California Judge Rules Trump’s Deployment of National Guard to Los Angeles Was Illegal
A federal judge in California has ruled that the Trump administration's deployment of nearly 5,000 military personnel, including National Guard members and Marines, to Los Angeles earlier this year was illegal. The ruling challenges the administration’s use of troops for domestic law enforcement and emphasizes the legal boundaries that prohibit military forces from policing American cities. This decision comes amid heightened tensions over federal intervention in local protests and immigration enforcement.
Judge Rules Deployment Violated Federal Law
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer issued a strong ruling declaring that President Trump's use of military forces in Los Angeles exceeded the authority granted under federal law. The judge found the deployment violated the Posse Comitatus Act, a 19th-century statute that generally prohibits federal troops from engaging in civilian law enforcement activities. Breyer described the deployment as effectively turning the military into a national police force with the president as its chief.
Scope and Impact of the Deployment
The deployment began in June when thousands of National Guard members and hundreds of Marines were mobilized to quell protests sparked by immigration raids in Southern California. At its peak, about 5,000 troops were stationed in and around Los Angeles, with roughly 300 National Guard members still present at the time of the ruling. The judge barred the troops from conducting arrests, crowd control, and other law enforcement functions outside federal property, calling for their release or restriction to guarding federal buildings.
Legal and Political Tensions
This case highlights ongoing clashes between the federal government and California’s Democratic leadership, including Governor Gavin Newsom, who filed the lawsuit challenging the deployment. Newsom argued that the president overstepped his legal authority, and his position received judicial backing in this decision. The Department of Justice has stated it intends to appeal, signaling a likely continuation of the legal battle in higher courts where the Trump administration seeks broader powers for domestic military deployments.
Broader Implications for Executive Power
The judge expressed concern about the potential creation of a federal military presence across the country operating as a national police force. The Trump administration’s repeated attempts to deploy troops in cities with Democratic leadership—such as Washington D.C., Chicago, and New York—have sparked debates over the limits of presidential power and federalism. Critics warn this could erode constitutional protections and blur the lines between military and civilian policing.
Military’s Role in Domestic Enforcement Questioned
During the trial, revelations emerged about the military’s involvement in various controversial operations, including a botched raid in MacArthur Park that drew community outrage. Military officials testified to restraining certain operations due to safety concerns, yet the overall presence of armed soldiers with obscured identities raised alarms. Legal experts emphasize that this ruling will set an important precedent in clarifying the applicability of the Posse Comitatus Act in contemporary contexts, potentially curbing future military overreach in domestic matters.