A major federal appeals court ruling allowed the Trump administration to maintain its deployment of National Guard troops in Los Angeles, despite opposition from California state officials. The ruling, which came after a prolonged legal battle, has added fuel to the ongoing debate over the role of federal forces in urban areas and the balance of power between federal and state governments.
Background: The Federalization of the National Guard
The National Guard deployment began in 2024 following escalating protests against federal immigration policies, specifically those targeting undocumented immigrants. In response to demonstrations that erupted nationwide in the wake of intensified ICE raids and deportations, President Trump authorized the use of National Guard troops to assist local law enforcement agencies in managing civil unrest.
The move was controversial from the outset. California Governor Gavin Newsom, a staunch opponent of the Trump administration’s immigration policies, criticized the decision, arguing that it violated California’s sovereignty and that the presence of military forces in the streets of Los Angeles was unnecessary.
“We have enough law enforcement resources to handle local protests and demonstrations. We don’t need federal military forces controlling our streets,” Governor Newsom said during a press conference in late 2024.
The Legal Challenge
The legal conflict began when California’s state government filed a lawsuit, arguing that the deployment violated the Tenth Amendment, which reserves certain powers for state governments. The state contended that it had the right to decide how its own resources were used in response to protests and civil unrest.
A lower court initially sided with California, ruling that the federal government had overstepped its authority by sending the National Guard without the state’s consent. However, the Trump administration appealed the decision, and on June 12, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a temporary stay on the ruling, allowing the National Guard troops to remain stationed in Los Angeles pending a full review of the case.
National Debate and Public Reaction
The court’s decision has sparked intense debate across the country, particularly in California, where concerns over militarization have long been a point of contention. Proponents of the deployment argue that the National Guard is necessary to maintain order and protect citizens, especially in the face of civil disturbances linked to ongoing protests and public unrest.
“This is a matter of public safety,” said Trump administration spokesperson Sarah Sanders. “The National Guard is here to help maintain the peace and ensure that protests don’t turn into violent riots. We cannot allow lawlessness to take over our cities.”
However, critics of the deployment argue that the presence of military forces in urban areas exacerbates tensions and undermines the relationship between local law enforcement and the communities they serve. Civil rights organizations such as the ACLU have been vocal in their opposition, arguing that the use of National Guard troops for domestic policing purposes is an overreach that could violate the constitutional rights of residents.
“We’ve seen this play out before—militarized police forces don’t make communities safer; they create more fear and distrust,” said ACLU attorney Emily Stewart. “The federal government should not be using military forces to handle domestic issues.”
California’s Response
Governor Newsom has made it clear that he intends to continue fighting the court’s decision, stating that California will explore all available legal options to challenge the continued presence of National Guard troops in the state. “This is about upholding our state’s right to self-governance and protecting the rights of our residents,” Newsom said in a statement.
In addition to the legal challenge, state lawmakers are drafting legislation to limit the circumstances under which federal military forces can be deployed in California without state approval. Assemblymember Reggie Jones-Sawyer, who has been a vocal critic of the National Guard deployment, introduced a bill in the state legislature aimed at ensuring that such decisions are made with full transparency and oversight.
National Security vs. State Sovereignty
At the heart of the issue lies a fundamental question about the role of the federal government in state matters. While some argue that federal intervention is necessary for maintaining public order, others see it as an infringement on states’ rights and an erosion of local control.
“We must remember that the Constitution grants states the power to determine their own course in many matters, including how they handle protests and civil unrest,” said Dr. Emily Brooks, a constitutional law professor at UCLA. “The National Guard should only be deployed with state consent, and this case will have long-lasting implications for the future relationship between the federal government and the states.”
Conclusion: The Path Forward
The legal battle over the National Guard in Los Angeles is far from over. As the case moves through the courts, tensions between state and federal authorities will only continue to rise. For now, the Trump administration maintains its stance that the military presence is necessary for public safety, while California remains steadfast in its defense of state sovereignty.
The case is likely to become a significant point of contention in the upcoming 2026 gubernatorial race in California, with candidates from both parties taking a strong stance on the issue. Meanwhile, Los Angeles residents and activists will continue to monitor the situation, with many wondering what impact the court’s decision will have on the future of state-federal relations.
