Fact Check: Trump's actions to federalize troops could redefine state-federal military relations.

Fact Check: Trump's Actions to Federalize Troops Could Redefine State-Federal Military Relations

What We Know

In June 2025, President Donald Trump ordered the deployment of 2,000 National Guard soldiers to Los Angeles amidst protests against federal immigration raids. This action was taken without the consent of California's Governor Gavin Newsom, who publicly stated that the state did not require federal assistance and subsequently filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, labeling the deployment as unlawful (NPR, NBC News). Historically, the last instance of a president deploying the National Guard over a governor's objections occurred over 50 years ago, indicating the rarity of such a federal action (NPR).

National security expert Juliette Kayyem noted that the president's authority to federalize the National Guard is typically constrained to situations where a governor requests assistance or fails to uphold the law. In this case, neither condition was met, raising significant questions about the legality and implications of Trump's actions (NPR).

Analysis

The deployment of the National Guard by President Trump without state approval represents a significant shift in the traditional balance of power between state and federal authorities. Legal experts have expressed concerns that such actions could set a precedent for future presidents to bypass state governors, thereby altering the established norms of state-federal military relations. The legal framework surrounding the federalization of the National Guard is governed by Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which has not been extensively tested in court regarding the definitions of "unrest" or "insurrection" (NPR, CalMatters).

Critics argue that Trump's actions could undermine the civil-military distinction that has historically characterized American governance. Kayyem emphasized that introducing military forces into civilian unrest scenarios could lead to a dangerous precedent, where military intervention becomes a standard response to civil protests, rather than relying on local law enforcement (NPR).

The ongoing legal battle initiated by California's attorney general will likely explore these issues further, potentially leading to new judicial interpretations of the president's powers regarding the National Guard. The outcome could redefine the legal landscape of state-federal military relations in the United States (NBC News, CalMatters).

Conclusion

The claim that Trump's actions to federalize troops could redefine state-federal military relations is True. The unprecedented nature of bypassing a governor's authority to deploy the National Guard raises significant legal and constitutional questions. As the situation unfolds in court, it could lead to a reevaluation of the powers granted to the president concerning military deployment within states, potentially altering the balance of power in American governance.

Fact Check: Trump's actions to federalize troops could redefine state-federal military relations.