A federal judge in California ordered the Trump administration to relinquish control of the California National Guard and halt its deployment in Los Angeles, delivering a sharp legal rebuke to President Donald Trump's use of state troops during immigration enforcement operations. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer issued a preliminary injunction Wednesday directing the government to return command of the Guard to Gov. Gavin Newsom, though he stayed the ruling until Monday to allow time for appeal.
The decision marks the second time Breyer has ruled against the administration's efforts to federalize the state's Guard under Title 10, a move California officials argue unlawfully transformed state military personnel into a domestic police force. The ruling also highlights broader legal battles over Trump's strategy of deploying Guard members in Democratic-led cities including Los Angeles, Portland and Chicago. Breyer wrote that retaining hundreds of California troops without evidence of necessity showed that the administration had "adopted an 'expansive view'" of presidential power that Congress never authorized.
California officials argued conditions in Los Angeles have changed significantly since Trump first federalized the Guard during protests over immigration raids in June. The original deployment involved more than 4,000 troops; that number decreased to several hundred by October, with roughly 100 still in the Los Angeles area. They said continuing to hold the Guard was now unwarranted. They further accused the administration of creating a "months-long military occupation, without any justification, and with no apparent end in sight."
Breyer echoed those concerns, criticizing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's August and October orders keeping 300 troops under federal control, including 200 assigned to Oregon. In his ruling he wrote, "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." He added that the administration's legal interpretation "would permit a president to create a perpetual police force comprised of state troops, so long as they were first federalized lawfully."
California Attorney General Rob Bonta praised the ruling, saying, "Once again, a court has firmly rejected the President's attempt to make the National Guard a traveling national police force." He continued, "For more than five months, the Trump Administration has held California National Guard troops hostage as part of its political games. But the President is not King. And he cannot federalize the National Guard whenever, wherever, and for however long he wants, without justification."
Justice Department lawyers maintained that federalization remained necessary to "help protect federal personnel and property," arguing courts lacked authority to review the president's decision, which they characterized as an extension of his June order. Breyer called that claim "shocking," writing that accepting it "would wholly upend the federalism that is at the heart of our system of government."
The dispute over California's Guard comes amid similar battles elsewhere. Federal courts have blocked Trump from deploying National Guard units from Oregon and Illinois, though the Supreme Court is weighing whether Illinois troops may ultimately be sent to Chicago. The administration has also deployed Guard personnel to Washington, D.C., and Memphis, where two West Virginia Guardsmen were shot in an ambush-style attack near the White House last month.
