Search

Politics

Judge Halts Trump’s National Guard Deployment in Los Angeles

A judge ruled the federalization of roughly 300 California Guardsmen must stop, calling the Trump administration’s position “contrary to law.”

By Tracey Ashlee
A federal judge on Wednesday ordered the Trump administration's re-federalization of California National Guard troops used in Los Angeles be halted, saying the federal government cannot maintain indefinite, unreviewable control of state guardsmen. The court wrote that “after a valid initial federalization, all subsequent re-federalizations are completely, and forever, unreviewable by the courts.” — a position the judge called “contrary to law,” Deadline reports. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer added, "The Founders designed our government to be a system of checks and balances. Defendants, however, make clear that the only check they want is a blank one."' According to the ruling, “Six months after they first federalized the California National Guard, Defendants still retain control of approximately 300 Guardsmen, despite no evidence that execution of federal law is impeded in any way—let alone significantly.” The court flagged that some troops were even sent to other states, suggesting a potential nationwide use of state troops under federal command. California Gov. Gavin Newsom blasted the move to federalize state troops earlier this year and approved the ruling. “Donald Trump diverted these brave men and women from their vital public safety operations and deployed them against the very communities they took an oath to serve,” Newsom wrote on X.  Donald Trump diverted these brave men and women from their vital public safety operations and deployed them against the very communities they took an oath to serve. The deployment began after the White House's decision to federalize certain California National Guard units for support in  federal operations and public safety in Los Angeles, NBC Los Angeles reports. The Trump administration has argued that federalizing guards can enhance law enforcement capabilities and assist with federal missions. However, critics, including California officials, argued the move undercut state command and redirected troops away from local responsibilities. The ruling comes as tensions around deployments of Guard units remain high. The recent deadly shooting near the White House in late November that left one National Guard member dead and another critically wounded.  Since then, the Trump administration has cited this shooting when justifying expanded federal responses and tighter immigration and security measures. This event has intensified discussions about troop usage and public-safety priorities. Lawmakers reacted by supporting their own parties. California Democrats praised the decision as a victory for state control and public-safety priorities. But some Republicans defended the White House’s authority to federalize Guard units when national security or federal missions require it.  Legal experts told reporters the ruling could force the administration to re-examine its approach to re-federalizing state troops. They felt that it could even trigger appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals. The court’s order requires the federal government to explain and preserve relevant records. And the plaintiffs contended that states and local communities suffered when Guardsmen left their state missions. The opinion stated that plaintiffs showed “no evidence that execution of federal law is impeded” and warned against creating “a national police force made up of state troops.” The case is expected to progress through appeals. For now, the ruling returns authority over the roughly 300 Guardsmen to state control unless the administration successfully requests a stay from a higher court. The court established strict judicial limits on indefinite re-federalizations and directed federal officials to preserve evidence as the litigation continues.

Latest from Inquisitr

Front page