Demonstrations: Trump Warns California with Federal Government Authority
In response to the escalating protests against ICE, President Donald Trump has threatened federal intervention in the Los Angeles area. Should Governor Gavin Newsom and Mayor Karen Bass fail to manage the situation, Trump warned that the federal government would step in to quell the "riots and looters." On his Truth Social platform, Trump, in a rather crass move, referred to Newsom as "Newscum" — a twist on the English word "scum," which also translates to "scum" in German.
Preceding this, Newsom had alerted the X platform about plans by Trump's administration to strip California of control over its National Guard, mobilizing 2,000 troops in response to the ongoing protests. Local and city authorities in Los Angeles maintained that such a move would only exacerbate tensions further.
Control over the National Guard usually resides with the states. A presidential initiative to seize command of a state's National Guard is an extraordinary measure, one that's reserved for uncommon circumstances in U.S. history.
Historically, U.S. Presidents have rarely wielded direct command over a state's National Guard without the governor's approval, but there have been instances where federalization occurred.
During the civil rights movement, President Johnson deployed federal troops, including National Guard units, to Alabama to protect civil rights activists, without the explicit consent of the state governor. This was an instance where federal authority was exercised over state forces to enforce federal law.
During the Los Angeles riots in 1992, although not a direct deployment without consent, Governor Pete Wilson requested federal assistance, resulting in the deployment of National Guard troops. This was a cooperative effort between federal and state authorities.
More recently, in 2025, President Trump deployed National Guard troops to California to deal with immigration protests without Governor Gavin Newsom's permission. This action has stirred legal controversy, reflecting the ongoing disagreement between federal authority and state sovereignty.
The federalization of a state's National Guard can be seen as a threat to state sovereignty, with potential constitutional implications, particularly in relation to the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states. Legal challenges often follow such actions, underscoring the ongoing power struggle between federal authority and state rights.
In situations where governors request federal assistance, it can be viewed as a form of cooperative federalism, where both levels of government work together to tackle common challenges, preserving state sovereignty while still taking advantage of federal resources.
In conclusion, while extraordinary, instances of a U.S. president assuming command of a state's National Guard without consent reveal the intricate balance between federal authority and state sovereignty, often leading to legal and political disputes.
The threat of federal intervention in the escalating war-and-conflicts in Los Angeles, as proposed by President Trump, raises questions about policy-and-legislation regarding the limits of federal authority and state sovereignty, particularly in relation to the control of National Guard units. These disputes highlight the political tensions that can arise from such situations, as shown by the recent legal controversies surrounding President Trump's deployment of National Guard troops in California without Governor Newsom's permission.
