Fact Check: Trump claims court ruling is a 'BIG WIN' for federal control over state troops
What We Know
On June 18, 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 California Governor Gavin Newsom and local officials, who argued that Trump's actions were unnecessary and provocative in response to protests against federal immigration policies. The appeals court's ruling overturned a previous decision by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, who had stated that Trump acted illegally by mobilizing the troops without the governor's consent, violating statutory authority and the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (BBC, NPR).
In his ruling, Judge Breyer had ordered that control of the California National Guard be returned to the state, but the appeals court stayed this order, allowing Trump to continue deploying approximately 4,000 troops. The court emphasized that while Trump's actions were subject to judicial review, they found that he had the authority to call up the National Guard to protect federal personnel and property (PBS, The Hill).
Trump celebrated the ruling on social media, calling it a "BIG WIN," and argued that it affirmed his authority to deploy troops across the country in situations where local law enforcement may be unable to maintain order (NPR, The Hill).
Analysis
The claim that the court ruling represents a "BIG WIN" for federal control over state troops is partially true. The appeals court did affirm Trump's ability to maintain control over the National Guard in this specific instance, allowing him to deploy the troops to Los Angeles. This ruling is significant as it temporarily halts a lower court's decision that deemed his actions illegal. However, the appeals court also made it clear that Trump's authority is not absolute and that his decisions regarding the National Guard are still subject to judicial review (BBC, PBS).
Critically, the court's ruling does not imply an unrestricted power for the president over state troops. The judges noted that while Trump's failure to issue a federalization order through the governor does not limit his authority, it does not grant him carte blanche to act without oversight. This nuance is important as it indicates that the ruling does not fully endorse Trump's interpretation of his powers but rather allows for a specific legal context in which he can operate (NPR, The Hill).
The sources used in this analysis are credible, with the BBC and NPR being established news organizations known for their journalistic standards. However, the interpretation of the ruling by Trump and his supporters may carry a bias, framing the decision as a broader victory for presidential power without acknowledging the limitations imposed by the court (PBS, The Hill).
Conclusion
The verdict on Trump's claim that the court ruling is a "BIG WIN" for federal control over state troops is Partially True. While the appeals court did allow Trump to maintain control of the National Guard in this instance, it also clarified that his authority is not absolute and remains subject to judicial scrutiny. Thus, the ruling does not fully support the notion of unchecked federal power over state troops, highlighting the complexities of the legal framework governing such deployments.
