Gary's Soapbox: Gavin Newsom

Friday, 13 June 2025

California Wins Temporary Legal Battle Over Trump’s National Guard Takeover

In a damning blow to Donald Trump’s blatant abuse of power, a federal judge has ordered the former president to return control of the California National Guard to Governor Gavin Newsom. The order follows a temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer on June 12, 2025, concluding that Trump’s actions were not only unconstitutional but illegal, at this early stage.

Background

In late May 2025, Trump unilaterally federalised around 4,000 California National Guard troops and deployed 700 U.S. Marines in Los Angeles under Title 10 authority. This militarised response came in the wake of nationwide protests triggered by aggressive federal immigration raids. Trump’s move to seize control of California’s Guard—without the consent of Governor Newsom—was immediately challenged by the state as a violation of states’ rights.

The Court’s Decision

Judge Breyer's ruling was crystal clear. He wrote:

“At this early stage of the proceedings, the Court must determine whether the President followed the congressionally mandated procedure for his actions. He did not… His actions were illegal—both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment… He must therefore return control of the California National Guard… forthwith.”

Breyer emphasised that while federal forces may protect federal property, the use of the National Guard as a domestic police force without state approval amounts to unlawful militarisation. He warned that unchecked executive power “evoked the founders’ fear of a monarchy.”

Not a Final Ruling

It’s important to note: this is not a final legal victory. The judge issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), not a permanent injunction. The federal government has already filed an appeal, and the case will continue. A preliminary injunction hearing is scheduled for June 20, 2025, and could result in either a firmer legal block or a reversal.

No other judge previously ruled that Trump’s deployment was lawful. This is the first judicial response to the crisis, and it sets the tone for the legal battle ahead.

Immediate Impact

The TRO takes effect at noon Pacific Time on Friday, June 13, 2025, requiring Trump’s federal forces to stand down and allowing Governor Newsom to regain full command of California’s National Guard. Whether this holds depends on the next stage of the legal process.

Wider Implications

This ruling sends a stark message: the president is not above the law. He cannot override the Constitution to impose military force on states that don’t bend to his will. Legal experts hail this decision as a powerful reaffirmation of democratic checks and balances, state sovereignty, and the rule of law — but it’s far from over.

Gary's Soapbox Comment: This wasn’t just an overreach—it was an authoritarian power grab, plain and simple. Trump treated the National Guard like his own private militia, deployed to crush dissent and intimidate political opponents. It’s exactly the kind of behaviour the Founding Fathers warned against. Judge Breyer called it what it was: illegal. Trump’s dictatorial aspirations need to be combated at every turn or this could slide into something far worse.

Wednesday, 11 June 2025

Trump did Nothing Wrong - The Truth Behind The Los Angeles Federal Troop Deployment

A factual analysis of the June 2025 protests in Los Angeles, Trumps federal troop deployments, and the legal and political fallout

In June 2025, large-scale protests erupted across Los Angeles following controversial ICE raids in cities like Compton and Paramount. As the situation escalated, President Donald Trump ordered the deployment of over 4,000 National Guard troops and an additional 700 U.S. Marines to the city. This marked the first time since the civil rights era that a U.S. president sent military forces into a state without the governor's request or consent.

The move sparked significant legal and political backlash. Critics questioned not only the necessity but also the legality of such a deployment, while supporters pointed to claims that local law enforcement was overwhelmed. One assertion was that "Trump did nothing wrong; their own police commissioner said they were overwhelmed."

But what actually happened?

LAPD’s Actual Response

Chief Jim McDonnell of the Los Angeles Police Department gave several media briefings during the height of the protests. In one of them, he addressed concerns about federal involvement:

"We're also aware of reports that the President intends or has deployed US Marines to Los Angeles. The introduction of federal military personnel without direct coordination creates logistical challenges and risks confusion during critical incidents. The LA Police Department, alongside our mutual aid partners, have decades of experience managing large-scale public demonstrations, and we remain confident in our ability to do so professionally and effectively."

In another briefing, McDonnell explained the local process for escalating law enforcement support:

"We deal with that with LAPD resources. When we need additional resources, we reach out to the sheriff, who brings in mutual aid. We have 14 different agencies working with us for that purpose. Only if we weren't able to continue to deal with that and needed additional help would we reach out to the sheriff who would request National Guard from the Governor."

Nowhere in McDonnell’s public remarks did he explicitly state that LAPD had failed to manage the situation or that they welcomed federal military intervention. In fact, his comments strongly imply the opposite: that the LAPD had systems in place and coordination underway with state and local partners.

Legal Authority and California’s Response

The deployment raised constitutional questions. Typically, the President can only send federal troops into a U.S. state under strict legal conditions:

If the state governor requests assistance
Or if the Insurrection Act is invoked in response to rebellion, lawlessness, or obstruction of federal law

In this case, Governor Gavin Newsom did not request assistance. He had already activated the California National Guard and was coordinating with local law enforcement.

On June 9, 2025, the State of California, led by Governor Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta, filed a federal lawsuit challenging the deployment. The suit argued that Trump had unlawfully federalised the National Guard, violating the Tenth Amendment and the principles of state sovereignty.

A subsequent emergency motion sought a temporary injunction to halt further deployments, citing the risk of operational confusion and the absence of a clear legal foundation.

Media Reporting vs. Verifiable Statements

Some news outlets reported that LAPD was "overwhelmed," quoting anonymous sources or summarising McDonnell’s remarks. However, there is no publicly available video showing McDonnell using that exact term. The closest phrase—"this thing has gotten out of control"—was used in a broader context about protest escalation and logistics, not as an endorsement of Trump’s military response.

This distinction matters. Summaries and headlines often misrepresent the tone and intent of live statements. McDonnell’s actual words reflect a department managing a difficult situation, not one that had collapsed or invited federal military support.

Conclusion – Gary's Soapbox Comment

Deploying federal troops into a state without its consent sets a dangerous precedent. While Trump’s actions may have stayed within a narrow legal interpretation of Title 10, they clearly disregarded the norms of federal-state cooperation.

Chief McDonnell never asked for help from the President, nor did he suggest the LAPD had lost control. Quite the opposite—he highlighted existing coordination mechanisms and cautioned against the confusion caused by an uncoordinated federal force.

Slogans like "Trump did nothing wrong" may play well in comment sections, but they collapse under scrutiny. The facts show a president acting unilaterally in a situation the state was actively managing. California’s lawsuit isn’t a political stunt—it’s a defence of constitutional boundaries.