Skip to content
general-news — Politics — War-and-conflicts

California governor alleges Trump's improper behavior

U.S. military personnel are being dispatched to quell demonstrations in California, defying the firm opposition of the Democratic governor, who vocalizes his disagreement with Donald.

,   and  ASMedia
2 min read
U.S. authorities are dispatching military personnel to quell demonstrations in California, contrary...
U.S. authorities are dispatching military personnel to quell demonstrations in California, contrary to the robust opposition expressed by the state's Democratic governor.

California governor alleges Trump's improper behavior

Penned Down

California's knee-deep in a constitutional kerfuffle, y'all! The Golden State's Governor, Gavin Newsom, ain't too chuffed about President Trump's orders to mobilize the National Guard against demonstrators in California. In a pointed missive fired off to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and dispatched via X platform, Newsom labeled the federal government's actions as "unlawful" and a "flagrant violation" of California's autonomy.

Newsom's real mad 'cause the administration didn't send a formal order to the Governor's office like they're supposed to, and ol' Gavin's signature wasn't on a dang thing. Adding insult to injury, there's been no "communication" with the gub'mint of California, as per the Trump directive to the Department of Defense. local law enforcement can handle the occasional protests, so sending in the troops ain't just pointless, it's downright hazardous.

So, Newsom's office is putting in a request for Hegseth to cut this deployment order and return the National Guard soldiers to their legal hangout – the state of California.

Now, lemme break it down for ya: the National Guard, a military reserve unit that's part of the U.S. Armed Forces, is usually under the state's control. Each state has its own National Guard, which can be deployed for wildfires, tornadoes, floods, or civil unrest, and they answer to the state governor when they're out there doin' their thing. Only when war breaks out or there's a national emergency does the POTUS get to take command.

But here's the twist: the legal grunts 'n groans over deploying the National Guard without the governor's consent are complex and murky as heck. California's claimin' the deployment's a violation of state sovereignty, as enshrined by the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The federal government's counter is that they invoked federal law 'cause the situation's a rebellion or danger of a rebellion, and they need the National Guard to enforce federal laws 'cause regular forces ain't cuttin' it. It's all a bitomyopathic, ain't it?

California's filed a lawsuit to put a stop to this, arguin' that it's illegal and unconstitutional. They want a federal judge to reverse Trump's edict. But here's the catch: the legality of deployin' the National Guard without the governor's consent ain't real clear in federal law, so we got ourselves a legal ambiguity smorgasbord.

So, what's the score? It's a constitutional standoff between the feds and California, testing the limits of federal and state authority when it comes to deployin' military forces within a state.

  1. The ongoing dispute between California and the federal government, concerning President Trump's order to mobilize the National Guard against demonstrators, raises questions about policy-and-legislation and politics, particularly the constitutional powers of the federal government and state sovereignty as enshrined in the 10th Amendment.
  2. The controversial deployment of the National Guard in California, without the Governor's consent, has resulted in war-and-conflicts being discussed in general-news, as it tests the boundaries of federal and state authority in regard to military force deployment within a state, and its potential impact on policy-and-legislation.

Read also:

Related

Latest