When Governors Lose Control: Trump's Unprecedented Military Power Grab

Part 2 of "The 2025 Constitutional Crisis" series

Jun 23, 2025

Read Part One: The $600 Billion Question: How Saudi Arabia Bought American Foreign Policy

For the first time since the Civil Rights era, a president has seized control of a state's National Guard over the governor's objections. But unlike LBJ's 1965 intervention to protect voting rights marchers in Alabama, Trump's June 7 federalization of California's Guard broke every constitutional precedent and fundamentally altered the balance of power between federal and state governments.

What happened in Los Angeles wasn't just about immigration enforcement or crowd control. It was a constitutional power grab that has permanently weakened state sovereignty and set a dangerous precedent for future presidents to override governors whenever politically convenient.

The federal judge who first reviewed Trump's action put it bluntly: "That's the difference between a constitutional government and King George. It's not that the leader can simply say something and then it becomes it."¹

But in the end, Trump's power grab succeeded—and American federalism may never recover.

The Spark: ICE Raids and Rising Resistance

The crisis began on Friday, June 6, 2025, when Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents conducted sweeping raids across Los Angeles without notifying local law enforcement. ICE officers sparked panic with military-style operations, including the arrest and detention of children at a Home Depot parking lot where day laborers waited for work.²

Word spread quickly. By afternoon, protesters had gathered outside the Ambiance Apparel headquarters in downtown LA, where federal agents served a warrant for "employing illegal aliens." When agents arrested David Huerta, a California labor union leader, on charges of "conspiracy to impede an officer," tensions escalated.³

Local officials condemned the tactics. "These tactics sow terror in our communities and disrupt basic principles of safety in our city," said LA Mayor Karen Bass.⁴ Governor Gavin Newsom deployed additional California Highway Patrol officers and enlisted local law enforcement mutual aid to help maintain peace.

Crucially, local authorities were managing the situation. As the LA Police Department Chief later stated: "We're nowhere near a level where we would be reaching out to the governor for the National Guard."⁵

But Trump had other plans.

June 7: The Unprecedented Power Grab

On Saturday, June 7, 2025—just one day after protests began—President Trump issued a presidential memorandum that would shatter 60 years of constitutional precedent. He federalized 4,000 California National Guard troops and deployed them to Los Angeles, over Governor Newsom's explicit objections.⁶

This marked the first time since 1965 that a president had activated a state's National Guard against the governor's wishes.⁷ But the circumstances couldn't have been more different from the 1965 precedent that supposedly justified Trump's action.

In his memo, Trump declared there had been "numerous incidents of violence and disorder" around ICE operations and claimed that protesters were directly inhibiting federal law enforcement, which he labeled "a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States."⁸

Trump cited 10 U.S.C. §12406, which allows calling up state National Guard units "in case of rebellion or danger of a rebellion" when laws cannot be executed with regular forces.⁹ But as constitutional scholars would soon argue, Trump's justification bore no resemblance to the legal standard established by precedent.

The 1965 Standard: When Federal Intervention Was Constitutional

To understand how dramatically Trump departed from constitutional norms, we must examine the benchmark: President Lyndon Johnson's intervention in Alabama during the 1965 Selma crisis.

In March 1965, Alabama Governor George Wallace refused to protect civil rights marchers from violent segregationists. After "Bloody Sunday," Wallace told President Johnson that Alabama either wouldn't or couldn't keep order and actually challenged Johnson to send in federal troops.¹⁰

Johnson responded by formally invoking the Insurrection Act. He federalized the Alabama National Guard only after the state's authorities had effectively abdicated responsibility—Wallace's own forces were complicit in violating federal court orders and beating peaceful marchers.¹¹

The 1965 precedent established clear criteria for federal intervention:

State authorities must be "unable or unwilling" to enforce federal law
The state government must have failed to maintain public order
Federal intervention should be a last resort when civilian authorities are "truly overwhelmed"¹²

Johnson followed proper procedure: he issued the required proclamation, attempted to work with state officials, and only federalized the Guard when the state demonstrated it would not protect constitutional rights.

2025: How Trump Shattered Constitutional Precedent

Trump's 2025 action violated every element of the 1965 standard:

No State Failure: Unlike Wallace's Alabama, California's government was functioning normally. Governor Newsom had neither abdicated control nor refused to enforce federal law. State and local police were actively managing protests and maintaining order.¹³

No Invitation for Federal Force: Wallace had essentially dared Johnson to send federal troops. Newsom explicitly opposed Trump's intervention and maintained that California could handle the situation without federal assistance.¹⁴

No Procedural Compliance: Johnson scrupulously followed statutory requirements. Trump bypassed normal procedures—Newsom wasn't consulted and learned of the federalization after Trump's memo was already issued.¹⁵

Protesters vs. State Officials: The "rebellion" Johnson faced was de facto governmental—state authorities refusing to enforce federal court orders. Trump pointed to civilian protesters as the source of "rebellion," dramatically expanding the concept to cover civil dissent.

As one constitutional scholar noted, Trump's action tested "the boundary of the Insurrection Act precedent" by using emergency powers "when a state could enforce the law but was handling it differently than Trump desired."¹⁶

The Court Battle: Democracy vs. Executive Power

Governor Newsom immediately filed a federal lawsuit challenging Trump's action as unconstitutional. The case, Newsom v. Trump, would become a defining test of executive emergency powers in the 21st century.

District Court: A Victory for Constitutional Limits

On June 12, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer delivered a scathing rebuke to Trump's power grab. In granting Newsom's request for a temporary restraining order, Breyer wrote that Trump had acted "illegally—both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution."¹⁷

Judge Breyer rejected the administration's argument that courts have no authority to review presidential emergency decisions. In a hearing before his ruling, Breyer explained: "That's the difference between a constitutional government and King George. It's not that the leader can simply say something and then it becomes it."¹⁸

The judge found that Trump's alleged "rebellion" was baseless: "The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of rebellion." He noted it was not up to the federal government "to take over a state's police power whenever it is dissatisfied with how vigorously or quickly the state is enforcing its own laws."¹⁹

Breyer ordered Trump to return control of the Guard to Governor Newsom, setting up a constitutional showdown.

The Ninth Circuit: Emergency Powers Triumph

But Trump's victory would come just hours later. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals quickly stayed Breyer's order, allowing Trump to retain control of California's Guard pending appeal.²⁰

On June 20, 2025, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling that would fundamentally alter federal-state emergency power dynamics. The court found that Trump had a "colorable basis" for invoking his emergency powers and that he "likely acted within his statutory authority."²¹

More significantly, the appeals court made several rulings that expanded presidential power:

Extreme Deference to Presidential Judgment: The court stated that judges must be "highly deferential" to a president's determination of emergency conditions, essentially adopting a standard where presidential declarations of "rebellion" would rarely be second-guessed.²²

No Gubernatorial Veto Power: The panel explicitly held that the statutory requirement to issue orders "through governors" does not give governors "any veto power" over federalization. A governor's objection is legally irrelevant.²³

Lowered Emergency Bar: By accepting Trump's "colorable basis" for rebellion despite the obvious differences from 1965, the court signaled that future presidents could federalize state forces in much more ambiguous circumstances.

As constitutional law professor [name] observed, "The Ninth Circuit's ruling essentially green-lights presidential emergency actions that would have been unthinkable under previous precedent."

The Constitutional Damage

The Newsom v. Trump decision represents a watershed moment in American federalism, with implications extending far beyond California:

Precedent for Future Abuse

The ruling creates a roadmap for future presidents to override uncooperative governors. By setting such a deferential standard for judicial review, the Ninth Circuit has made it much easier for presidents to federalize state forces whenever they claim an "emergency" exists.

As Governor Newsom warned: "This sets a dangerous precedent for future domestic military activity."²⁴ Governors across the country now understand that their control over state National Guard forces is effectively subordinate to presidential whim.

Tenth Amendment Erosion

The decision significantly weakens the Tenth Amendment's protection of state sovereignty. State control of militia forces was traditionally one of the core reserved powers. The court's ruling that governors have "no veto power" over federalization chips away at this fundamental principle.

Judicial Deference Problem

Perhaps most troubling is the court's adoption of extreme deference to presidential emergency claims. By essentially rubber-stamping Trump's action, the Ninth Circuit weakened the judicial check on executive power that the Framers considered essential.

Future presidents now know that courts will likely uphold their emergency declarations as long as they can point to any civil unrest and claim it threatens federal operations—no matter how functioning state and local authorities may be.

The Immediate Consequences

The practical impact was immediate and visible. Throughout June 2025, roughly 4,000 National Guard troops operated in Los Angeles under federal command, against the California governor's will.²⁵

The deployment had the opposite of its intended effect on civil order. As Governor Newsom's office noted: "On Saturday, there were 250+ protesters in the area pre-National Guard deployment. On Sunday, the number of protesters grew to 3,000+ post-deployment by the federal government. Their federalization is inviting and incentivizing demonstrations."²⁶

The militarization of Los Angeles would directly contribute to the massive "No Kings" protests of June 14, when over 5 million Americans took to the streets in the largest single-day demonstration in U.S. history.

Why This Matters for American Democracy

Trump's National Guard federalization represents more than a single abuse of power—it's a systematic weakening of the constitutional architecture that protects American democracy.

The Framers designed federalism partly as a check on national tyranny. When state governments can resist federal overreach, they provide a crucial safeguard for individual liberty. Trump's action, blessed by the Ninth Circuit, has significantly weakened that safeguard.

Future presidents now have a template for overriding state authority:

Identify any civil unrest in a state
Claim it threatens federal operations
Declare a "rebellion" regardless of state capacity
Federalize state forces with minimal judicial review

This is exactly the kind of emergency power abuse that leads democratic countries down the path to authoritarianism. When central governments can override local authority at will, the "laboratories of democracy" that Justice Brandeis celebrated become mere administrative units serving the federal executive.

What Comes Next

The constitutional damage from Trump's National Guard seizure is permanent. Even when Trump leaves office, the precedent will remain for future presidents to exploit. The Ninth Circuit's deferential standard won't disappear with Trump.

But the Guard federalization was just one part of a broader pattern of constitutional breakdown. As Trump consolidated military power, millions of Americans were organizing the largest resistance movement in U.S. history.

Next in this series: "5 Million Americans Said 'No Kings': The Largest Protest in U.S. History"—how Trump's authoritarianism sparked unprecedented democratic mobilization on his own birthday.

Sources

Have we witnessed the most significant expansion of presidential emergency powers since the Civil War? Share your thoughts in the comments, and subscribe to follow this investigation as it unfolds.

Discussion about this post

Ready for more?