California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) said California will sue the Trump administration Monday over its deployment of the National Guard to quell Los Angeles protests against federal immigration raids.
In an interview Sunday evening on MSNBC, Newsom said the lawsuit would challenge Trump’s federalizing of the California National Guard without the state’s consent, a move with little precedent in U.S. history.
“Donald Trump has created the conditions you see on your TV tonight. He’s exacerbated the conditions. He’s, you know, lit the proverbial match. He’s putting fuel on this fire, ever since he announced he was taking over the National Guard — an illegal act, an immoral act, an unconstitutional act,” Newsom said on MSNBC.
“And we’re going to test that theory with a lawsuit tomorrow,” he added.
Thanks for signing up! Watch for us in your inbox.
Asked to elaborate on the lawsuit, Newsom said that under Trump’s executive order, “it specifically notes — and under what the [Department of Defense] did — is they had to coordinate with the governor of the state. They never coordinated with the governor of the state.”
Newsom noted he has deployed the National Guard before to respond to various emergencies.
“We have no problem, working collaboratively in a mutual aid system with local law enforcement. But there’s a protocol, there’s a process. He didn’t care about that. And the worst part, he completely lied,” he said.
The governor pointed to Trump’s Truth Social post earlier Sunday, in which he said the National Guard had done a “great job.” Newsom said the state forces had not even been deployed at the time.
“It’s Orwellian — simply lying to people, unconstitutional, illegal act, his mess. We’re trying to clean it up,” he added.
Later in the interview, Newsom was asked about border czar Tom Homan’s comments indicating he would not rule out arresting Newsom or Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass (D) if they interfered in his efforts.
“Come after me, arrest me. Let’s just get it over with, tough guy, you know? I don’t give a damn. But I care about my community. I care about this community,” he continued.
“The hell are they doing? These guys need to grow up. They need to stop, and we need to push back. And I’m sorry, to be so clear, but that kind of bloviating is exhausting.” Newsom added. “So, Tom, arrest me. Let’s go.”
White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement to NewsNation that “President Trump rightfully stepped in to restore law and order because of Gavin Newsom’s feckless leadership and his refusal to stop the violent attacks on American law enforcement.”
“It’s a bald-faced lie for Newsom to claim there was no problem in Los Angeles before President Trump got involved,” Jackson added. “Everyone saw the chaos, violence, and lawlessness – unless, of course, Gavin Newsom doesn’t think any of that is a problem.”
Updated June 9 at 5:59 a.m. EDT
oldschoolology on June 9th, 2025 at 05:59 UTC »
The President of the USA arresting Governors and Mayors is an act of war against America.
Choice-of-SteinsGate on June 9th, 2025 at 05:13 UTC »
For reference, it's extremely rare for a president to activate the National Guard without approval or request from the state's governor. It's even rarer in this case considering that Trump invoked Title 10—rather than the Insurrection Act. Title 10 can be implemented under vague conditions and is a controversial loophole at best, especially when used without a governor's consent. This was intentional.
Title 10 circumvents the Insurrection Act and is legally ambiguous. In other words, its potential for abuse is high.
Additionally, when Title 10 is invoked, the deployed national guard are prohibited from acting as law enforcement (under the Posse Comitatus Act), unless another law like the Insurrection Act is also used. Meaning that the use of Title 10 here can be deemed unlawful.
It also states that the president can call the National Guard into service if he considers it necessary to "repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion..."
So Trump's directive rationalizes his actions by claiming that these protestors are in rebellion against the United States, and that the national guard must be mobilized to suppress this rebellion.
From my understanding, the last time this happened was in 1965, and the juxtaposition speaks volumes.
Some might argue that this happened under George H.W. Bush when he federalized California's National Guard during the LA riots after the police officers who beat Rodney King were acquitted. However, the governor at the time—Pete Wilson—had already supported the move.
Which means that the last time a president deployed the National Guard without the consent of the state's governor was back in 1965 when LBJ federalized the Alabama National Guard to protect civil rights marchers during the Selma to Montgomery marches.
So ya, think about that juxtaposition for a moment, think about the difference here... Think about not only how uncommon this is, but how the last time this sort of action was taken, it was to protect protestors, not to terrorize them and incite a panic so the current administration can create a spectacle that helps it justify any heavy handed, future use of the national guard or military to intimidate and assault Americans who are protesting against such actions to begin with.
Think about Donald Trump's choice to abuse his newfound unilateral authority—under vague conditions—to escalate violence against American "rebels" who are protesting his administration's ongoing authoritarian methods. And while there have been some instances of vandalism, a vast majority of protestors are exercising their rights lawfully.
Think about what this means for America... When a president who openly flouts the law and violates the constitution, who doesn't hesitate to target and attack his political opponents and naysayers, who freely trespasses on the rights of others—and especially those critical of him and his administration—think about what this means for our country and its citizens when a vindictive, narcissistic, and temperamental wanna-be king can grant himself the independent authority to mobilize troops against those objecting to his administration's unconstitutional actions and his excessive reliance on executive orders and draconian measures to target his enemies.
What does it mean for Trump's critics and objectors when he can dictate—under his own terms—who is rebelling against his unchecked authority? When this situation creates a precedent for the Trump administration to deploy troops against any future protests that are identified as "rebellions?"
MothersMiIk on June 9th, 2025 at 03:50 UTC »
They are purposely instigating LA to find any reason to declare martial law. There’s a reason they are going after CA first; they are the 4th world’s largest economy, putting more than twice the funding into the country than they receive.
Such an insane escalation in 24 hours, protests being met with national guard and now marines are on ‘high alert’??