Attorneys General Challenge Trump’s National Guard Deployment

Legal Battle Brews Over Presidential Authority in Protest Response

Eighteen state attorneys general are contesting the former administration’s decision to deploy the California National Guard to Los Angeles during recent demonstrations, raising concerns about federal overreach and constitutional boundaries.

Legal Challenge Unveiled

A coalition led by Minnesota Attorney General **Keith Ellison** issued a strong rebuke, asserting that **Donald Trump**’s actions bypassed established protocols and disregarded the authority of state leaders. The attorneys general contend the federalization of the California National Guard lacked the necessary consent from state officials.

“The president’s decision to federalize and deploy California’s National Guard without the consent of California state leaders is unlawful, unconstitutional, and undemocratic,”

—Keith Ellison, Minnesota Attorney General

The group argues that the administration should have prioritized collaboration with local authorities to ensure public safety, rather than resorting to what they describe as a militarized response against American citizens. They are lending their support to a court challenge initiated by California Attorney General **Rob Bonta**.

States Join Opposition

The statement of opposition was jointly signed by the attorneys general from Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, and Vermont. This widespread support highlights the gravity of the legal questions raised by the deployment.

Concerns over the militarization of responses to civil unrest are growing. According to a 2023 report by the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED), there has been a significant increase in the deployment of military and security forces during protests in the United States in recent years. ACLED Report

Concerns About Escalation

The attorneys general voiced fears that the administration’s actions could exacerbate tensions, incite further unrest, and endanger both protesters and law enforcement personnel. They emphasized their commitment to opposing any measures that could jeopardize public safety and undermine democratic principles.

“We oppose any action from this administration that will sow chaos, inflame tensions, and put people’s lives at risk — including those of our law-enforcement officers,”

—Joint Statement, Attorneys General

The legal challenge represents a significant test of the balance of power between the federal government and state authorities, particularly in times of civil unrest. The outcome could have lasting implications for how future protests are managed and the limits of presidential authority in such situations.