Governor Gavin Newsom expressed disappointment following the Ninth Circuit Court’s decision that allows President Trump to maintain control over the California National Guard. In a statement via X, Newsom asserted that Trump is “not a king and not above the law.” He emphasized that the court’s ruling correctly dismissed Trump’s assertion that he could exercise unilateral control over the National Guard without judicial oversight. Newsom vowed to continue challenging what he terms Trump’s authoritarian use of military power against citizens.
The court’s ruling clarified that Trump’s claim to federalize the California National Guard at will lacked legal grounding, a point highlighted by Newsom as a significant check on presidential authority. The Ninth Circuit’s decision reaffirmed that while emergency measures may be taken, they are not immune from scrutiny. Newsom’s office reiterated the intent to hold the president accountable for what they describe as illegal actions involving military personnel as domestic law enforcement.
Despite Newsom viewing aspects of the ruling as a win, it also revealed ongoing tensions, particularly as the court’s unanimous decision permitted Trump to retain control over National Guard troops previously deployed to Los Angeles. These troops were sent to manage unrest linked to demonstrations against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The deployment marked a notable precedent in that it was the first instance of a president deploying a state National Guard without a governor’s consent since 1965.
The court emphasized that Trump’s decision was lawful, revealing serious implications regarding state and federal relations. Even with Trump’s apparent failure to inform Newsom ahead of the deployment, the ruling indicated that Newsom lacked authority to countermand the president’s actions. This situation raises questions about the balance of power between state leadership and the federal government, especially in matters concerning domestic law enforcement.
Newsom and California Attorney General Rob Bonta remain steadfast in their objective to challenge and confront the federal administration’s use of military forces in civilian contexts. They contend that such actions are not only politically contentious but also infringe upon established federal law. This ongoing conflict illustrates the broader debate over the militarization of law enforcement and the role of the National Guard in domestic affairs.
The implications of this ruling extend beyond California, touching on national dialogue about the appropriate limits of presidential authority in military deployments. Newsom’s commitment to holding Trump accountable reflects a growing sentiment among state leaders to assert their rights in the face of perceived overreach by the federal government. The continuing legal and political battle raises critical questions about governance, accountability, and the separation of powers in modern America.
