On June 7, 2025, President Donald Trump invoked 10 U.S.C. § 12406 to federalize elements of the California National Guard, marking a significant escalation in the legal confrontation between the federal government and the State of California. This statute permits the President to place National Guard units under federal control in situations of rebellion or obstruction of law, and Trump cited rising protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as an ‘unlawful rebellion.’ He subsequently ordered at least 2,000 National Guard personnel into federal service, directing them to provide ‘force protection’ for federal immigration officers. Their initial role, while not involving direct arrests or crowd control, indicates a shift toward a more consequential federal presence in California.
This move aligns with Trump’s historical stance regarding the deployment of military forces during civil unrest. During his first term, he threatened to utilize the Insurrection Act amid the George Floyd protests in June 2020, desiring to send active-duty troops to various U.S. cities, including Washington, D.C., in response to what he perceived as weakness in the face of protesters. At that time, major figures in his administration, including Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Attorney General William Barr, opposed the deployment. Now, his immigration policy advisors, Stephen Miller and Tom Homan, are viewed as supporting his actions regarding California.
On June 8, Trump intensified his rhetoric, labeling Los Angeles as ‘invaded’ and ‘occupied,’ and characterizing protesters as ‘violent, insurrectionist mobs.’ This language blends immigration concerns with a national security perspective, and Trump has directed key officials, including DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, to take necessary action to ‘liberate’ Los Angeles from what he describes as the threat posed by migrants. This framing of the situation suggests a potential legal maneuver towards seizing control over local law enforcement operations, potentially superseding state and municipal authority under the Insurrection Act as provided in 10 U.S.C. § 252.
The Insurrection Act allows the President to deploy federal troops against ‘unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages’ that impede the enforcement of federal laws. Historically, this law has only been invoked during violent unrest, notably Eisenhower’s enforcement of school desegregation in Little Rock in 1957 and George H.W. Bush’s response to the Los Angeles riots in 1992. However, the current California protests are non-violent and political, challenging the justification for military intervention. California Governor Gavin Newsom has openly criticized the federal deployment and defended the autonomy of the state’s officials. Furthermore, there is no credible evidence suggesting that state or local authorities are preventing federal agents from executing their duties; instead, widespread public dissatisfaction with federal immigration policy has manifested itself in the protests.
As the deployment unfolds, a new legal battle is anticipated. California has initiated legal action under the case title Newsom v. Trump, seeking to block Trump’s use of military forces to suppress dissent concerning federal immigration policy. The state argues the President’s actions violate constitutional limits on executive authority and encroach upon state sovereignty.
Legally, Trump’s invocation of the Insurrection Act would face significant scrutiny. The phrase ‘impracticable to enforce the laws,’ provides broad discretion to the President, but courts have historically been hesitant to second-guess the President’s factual determinations in such contexts, as established in Sterling v. Constantin. Nevertheless, the act’s invocation raises considerable constitutional concerns, especially when scholars have cautioned against its potential misuse against political opponents instead of addressing real threats.
In the forthcoming legal battle, the Trump administration may present arguments supported by protests that disrupt ICE activities and local law enforcement’s refusal to assist federal agents as a basis for claiming it’s impractical to uphold immigration laws through conventional channels. However, precedent from United States v. California has recognized sanctuary laws as valid exercises of state discretion. The Ninth Circuit has held that California’s refusal to collaborate with ICE’s detainer requests does not constitute obstruction or rebellion, which challenges the administration’s legal justifications for federal intervention.
Additionally, the Tenth Amendment limits the federal government’s ability to compel state officials to enforce federal laws. Trump’s initiative to leverage military support against state dissent could prompt severe judicial scrutiny, particularly if it appears that local authorities are being punished for political resistance. Furthermore, any military presence could infringe upon First and Fourth Amendment rights by potentially chilling freedom of speech and association, as well as subjecting civilians to unlawful searches or detainment without appropriate cause.
The challenges escalate when considering the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits using U.S. military forces for domestic law enforcement unless expressly authorized otherwise. Courts have consistently indicated that military engagement must be narrowly defined and strictly supervised.
The implications of Trump’s potential misuse of the Insurrection Act resound heavily throughout the constitutional framework of the United States. Unlike previous instances that featured the Insurrection Act used to uphold constitutional rights, Trump’s scenario may represent an unprecedented situation where military resources are applied to suppress political expression in a functioning state. The stakes in this situation echo the historical precedent, where, in the past, federal troops were employed to counter state resistance to judicial mandates, yet motivations have become distorted; the historical context has shifted as it now positions the President potentially overriding judicial state autonomy through military force.
The ultimate decision of whether the President’s actions stand or fall rests within the jurisdiction of the courts. Upon any formal invocation of military powers, legal actions from California are expected to follow swiftly seeking restraining orders against Trump’s orders. This legal challenge would assert that such measures lack a factual foundation, violate constitutional principles, and undermine the division of state and federal authority.
The arguments from California would likely hinge on whether Trump’s assertions of ‘impracticability’ are substantiated or merely political rhetoric. As the case navigates the judiciary, the stakes are immense, not just for California but for the functional integrity of the American system of government. The invocation of the Insurrection Act would wield considerable power; however, it is mandated that such power be justified by actual circumstances. When the facts supporting this power are weak or distorted, the risk of transitioning from a constitutional application to authoritarian performative governance looms large.
The unfolding scenario poses fundamental questions about governmental power, civil rights, and the ethical responsibilities of military versus civilian policing under constitutional norms. As the legal challenges progress, it raises the paramount question of whether the military will serve the Constitution and the nation it protects, or become an instrument of a singular executive’s will.
In confronting this dilemma, America stands critical at a junction; its future mirrors a broader exploration of the principles on which the nation was founded—democracy, the rule of law, and the essential checks and balances that guard against the overreach of power.
image source from：https://washingtonspectator.org/caesar-in-california/
