Trump Wins Appeal, Maintaining Control of California National Guard
A federal appeals court sided with Donald Trump, permitting him to retain command of thousands of California National Guard members. This decision overturns a lower court ruling, injecting a new twist into the debate over the former president’s authority over state troops amid ongoing legal challenges.
Court’s Decision
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals approved Trump‘s request to temporarily halt a lower court’s directive. This lower court ruling had required the former president to relinquish command of roughly 4,000 guardsmen from California, which he had federalized earlier this month. He mobilized these troops to bolster security in Los Angeles amid unrest stemming from immigration enforcement policies.
In its unsigned verdict, the court stated it was likely that Trump lawfully wielded his statutory authority under the federal law he invoked to federalize the guardsmen. The court rejected arguments made by California’s Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom. Newsom had argued Trump violated federal law when he seized control of a portion of California’s militia.
The panel of judges issuing the Thursday ruling included two Trump appointees and one appointed by former President Joe Biden. The appeals court’s decision extends the pause on the lower court’s order while the legal dispute continues. California has the option of requesting the Supreme Court’s intervention on an emergency basis.
…original tweet embed code…
“Under a highly deferential standard of review, Defendants have presented facts to allow us to conclude that the President had a colorable basis for invoking” the law, the judges said in the ruling, going on to note that some protesters in California had targeted federal property or agents. “Those activities significantly impeded the ability of federal officers to execute the laws,” the court said.
—Court Ruling
The court’s ruling highlights the complexities of federal and state power, especially regarding national guard deployment. Notably, similar disputes have risen in recent years; for instance, in 2020, during the George Floyd protests, multiple states and the federal government clashed over troop control (Brookings, 2025).
Legal Maneuvers
In invoking the law, 10 USC 12406, Trump referred to a provision allowing the president to federalize a state’s National Guard if they are unable to execute U.S. laws using regular forces. The appeals court also dismissed California’s claim that the president had violated a procedural element requiring orders be issued “through the governor.” However, since the California general is an “agent” of the governor, the court suggested Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth‘s actions “likely met the procedural requirement.”
The situation in Los Angeles has noticeably calmed since the legal dispute began. Further legal proceedings are set to continue on Friday afternoon before Judge Charles Breyer.
The legal saga over Trump‘s use of the National Guard in California underscores the ongoing debates over federal authority, states’ rights, and the limits of presidential power. The final outcome of these legal battles may reshape the precedents regarding the mobilization of state militias.
