Fact Check: The lawsuit argued that Title 10 also requires that the president go through governors when issuing orders to the National Guard.

Fact Check: "The lawsuit argued that Title 10 also requires that the president go through governors when issuing orders to the National Guard."

What We Know

In June 2025, California's Attorney General Rob Bonta and Governor Gavin Newsom filed a lawsuit against President Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. The lawsuit challenged the federalization of the California National Guard under 10 U.S.C. § 12406, claiming that the President's order was unlawful because it did not receive the necessary consent from the Governor, as required by federal law (Attorney General Bonta, Governor Newsom Challenge Trump Order Seeking). The law stipulates that the President can federalize National Guard troops only under specific circumstances, including the necessity of the Governor's consent (10 U.S. Code § 12406 - National Guard in Federal service: call).

The lawsuit emphasized that the President's actions exceeded his authority and violated the Tenth Amendment, which delineates the powers between federal and state governments. The plaintiffs argued that the deployment of National Guard troops without the Governor's authorization undermined California's sovereignty and the Governor's role as Commander-in-Chief of the state's National Guard (Governor Newsom suing President Trump and Department of Defense for ...).

Analysis

The claim that the lawsuit argued Title 10 requires the President to go through governors when issuing orders to the National Guard is substantiated by multiple sources. The lawsuit explicitly states that the federalization of the National Guard must involve the Governor's consent, which was not obtained in this instance (High-ranking U.S. military officials agree: Trump's takeover of ...). This assertion aligns with the legal framework provided by 10 U.S.C. § 12406, which outlines the conditions under which the President may call National Guard units into federal service.

The credibility of the sources is strong, as they include official statements from California's government and legal interpretations of federal law. The California Attorney General's office and Governor's office are reliable sources of information regarding state legal actions and interpretations of federal statutes. Additionally, legal analyses from reputable outlets, such as Lawfare, further corroborate the argument that the President must seek the Governor's consent for such actions.

However, it is important to note that the interpretation of Title 10 and its application can be subject to legal debate, as evidenced by differing opinions from legal scholars and political analysts (Does US law allow Trump to send troops to quell protests?). Nonetheless, the lawsuit's central argument regarding the necessity of gubernatorial consent is consistent across multiple credible sources.

Conclusion

Verdict: True. The lawsuit indeed argued that Title 10 requires the President to obtain consent from governors when issuing orders to federalize the National Guard. This assertion is supported by the legal framework established in 10 U.S.C. § 12406 and reinforced by the statements made by California officials in their legal challenge against the federal government.

Fact Check: The lawsuit argued that Title 10 also requires that the president go through governors when issuing orders to the National Guard.