“Commandeered or Saved?” – Who’s in Charge?

Federal Judge Charles Breyer rejected California Governor Gavin Newsom’s emergency request to block President Trump’s deployment of troops to Los Angeles amid escalating anti-ICE protests, setting the stage for a high-stakes legal battle over federal versus state authority.

At a Glance

• A federal judge denied Governor Newsom’s request for an immediate temporary restraining order against President Trump’s deployment of federal troops to Los Angeles
• Trump ordered 4,000 National Guard members and 700 Marines to LA following protests against immigration enforcement operations
• California officials argue the federal government is illegally commandeering state National Guard troops, while the Trump administration maintains the deployment is necessary to protect federal agents
• The court scheduled a hearing for Thursday to consider California’s motion for a restraining order
• Vice President JD Vance blamed Newsom’s immigration policies for creating conditions that led to the unrest

Court Rejects Immediate Intervention

Federal Judge Charles Breyer declined to immediately halt President Trump’s deployment of federal forces to Los Angeles but scheduled a hearing for Thursday to further consider California’s motion. The decision represents a preliminary victory for the Trump administration, which maintains that the deployment is necessary to protect federal agents conducting immigration enforcement operations. Governor Newsom and California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed the emergency request arguing that the federal government had illegally “commandeered” approximately 2,000 of the state’s National Guard members.

The Trump administration deployed 4,000 National Guard members and 700 Marines to the Los Angeles area after demonstrations against Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations escalated into violent confrontations. An additional 2,000 National Guard troops were ordered to Los Angeles on Monday, intensifying concerns among state officials. According to court documents, California’s Military Department was informed that the Pentagon intended to direct the California National Guard to support immigration operations.

State vs. Federal Authority

At the heart of the legal dispute is the question of who controls the National Guard during domestic deployments. Newsom’s lawsuit contends that federal assumption of control over thousands of National Guard personnel intrudes on state sovereignty and potentially endangers public safety by escalating tensions. The governor’s legal team argues that using troops for immigration raids would promote civil unrest rather than calm the situation, pointing to the opposition of local officials and the Los Angeles police chief.

“The INCOMPETENT Governor of California was unable to provide protection in a timely manner when our Ice Officers, GREAT Patriots they are, were attacked by an out of control mob of agitators, troublemakers, and/or insurrectionists”, said President Trump

Federal officials maintain that Guard members are authorized only to provide protection and secure areas around enforcement actions, not to participate in the operations themselves. Marine Corps Gen. Eric Smith stated that Marines deployed to the area were only there to protect federal officials and property, not to respond to protests. The distinction between protection and direct involvement in immigration operations remains a contested point in the legal proceedings.

Political Showdown Over Immigration

The confrontation between Newsom and Trump represents more than a legal dispute—it highlights fundamental differences in approaches to immigration enforcement. Vice President JD Vance blamed Newsom’s policies for allowing Los Angeles to become a “war zone,” specifically criticizing the governor for extending Medicaid to illegal immigrants in 2024. Vance and other administration officials have characterized the ICE operations as targeting criminal illegal immigrants, framing the deployment as necessary to maintain order.

“If our troops didn’t go into Los Angeles, it would be burning to the ground right now, just like so much of their housing burned to the ground. The great people of Los Angeles are very lucky that I made the decision to go in and help!!!”, Trump stated

Demonstrations against ICE raids in Los Angeles have intensified in recent days, with some instances of rioting and looting reported. While Newsom argues that Trump’s intervention has escalated the rioting, administration officials contend that federal presence has prevented worse outcomes. The court’s decision to schedule a hearing rather than grant immediate relief suggests the judge recognizes the complexity of the situation and the significant constitutional questions at stake regarding federal versus state authority during domestic unrest.