California Governor Gavin Newsom announced on Monday that the state will sue President Donald Trump for unilaterally federalizing the California National Guard to respond to largely peaceful protests in Los Angeles against aggressive immigration raids by ICE.

 

In a controversial move over the weekend, Trump bypassed Governor Newsom’s authority and activated at least 300 National Guard troops, citing 10 U.S.C. §12406, a rarely used provision allowing federal deployment of the Guard during rebellions or when enforcement of federal law is hindered.

 

“This is exactly what Donald Trump wanted,” Newsom said on social media. “He flamed the fires and illegally acted to federalize the National Guard. We’re suing him.”

 

The action marks the first time since 1965 that a president has activated a state’s National Guard without the governor’s request. Legal scholars warn that the language of Section 12406 is ambiguous—it requires the president to issue orders through governors but does not clarify whether governors must consent or can refuse.

 

Trump’s memo claimed protests were obstructing federal law enforcement and framed them as “a form of rebellion,” justifying the emergency use of federal troops to protect ICE personnel and federal property.

 

Critics argue that Trump’s real aim is to police domestic protest, calling it a dangerous abuse of power. Liza Goitein, a scholar at the Brennan Center, stated, “This is about federalizing the Guard to police Americans. That’s dangerous for both public safety and democracy.”

 

Trump’s memo also implied that his administration may believe the president has inherent constitutional authority to deploy troops domestically—raising further concerns about expanding executive power.

 

Since beginning his second term, Trump has steadily pushed to militarize domestic law enforcement. In April, he ordered Attorney General Pam Bondi and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to evaluate how military personnel and assets could support crime prevention. Earlier, he declared a national emergency at the U.S.-Mexico border, considering but ultimately refraining from invoking the Insurrection Act to assert “complete operational control.”

 

Legal experts have long cautioned that both the Insurrection Act and Title 10 powers are overly vague and ripe for misuse by an authoritarian president.