Fact Check: California's Gov. Newsom claims Trump's actions illegally commandeer National Guard
What We Know
California Governor Gavin Newsom, alongside Attorney General Rob Bonta, has initiated a lawsuit against President Trump and the Department of Defense, asserting that Trump's actions to federalize the California National Guard (CalGuard) were illegal. The lawsuit claims that the President's directive violated the U.S. Constitution by exceeding his authority under Title 10, which governs the federalization of state militias. Newsom argues that the federal takeover occurred without his consent, which is required by federal law, and that it was unwarranted given the circumstances in Los Angeles at the time (source-1).
The situation escalated after protests in Los Angeles, which were largely peaceful, were met with federal intervention. Newsom stated that the unrest did not rise to the level of a "rebellion" that would necessitate federal military involvement, and local law enforcement had the situation under control (source-1). Furthermore, a federal judge initially ruled in favor of Newsom, stating that Trump's actions were unconstitutional and that they exceeded his statutory authority (source-4).
Analysis
The claim made by Governor Newsom that President Trump illegally commandeered the California National Guard is supported by legal opinions and court rulings. The lawsuit cites that the President's actions not only bypassed the Governor's authority but also failed to meet the legal criteria for federalizing the National Guard, which requires the Governor's consent (source-1).
Critically, the federal judge's ruling emphasized that the protests did not constitute a rebellion, and thus did not justify federal intervention. The judge noted that Trump's rationale for the takeover was not substantiated by evidence of an actual threat to federal authority (source-4). This aligns with the broader legal principle that state governors maintain command over their National Guard units unless specific legal conditions are met for federalization.
However, the appeals court later placed a hold on the ruling, allowing Trump to maintain control of the National Guard temporarily. This decision did not address the merits of the case but indicated ongoing legal disputes regarding the authority of the federal government versus state rights (source-4, source-5).
The sources used in this analysis are credible, including official statements from the California government and reports from established news organizations. However, the ongoing legal battle suggests that the situation is fluid, and further developments may impact the final outcome.
Conclusion
The claim that Governor Newsom has asserted regarding President Trump's illegal commandeering of the California National Guard is True. The evidence presented in the lawsuit, along with the initial ruling from the federal judge, supports the assertion that Trump's actions exceeded his constitutional authority and violated the legal framework governing the federalization of state militias. The subsequent legal proceedings indicate a significant constitutional debate over state versus federal authority, but the foundational claim remains substantiated.
Sources
- Governor Newsom suing President Trump and Department of Defense for illegal takeover of CalGuard unit. California Government
- President Trump agrees he's breaking the law in California: Here's the evidence. California Government
- Governor Newsom prevails in blocking Trump's militarization of Los Angeles. California Government
- Appeals court blocks earlier ruling, allows Trump to command California Guard for now. NPR
- Federal appeals court set to hold hearing over Trump National Guard deployment. ABC News
- California says Trump's deployment of National Guard violates state sovereignty. Politico
