The liberal state of California has been dealt a significant blow as a U.S. appeals court sided with President Donald Trump, allowing him federal control over National Guard troops in Los Angeles.
The three-judge panel overturned a lower court decision that had attempted to block Trump’s authority, affirming the President’s constitutional power to protect federal personnel and property when local authorities fail.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined that Trump acted within his legal authority when deploying approximately 4,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles in response to escalating violence during immigration protests.
This deployment, which included 700 Marines, occurred despite California Governor Gavin Newsom’s objections.
The court cited concrete evidence of protester violence that justified federal intervention:
“The undisputed facts demonstrate that before the deployment of the National Guard, protesters ‘pinned down’ several federal officers and threw ‘concrete chunks, bottles of liquid, and other objects’ at the officers. Protesters also damaged federal buildings and caused the closure of at least one federal building. And a federal van was attacked by protesters who smashed in the van’s windows. The federal government’s interest in preventing incidents like these is significant.”
The commander in chief celebrated the ruling as a “big win” for constitutional authority and public safety.
In a social media post, the President emphasized the broader implications:
“This is much bigger than Gavin [Newsom], because all over the United States, if our Cities and our people need protection, we are the ones to give it to them should State and Local Police be unable, for whatever reason, to get the job done.”
The case began when Governor Newsom sued to block Trump’s command after the President federalized the California National Guard without state permission.
Liberal-appointed U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer initially ruled in Newsom’s favor, claiming that “The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of ‘rebellion’,” and therefore did not justify federal action.
Still, the appeals court decisively rejected that reasoning.
Two of the three judges on the panel were Trump appointees, and all three signaled that presidents have extensive latitude under federal law to protect American citizens when local authorities fail to maintain order.
The court ruled that even if the federal government failed to notify the governor as required by law, Newsom could not veto the president’s lawful order.
This case marks the first time in over 50 years that a president has deployed National Guard troops without a governor’s consent. The last such instance occurred during the civil rights era.
Moreover, legal experts noted that this ruling could significantly impact presidential authority to deploy troops within the United States, particularly in Democrat-run cities where local officials may resist federal immigration enforcement.
Although Governor Newsom continues to argue that the deployment inflames tensions and wastes resources, federal officials point to the noticeable decrease in protest activity since the National Guard arrived.
The federal government will retain control of the California National Guard as the underlying lawsuit continues through the courts.
The ruling represents a significant affirmation of presidential authority to maintain order and protect federal interests when local officials either cannot or will not act.
For communities concerned about violence from illegal immigration protests, the decision ensures that the federal government can step in when state authorities fail to protect citizens and property.
