For six months, uniformed soldiers have patrolled the streets of America’s second-largest city against the express wishes of its governor. This standoff between the White House and the state of California has tested the very limits of presidential power during peacetime. Now, a federal judge has stepped in to answer the fundamental question of who actually commands the National Guard when there is no war to fight.
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer has ordered the Trump administration to return control of the National Guard to California Governor Gavin Newsom. His ruling is a stinging rebuke of the administration’s legal theory, warning that the President’s actions risk “creating a national police force made up of state troops.”
[Image: California National Guard troops patrolling Los Angeles streets]
Does a Protest Count as a Rebellion?
The administration justified its federalization of 4,000 Guard troops and the deployment of 700 U.S. Marines by citing 10 U.S.C. § 12406. This statute allows a president to call up the Guard to repel an invasion, suppress a rebellion, or when he is “unable to execute the law.”
Judge Breyer systematically dismantled this justification. He rejected the claim that immigration protests in Los Angeles amounted to a “rebellion.” He noted that six months later, with only 300 troops remaining, there is “no evidence that execution of federal law is impeded in any way,” let alone to the degree that would justify overriding a state governor’s command of their own militia.
“The founders designed our government to be a system of checks and balance,” Breyer wrote. “Defendants, however, make clear that the only check they want is a blank one.”
The Fear of a Standing Army
This legal battle touches on one of the deepest fears of the Founding Fathers. They were terrified of the idea of a standing army being used to police the citizenry, viewing it as a hallmark of tyranny. This is why the Constitution divides military power and why the Posse Comitatus Act generally forbids using federal troops for domestic law enforcement.
[Image: U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer]
By federalizing the Guard for a domestic policing mission against the will of the state, the President attempted to bypass these checks. Judge Breyer’s ruling is a defense of the federalist structure. It affirms that the National Guard is primarily a state entity, not a personal asset of the President to be deployed into American cities whenever political tensions rise.
Will the Troops Actually Leave?
Despite the judge’s strong words, the soldiers aren’t going home immediately. Judge Breyer stayed his own order until December 15th to allow for an appeal, acknowledging the complexity of the case.
The White House has made it clear they intend to fight this all the way to the top, predicting “ultimate victory.” A spokesperson slammed local leaders, using the derogatory nickname “Newscum” for the California Governor, and insisted the President was exercising his “lawful authority” to stop riots.
[Image: President Donald Trump and Governor Gavin Newsom]
This sets the stage for a showdown at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and likely the Supreme Court. The judiciary must now decide whether the President’s power to quell domestic unrest is absolute, or if the Constitution’s guarantee of state sovereignty still means that a governor controls the soldiers in their own state.