly deferential.”
Nearly 5,000 military personnel have been authorized for the Los Angeles operation—approximately 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 U.S. Marines. According to U.S. Northern Command, their role is limited to protecting federal personnel and property, not participating in immigration enforcement directly. The troops “can and have accompanied ICE agents on missions,” but are not permitted to assist in raids or perform law enforcement functions.
The military deployment is expected to cost federal taxpayers an estimated $134 million, according to Pentagon comptroller Bryn Woollacott MacDonnell.
Since the deployment began, Los Angeles has experienced several nights of unrest, with some demonstrations turning violent. Police reported increasing numbers of arrests—none on June 6, then 27, 40, 114, and over 200 on subsequent days. Mayor Bass implemented an overnight curfew for a one-square-mile section of downtown Los Angeles starting June 10.
Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell has questioned the necessity of the military presence, telling CBS, “We don’t need the National Guard, and they’re not here to help us right now. They’re here to facilitate what the federal agencies are doing on the immigration front.”
As legal challenges continue through the courts, the situation remains a significant test of federal versus state authority in immigration enforcement and domestic military deployments.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.


10 Comments
This seems like a complex intersection of immigration policy, federalism, and civil liberties. I’ll be following the developments with an open mind.
The federal government’s hardline stance on immigration enforcement is concerning. I wonder how this will impact the local community in Los Angeles.
Aiming for 3,000 daily ICE arrests sounds quite aggressive. I hope the human rights of all involved are protected as this situation unfolds.
The constitutional tensions between state and federal authority will be important to monitor. Reasonable people can disagree on the best approach.
This seems like a complex issue with valid concerns on both sides. It will be interesting to see how the constitutional showdown between the federal government and California plays out.
Federalizing the National Guard is a serious move that could escalate tensions. I hope both sides can find a peaceful resolution that respects the rule of law.
Federalizing the National Guard is a major move that could have serious implications. I hope both sides can find a constructive path forward.
This situation highlights the delicate balance between federal and state power. I’ll be curious to see how the courts ultimately rule on the legality of the federal action.
The federal government’s immigration enforcement push appears to be intensifying, which is concerning. I wonder how this will impact the local situation in Los Angeles.
Governor Newsom’s statement that the federal action is inflammatory is understandable. Deescalating the situation should be the priority here.