For the second time this year, a federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to relinquish control of California’s National Guard troops deployed in Los Angeles, marking a pivotal moment in the ongoing clash between state and federal authority over the use of military force within U.S. borders. On Wednesday, December 10, 2025, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled that President Donald Trump’s continued federalization of the California National Guard lacked sufficient justification, and directed that the troops be returned to the control of Governor Gavin Newsom.
The roots of the dispute stretch back to June, when President Trump invoked his authority under Title 10 to federalize roughly 4,000 members of the California National Guard. The move came in response to widespread protests in Los Angeles against the administration’s immigration raids. According to BBC, the president argued that deploying the Guard was necessary to support federal officers and assets following what he described as violent riots—an assertion that has been hotly contested by California officials.
Governor Newsom, a vocal critic of the federal intervention, quickly filed suit, arguing that the protests did not constitute an emergency requiring federal control of the state’s militia. Judge Breyer initially sided with Newsom, issuing a temporary restraining order in June that found the president’s actions did not meet the legal prerequisites for federalization under Title 10. However, that victory was short-lived; a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit temporarily allowed the deployment to continue while the case wound its way through the courts, as reported by CBS News.
Over the ensuing months, most of the federalized Guardsmen were released from duty, but the Trump administration retained control of approximately 300 troops. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued further orders in August and October to keep these troops under federal command, ostensibly to protect federal immigration agents and government property. Notably, the October order called for 200 of these Guardsmen to be deployed to Oregon, with the remaining 100 scattered throughout Los Angeles.
California officials renewed their legal challenge in November, arguing that the justification for keeping the National Guard under federal control had evaporated as the protests had largely subsided. They accused the administration of engaging in a “months-long military occupation, without any justification, and with no apparent end in sight.” Judge Breyer’s 35-page order echoed these concerns, sharply criticizing the administration for holding onto state troops without evidence that federal law enforcement was being hindered in any way. “It defies the record—and common sense—to conclude that risks stemming from protests… could not have been sufficiently managed without resorting to the National Guard,” Breyer wrote.
Breyer was particularly troubled by what he saw as an overreach of executive power. He rejected the administration’s argument that courts should not intervene in a president’s decision to federalize state troops during an emergency. “The Founders designed our government to be a system of checks and balances. Defendants, however, make clear that the only check they want is a blank one,” he wrote, as cited by Associated Press. Breyer warned that adopting the administration’s position would allow a president to create a “perpetual police force comprised of state troops, so long as they were first federalized lawfully.”
The judge also took issue with the administration’s claim that protests in Los Angeles still posed a significant threat requiring military intervention. By sending 200 of the remaining 300 California Guardsmen to Oregon, the Trump administration “signaled that there was no pressing need for them in Los Angeles,” Breyer observed. At its peak, the federal government had over 4,100 California National Guard members under its command, but as of October, only 100 remained in Los Angeles, with the rest deployed to other cities where similar legal battles were unfolding.
White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson defended the president’s actions, stating to the BBC, “President Trump exercised his lawful authority to deploy National Guard troops to support federal officers and assets following violent riots. We look forward to ultimate victory on the issue.” The administration’s attorneys maintained that the protests against immigration enforcement amounted to a rebellion and justified the continued federalization of the Guard. However, Breyer dismissed this reasoning. “Every protest, and indeed any large gathering of people in public, carries with it a risk of violence, however unlikely,” he wrote. “But the specter of a protest that is not a current impediment to the President’s ability to execute the laws becoming a future impediment is not adequate.”
California Attorney General Rob Bonta celebrated the ruling, declaring in a statement reported by CBS News, “Once again, a court has firmly rejected the President’s attempt to make the National Guard a traveling national police force… The President is not King. And he cannot federalize the National Guard whenever, wherever, and for however long he wants, without justification. This is a good day for our democracy and the strength of the rule of law.” Governor Newsom echoed this sentiment, calling the federalization illegal and harmful to essential public safety operations within the state.
Judge Breyer’s order is not set to take effect until December 15, 2025, providing the Justice Department with a window to appeal the decision. The Trump administration has indicated it intends to do just that, setting the stage for a potential Supreme Court showdown over the limits of presidential authority in matters of domestic military deployment.
This legal battle is not unique to California. President Trump has also sought to federalize the National Guards of Oregon and Illinois to assist with immigration enforcement operations, often over the objections of their Democratic governors. In Oregon, a federal judge permanently blocked the administration from deploying state troops to Portland, while in Illinois, a federal appeals court allowed the Guard to remain under federal control but blocked their deployment to Chicago. The Supreme Court is currently weighing whether to allow the Illinois deployment.
The controversy has had real-world consequences. Two West Virginia National Guard members, sent to Washington, D.C. as part of a similar deployment, were injured near the White House in November, with one fatality reported. The incident has further fueled debate over the wisdom and legality of using state military forces in federal law enforcement operations.
As the nation watches the unfolding legal drama, the outcome of this case may have far-reaching implications for the balance of power between the federal government and the states, especially in times of crisis. With both sides digging in for a protracted fight, the question of who controls the National Guard—and under what circumstances—remains as contentious as ever.
For now, Judge Breyer’s ruling stands as a forceful assertion of judicial oversight and the enduring principle of checks and balances in American governance. Whether it will hold in the face of an appeal is a question that could shape the contours of federal-state relations for years to come.
