Governor Newsom suing President Trump and Department of Defense for illegal takeover of CalGuard unit

“President Trump’s order calling federalized National Guard troops into Los Angeles – over the objections of the Governor and local law enforcement – is unnecessary and counterproductive. It’s also deeply unfair to the members of the National Guard who are hard at work every day protecting our state, preparing for and responding to emergencies, and training so that, if called, they can fight our nation’s wars,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Let me be clear: There is no invasion. There is no rebellion. The President is trying to manufacture chaos and crisis on the ground for his own political ends. Federalizing the California National Guard is an abuse of the President’s authority under the law– and not one we take lightly. We’re asking a court to put a stop to the unlawful, unprecedented order.”

Under the California Constitution, Governor Newsom is the Commander-in-Chief of the California National Guard. In the lawsuit, Governor Newsom and Attorney General Bonta explain that the federal government has overstepped its legal authority and bypassed the Governor’s approval to take over a unit of CalGuard, in a situation where federal government intervention was not needed and did not meet the necessary criteria for federalization. The unrest in Los Angeles is nowhere close to rising to the level of a “rebellion” beyond the capacity of local and state authorities to control, nor is it different in kind from other similar situations in recent years that were brought under control by local authorities with no need for military intervention. The Department of Defense’s mobilization order also failed to comply with President Trump’s own direction to coordinate with the Governor and the National Guard. 

Trump’s illegal takeover

On Friday, June 6, 2025, the federal government, through Immigration and Customs Enforcement, began conducting widespread operations throughout Los Angeles without providing notification to local law enforcement. During the course of these operations, ICE officers took actions that inflamed tensions, including the arrest and detainment of children, and military-style operations that sparked panic in the community. The Department of Homeland Security reported that its enforcement activities on June 6 resulted in the arrest of 44 individuals, two of whom appear to have been minors. Only five of those arrested reportedly had any criminal history. 

In response, community members began protesting to express opposition to these violent tactics, the President’s heavy-handed, violent immigration agenda, and the arrest of innocent people, and to express solidarity with and concern for the individuals and families most directly impacted by the enforcement actions taking place in their community. Protests continued for two more days, and although some violent and illegal incidents were reported — leading to justified arrests by state and local authorities — these protests were largely nonviolent and involved citizens exercising their First Amendment right to protest. At no point did these protests necessitate federal intervention, and local and state law enforcement remained in control of the situation.  Local law enforcement, despite no communication or advanced notice from the federal government, responded quickly and did not request federal assistance. 

No basis for takeover

Soon after protests began, on June 7, President Trump issued a memorandum entitled “Department of Defense Security for the Protection of Department of Homeland Security Functions,” purporting to authorize the Department of Defense to call up 2,000 National Guard personnel into federal service for a period of 60 days, and declaring a “rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States” and directing the Secretary of Defense to coordinate with state governors and the National Guard to commandeer state militias. This order was not specific to California and suggests that the President could assume control of any state militia. 

President Trump then began posting to social media that the protests in California were out of control and that the federal government had taken over the California National Guard — further inflaming fear in the community, inciting fear and violence, and endangering state sovereignty. Notably, by the time the National Guard arrived on Sunday morning, the protests had dissipated thanks to local law enforcement, and the streets were quiet. The President’s Actions and the military presence inflamed the very protest and violence it was supposedly meant to suppress.

President Trump’s unprecedented order attempts to usurp state authority and resources via 10 U.S.C. § 12406, a statute that has been invoked on its own only once before in modern history and for highly unusual circumstances  —  when President Richard Nixon called upon the National Guard to deliver the mail during the 1970 Postal Service Strike. This is also the first time since 1965 — when President Johnson sent troops to Alabama to protect civil rights demonstrators — that a president has activated a state’s National Guard without a request from the state’s governor. 

And as U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem previously said, federalization of the National Guard “would be a direct attack on states’ rights.”

Ending Trump’s abuse of power

Today, Governor Newsom and Attorney General Bonta stand up for all states’ authority through this lawsuit. The lawsuit asks the court to end the federal government’s gross overstep of authority and require President Trump and Secretary Hegseth to follow the appropriate legal steps to take over any state militia, including an order issued through the Governor. 

The lawsuit also explains that:

• The federalization of the California National Guard deprives California of resources to protect itself and its citizens, including those working on drug interdiction at the border, and of critical responders in the event of a state of emergency — such as the January 2025 firestorm in Los Angeles, which CalGuard responded to. 
• 10 U.S.C. § 12406 requires that the Governor consent to federalization of the National Guard, which Governor Newsom was not given the opportunity to do prior to their deployment.
• The President’s unlawful order infringes on Governor Newsom’s role as Commander-in-Chief of the California National Guard and violates the state’s sovereign right to control and have available its National Guard in the absence of a lawful invocation of federal power.

• The situation in Los Angeles didn’t meet the criteria for federalization, which includes invasion by a foreign country, rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States, and being unable to execute federal laws. At no point was this the case in the Los Angeles area, where local and state law enforcement remained in control. 

WHAT THEY WERE SAYING: 

Donald Trump: In a Townhall with ABC in 2020, Trump said he couldn’t move the National Guard into Democratic-run cities without the Governor’s approval. See here and here for the full transcript.          

STEPHANOPOULOS: Mr. President, you promised four years ago at the Republican Convention, I’m going to restore law and order.

TRUMP: And I have, except in Democrat run cities. Look, we have laws. We have to go by the laws. We can’t move in the National Guard. I can call insurrection but there’s no reason to ever do that, even in a Portland case.

We can’t call in the National Guard unless we’re requested by a governor. If a governor or a mayor is a Democrat and they — like in Portland, we call them constantly. I just spoke to the governor yesterday because we’re giving them relief on the fires. We’re giving them a — an emergency declaration.

Kristy Noem: