Inside the Legal Showdown Over Trump’s National Guard Deployment in L.A.
In a trial unfolding in California this week, three officials stepped up to testify about one of the most contentious moves made by former President Donald Trump during his time in office — the deployment of thousands of National Guard troops to Los Angeles amid protests targeting immigration enforcement agencies.
At the heart of this case, filed by California Governor Gavin Newsom, lies a crucial legal question: Did Trump overstep his bounds by sending military forces into a domestic law enforcement role, potentially violating a law that’s been on the books since the 1800s? That law — the Posse Comitatus Act — strictly limits the military’s involvement in enforcing civilian laws.
The Controversial Deployment: A “Power Grab” or Protection?
Back in early June, Trump issued an executive order calling up roughly 4,000 California National Guard members, along with 700 Marines, to respond to protests surrounding ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) operations. The president described the situation as a “rebellion,” arguing that federal forces needed to step in because local authorities were unable to maintain order.
Governor Newsom fired back, labeling the move an illegal “power grab” that stripped away the state’s authority to command its own National Guard troops. The governor’s lawsuit challenged Trump’s authority under the so-called Title 10 provision, which allows the president to activate National Guard forces in cases of “rebellion,” “invasion,” or when the federal government is unable “with regular forces to execute the laws.”
The debate quickly became a battle of legal interpretations: Was this really a rebellion? Did the president have the legal grounds to federalize the Guard and send them into what traditionally are civilian law enforcement roles?
What The Officials Said: The Trial Begins
The trial, overseen by San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, kicked off Monday with testimony from key military and federal officials involved in the deployment. Judge Breyer had already ruled back in June that Trump’s action was “likely illegal,” though that decision was later overturned on appeal, with the higher court giving the president deference to interpret the law under Title 10.
One of the most eye-opening moments came when Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman — who once led the National Guard task force in Los Angeles — testified that he never actually heard the term “rebellion” used to describe the protests in L.A. This contradicted the administration’s framing of the situation.
Judge Breyer seemed genuinely surprised by some of the military’s broader claims. Sherman said the military could be deployed to back up local law enforcement even when there was no active threat or illegal activity underway. In other words, the military could respond simply because local police were conducting an operation, regardless of whether there was violence or danger at the scene.
Breyer pressed Sherman on this point: “So if there’s no threat you can send out the military?” Sherman responded affirmatively, explaining that the military might be deployed preemptively, since threats could develop even if none were immediately apparent.
The judge’s reaction was pointed: “Wouldn’t that always be the case?”
The MacArthur Park Incident: A Flashpoint
Sherman also recounted a particularly tense episode involving an immigration enforcement operation at MacArthur Park on July 7. This operation was notable because it involved horse-mounted officers and military Humvees, drawing national media attention.
According to Sherman, he refused to support this mission, judging the risk to federal agents as low and therefore not justifying military involvement. This refusal apparently raised eyebrows at the Department of Homeland Security, where a senior official reportedly questioned Sherman’s “loyalty to his country” for objecting.
This moment highlighted the tension between military judgment and political pressure within the federal response.
The Military’s Role: Support, Not Enforcement?
William Harrington, deputy chief of staff for the Los Angeles military deployment task force, testified that everyone involved understood the limits set by the Posse Comitatus Act. According to him, the National Guard’s job was to assist federal law enforcement — protecting federal buildings and personnel, but not actively enforcing laws against civilians.
Similarly, Ernesto Santacruz Jr., a Department of Homeland Security field office director, testified about how assaults on ICE officers dramatically dropped after the Guard arrived. He emphasized that Guard troops were there “to assist and protect federal authorities,” and he was unaware of any denied requests for assistance.
When pressed about his understanding of the Posse Comitatus Act itself, Santacruz admitted he did not know its specific provisions or restrictions, underscoring how complex and somewhat opaque these legal boundaries can be even to top officials.
Numbers & Scope: The Scale of the Deployment
At its peak in June, nearly 5,000 service members were deployed across Los Angeles — 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines. While most National Guard personnel have since returned to California control, around 300 remain federally controlled, guarding key locations such as courthouses in downtown L.A. and a facility in Paramount.
The Broader Impact: Setting Legal Precedents
This trial isn’t just about what happened in L.A. It’s about defining the limits of presidential authority over the National Guard and the military’s role in domestic affairs — issues with implications far beyond California.
Adding a fresh twist to the case, Trump’s recent announcement deploying the National Guard to Washington, D.C., to assist with police during unrest brings the topic back into the national spotlight. Unlike California, the D.C. Guard answers directly to the president, so federal deployment there isn’t controversial legally, but Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth was careful to note that Guard troops in D.C. will not perform law enforcement duties, though they may detain individuals briefly if necessary before handing them over to police.
What’s Next in the Trial?
The proceedings are scheduled for three days, with the federal government calling Maj. Gen. Sherman back to the stand on Tuesday. On Wednesday, the court will consider several legal motions from the government, including arguments that California doesn’t even have the legal standing to bring the lawsuit.
Why This Matters
-
Legal Boundaries: This case tests the boundaries of the Posse Comitatus Act, a nearly 150-year-old law meant to keep the military out of civilian policing.
-
Presidential Power: It probes how far a president can go to federalize state-controlled forces during protests and unrest.
-
Military vs. Civilian Roles: It forces a reckoning about the military’s proper role in maintaining order on U.S. soil.
-
Political Implications: The trial highlights the political battle lines between the federal government and states on immigration enforcement and protest response.
Bottom Line
The lawsuit brought by Governor Newsom could set a major precedent for how the federal government manages protests and unrest, especially when it involves sensitive issues like immigration. While the courts wrestle with complex legal questions, the public watches closely as the military’s role in American streets remains a hot-button topic.
Login