Judge Questions Trump’s Unilateral Power to Deploy Troops in LA

A federal judge sharply pressed the Trump administration over its authority to deploy the California National Guard to respond to protests in Los Angeles without the consent of the state’s governor.

“We’re talking about the president exercising his authority and the president is of course limited to his authority,” US District Judge Charles Breyer said during a hearing Thursday in San Francisco. “That’s the difference between a constitutional government and King George.”

Breyer made repeated references to monarchies and pointed to “this little book called the Constitution” as he grilled a Justice Department lawyer about President Donald Trump’s decision to activate thousands of National Guard troops after street demonstrations over immigration raids in the nation’s second-largest city turned violent over the weekend.

The president issued a June 7 proclamation stating that the protests are a “form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States.”

Attorneys for Governor Gavin Newsom and California are urging Breyer to temporarily limit the military’s role to protecting federal property and personnel, and leaving it strictly to local law enforcement to police the protests. Breyer didn’t immediately rule but vowed to issue a decision “very soon.”

Why Trump’s Use of Military in US Is So Controversial: QuickTake

Breyer, a senior judge who is the brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, was skeptical when Justice Department attorney Brett Shumate argued that the president has the power to unilaterally “federalize” the National Guard under US law.

“The statute says that orders for these purposes, that is the federalization of the national guard, shall be issued — it says shall, not may, might — shall be issued through the governments of the state,” the judge said.

The Justice Department lawyer argued that the president himself is allowed under federal law to assess whether a “rebellion” or “invasion” justifies activating the guard — and that this decision can’t be reviewed by the courts.

“This statute exudes deference to the president and judgments he can make,” Shumate said.

Breyer challenged the notion that Trump has complete discretion.

“My question to you is: What authority do you have for that proposition?” the judge said.

Lawyers for California cited concerns about the broader constitutional implications of the administration’s approach. They argued that the president’s choice to deploy the National Guard in the streets of a civilian city whenever he perceives disobedience to an order is “an expansive, dangerous conception of federal executive power.”

“The version of executive power to police civilian communities that the government is advancing is breathtaking in scope,” Nicholas Green, a lawyer for state, told Breyer. “There are no guardrails.”

The dispute has divided other state leaders. A group of Democratic attorneys general from 18 states including New York echoed California’s concerns that the deployment was unconstitutional. Meanwhile, 19 states and the territory of Guam voiced support for the Trump administration’s decision to deploy the National Guard without California’s consent.

The case is Newsom v. Trump, 25-cv-04870, US District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco).

To contact the reporter on this story:
Madlin Mekelburg in Austin at mmekelburg@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story:
Misyrlena Egkolfopoulou at megkolfopoul@bloomberg.net

Steve Stroth, Peter Blumberg

© 2025 Bloomberg L.P. All rights reserved. Used with permission.