In a bold move that has sparked intense debate, a federal judge has slammed the brakes on the Trump administration's plan to deploy California National Guard members in Los Angeles, reigniting a fiery clash over presidential power and states' rights. But here's where it gets controversial: is the President overstepping his authority, or is this a necessary measure to enforce federal law? Let’s dive in.
Updated on: December 10, 2025 / 11:08 AM EST / CBS News
Washington — In a decisive ruling, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer halted the Trump administration’s efforts to deploy California National Guard troops in Los Angeles, ordering the return of control to Governor Gavin Newsom. This marks the second time Judge Breyer has ruled against the administration’s attempts to federalize the California National Guard under Title 10, a law that allows the President to call state Guard members into federal service under specific conditions. The administration had sought to use these troops to protect federal personnel and property during immigration enforcement operations, a move Newsom, a Democrat, staunchly opposed.
The preliminary injunction, requested by California officials, stems from orders issued by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in August and October. These orders kept 300 California National Guard members under federal control, with 200 slated for deployment to Oregon and the remaining 100 scattered across Los Angeles. The troops were scheduled to remain in federal service until February 2.
In his 35-page order, Judge Breyer sharply criticized the Trump administration for retaining control of the Guardsmen without evidence that federal law enforcement was hindered. He emphasized, '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.' Breyer also accused the administration of effectively creating a national police force by deploying state troops to other states like Oregon and Illinois, arguing that this represents an 'expansive view' of the President’s powers under Title 10.
And this is the part most people miss: Breyer’s decision isn’t just about California—it’s a broader challenge to the President’s authority to federalize state troops without clear justification. The judge temporarily stayed his order until Monday, likely to allow the Justice Department time to appeal.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta celebrated the ruling, stating, '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 case highlights a fundamental tension between federal authority and state sovereignty, a debate as old as the nation itself.
The saga began in June when President Trump first invoked Title 10 to federalize California National Guard members in response to protests against immigration raids in Los Angeles. Title 10 permits the President to federalize state Guard members when U.S. laws cannot be executed with 'regular forces' or when there is a 'rebellion or danger of a rebellion.' Initially, Hegseth federalized approximately 4,000 California Guardsmen, but Newsom sued to block the move. Judge Breyer issued a temporary restraining order, ruling that Trump’s initial federalization did not meet Title 10’s requirements.
However, a three-judge panel from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily lifted Breyer’s order, allowing the federalization to proceed. While the 9th Circuit has held a hearing on the Justice Department’s appeal, it has yet to issue a ruling. Since then, the Trump administration has released most of the federalized troops but retained roughly 300 under federal control.
California officials argued that there was no justification for keeping the Guard under federal control, as the June protest violence had subsided. They accused the administration of imposing a 'months-long military occupation, without any justification, and with no apparent end in sight.' The Trump administration countered that the court lacked authority to review the President’s federalization orders, claiming they were extensions of the initial June memorandum.
Breyer dismissed this argument as 'shocking,' warning that it would allow a president to create a 'perpetual police force comprised of state troops.' He wrote, 'Defendants' argument for a president to hold unchecked power to control state troops would wholly upend the federalism that is at the heart of our system of government.' He further refuted the administration’s claim that troops were still needed in Los Angeles, noting that sending 200 of the 300 remaining Guardsmen to Oregon indicated no pressing need in L.A.
This isn’t an isolated incident. President Trump has also attempted to federalize the Oregon and Illinois National Guards over the objections of their Democratic governors. In Oregon, a federal judge permanently blocked the deployment of troops to Portland, ruling that Trump lacked lawful basis under Title 10. In Illinois, a federal appeals court blocked deployment to Chicago but allowed the troops to remain under federal control, with the Supreme Court now weighing in.
Trump has also deployed National Guard members to Washington, D.C., and Memphis, with tragic consequences. Last month, two West Virginia National Guard members sent to D.C. were ambushed near the White House, leaving one dead and another hospitalized.
Here’s the burning question: Is the President’s use of Title 10 a necessary tool for maintaining law and order, or does it threaten the balance of power between federal and state governments? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below. This debate is far from over, and your voice matters.
