Fact Check: Trump claims 'BIG WIN' after appeals court ruling on National Guard
What We Know
On June 20, 2025, a federal appeals court ruled that President Donald Trump could maintain control over the California National Guard troops he deployed to Los Angeles. This decision came despite objections from local leaders and California Governor Gavin Newsom, who argued that the deployment was unnecessary and provocative. The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit unanimously stated that Trump acted within his rights to deploy the National Guard to "protect federal personnel... [and] property" (BBC). Following the ruling, Trump celebrated it as a "BIG WIN" on social media, indicating that it could set a precedent for similar deployments across the country if local law enforcement was deemed unable to manage situations effectively (Washington Post).
The court's ruling temporarily halted a previous decision by a lower court, which had found that Trump's mobilization of the National Guard was illegal because he did not follow the federal law requiring consultation with the state governor (BBC). The appeals court, however, concluded that Trump's failure to issue the federalization order through the governor did not limit his lawful authority to call up the National Guard (Washington Post).
Analysis
The ruling from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is significant as it allows Trump to retain control over the National Guard during a time of heightened tensions related to immigration enforcement and protests. The court acknowledged that while there are legal questions surrounding the president's authority to deploy the National Guard without state consent, it found that Trump had a legitimate basis for his actions. The judges noted that there was evidence of protesters interfering with federal law enforcement operations, which justified the deployment (The Hill).
Critically, the court's decision does not fully endorse Trump's actions but rather allows for the continuation of the deployment while further legal challenges are considered. The judges emphasized that Trump's authority is subject to judicial review, which means that future rulings could still challenge the legality of such deployments (Washington Post).
The sources used in this analysis are reputable, including major news outlets like the BBC and The Washington Post, which are known for their journalistic standards. However, it's important to note that the political context surrounding this ruling may introduce bias, particularly given the polarized views on Trump's presidency.
Conclusion
The claim that Trump referred to the appeals court ruling as a "BIG WIN" is True. The court's decision allows him to maintain control over the National Guard in Los Angeles, despite previous legal challenges. While the ruling does not fully validate Trump's deployment strategy, it does affirm his authority to act in this capacity under certain circumstances. The ongoing legal battles will likely continue to shape the discourse around presidential powers and state rights concerning the National Guard.
