California's National Guard federalized over the governor's objection, the first call-up without a governor's request in 60 years
A presidential memorandum of June 7, 2025 called National Guard members into federal service under 10 U.S.C. 12406 to protect ICE and other federal personnel and property at any locations where protests were occurring or likely to occur; it never mentioned Los Angeles or California. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth federalized 2,000 California Guard members that day and 2,000 more on June 9, and sent about 700 active-duty Marines to Los Angeles. Governor Newsom opposed the deployment and asked that it be rescinded; TIME reported it was the first time in 60 years a president had called up a state's Guard without a request from its governor. A Ninth Circuit panel held on June 19 that the federalization itself was likely lawful, and that transmitting the order through California's Adjutant General likely satisfied the statute's requirement that orders be issued 'through' the governor; the Ninth Circuit later declined en banc review of that panel finding.
After a trial held August 11 to 13, 2025, Judge Charles Breyer ruled on September 2 that President Trump, Secretary Hegseth and the Department of Defense had violated the Posse Comitatus Act by using Guard and Marine forces to execute the law in Los Angeles, and enjoined them from using the Guard or any military troops deployed in California to execute the laws. The Ninth Circuit granted an administrative stay of the ruling on September 4, 2025.
On December 10, 2025, in a separate order, Breyer enjoined the deployment of California National Guard members in Los Angeles, effective at noon on December 15. On December 12 the Ninth Circuit stayed only the part of that order returning control of the Guard to Newsom and denied a stay in all other respects. The government withdrew its motion for a stay pending appeal on December 30, and on December 31 the Ninth Circuit vacated its administrative stay and Trump announced, following a string of legal defeats, that he would end the Guard deployments to Los Angeles, Portland and Chicago; the troops were withdrawn.
- Trump
- Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth / DOD
- Gov. Gavin Newsom
- AG Rob Bonta
- Judge Charles Breyer (N.D. Cal.)
- Ninth Circuit
- Department of Defense Security for the Protection of Department of Homeland Security Functions (presidential memorandum)The White House (primary) · 2025-06-07
- Newsom v. Trump, No. 3:25-cv-04870-CRB, Doc. 176: Opinion Granting Injunctive Relief (Breyer, J.)U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal. (primary) · 2025-09-02
- Newsom v. Trump, No. 25-5553, Dkt. 7: order granting an administrative stay of the September 2 rulingU.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit (primary; via CourtListener) · 2025-09-04
- Newsom v. Trump, No. 3:25-cv-04870-CRB, Doc. 225: Order Granting Renewed Motion for Preliminary InjunctionU.S. District Court, N.D. Cal. (primary; via CourtListener) · 2025-12-10
- Newsom v. Trump, Doc. 225: Order Granting Renewed Motion for Preliminary InjunctionU.S. District Court, N.D. Cal. (primary; copy hosted by the California Attorney General) · 2025-12-10
- Newsom v. Trump, No. 25-7781, Dkt. 14 and Dkt. 24: administrative stay denied as to the Los Angeles deployment (Dec. 12); government withdraws its stay motionU.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit (primary; via CourtListener) · 2025-12-12
- Newsom v. Trump, No. 25-7781, DktEntry 14.1: OrderU.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit (primary; copy hosted by the California Attorney General) · 2025-12-12
- Newsom v. Trump, No. 25-3727, published orderU.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit (primary) · 2025-06-19
- Can the President Activate a State's National Guard?TIME · 2025-06-09
- Newsom v. Trump 3:25-cv-04870 (N.D. Cal.)Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse (University of Michigan Law School) · undated
- Multiple press releases on the Newsom v. Trump litigation timelineCalifornia Governor's Office (primary) · 2025
- Trump's Threat to Invoke the Insurrection Act, Explained (confirms Dec 31 2025 end of LA/Portland/Chicago deployments; district-court PCA finding)ACLU · 2026-01-16
One entry from Trexit's documented record of abuse of power. Tier A = an official record establishes what makes the conduct abuse of power; Tier B = documented by independent reporting or disclosures, but no official record establishes it. How we verify →