President Donald Trump just notched a legal win to keep Los Angeles secure. On Friday, he praised a federal appeals court for allowing the California National Guard to remain deployed in the city. This ruling slaps down a progressive push to undermine federal authority.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit granted a stay late Thursday, letting Trump maintain the Guard’s presence despite a district judge’s objection. California’s lawsuit, backed by Governor Gavin Newsom, challenged Trump’s right to deploy troops without state approval. It’s a classic state-versus-federal power struggle.
Earlier Thursday, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled Trump’s deployment was illegal. He argued it overstepped statutory limits and violated the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers to the states. Breyer’s order demanded that Trump hand control of the Guard to Newsom by noon Friday.
Breyer, sensing the firestorm, paused his order until Friday’s deadline. The Trump administration didn’t waste a second, filing an appeal immediately. The 9th Circuit’s stay proves the judiciary isn’t fully asleep to common-sense governance.
The appeals court’s decision came after California sued Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and the Defense Department. The state’s legal gambit aimed to limit the Guard and Marines to guarding federal facilities only. Newsom’s team cried foul over Trump bypassing gubernatorial consent.
Trump, never one to mince words, celebrated the ruling. “The Appeals Court ruled last night that I can use the National Guard to keep our cities, in this case Los Angeles, safe,” he said. That’s a direct rebuke to critics who’d rather see chaos than order.
Trump doubled down, painting a vivid picture of his impact. “If I didn’t send the Military into Los Angeles, that city would be burning to the ground right now,” he declared. Hyperbole? Maybe, but it underscores the stakes of unchecked protests.
The president’s rhetoric hits hard, and for good reason. The Guard’s deployment responded to protests targeting Immigration and Customs Enforcement actions. Without federal muscle, local law enforcement might’ve been overwhelmed.
California’s lawsuit, though, reveals a deeper agenda. By demanding state control, Newsom’s camp seeks to neuter federal responses to civil unrest. It’s a move straight from the progressive playbook: prioritize ideology over public safety.
The 9th Circuit has scheduled a hearing for Tuesday to dig deeper into the dispute. This stay is merely a breather, not a final victory. Both sides are gearing up for a constitutional showdown.
Breyer’s initial ruling leaned heavily on the Tenth Amendment, a favorite of states’ rights advocates. Yet, Trump’s team argues national security trumps state objections when cities teeter on the edge. The appeals court’s quick action suggests they’re listening.
The Washington Post reported the appeals court’s move on Friday, giving the story national legs. It’s no surprise—when Trump and California clash, headlines follow. The real question is where the judiciary lands when the dust settles.
California’s push to restrict federal troops smells like political theater. Limiting the Guard to protecting federal buildings while protests rage is like telling firefighters to save only half the house. Newsom’s consent clause feels more about control than cooperation.
Trump’s deployment, legal or not, aimed to restore calm in Los Angeles. Critics may scoff, but residents tired of unrest likely appreciate the backup. The appeals court’s stay ensures that support sticks around, at least for now.
This saga exposes the fault lines in our federal system. When states and the White House bicker over troops, it’s the public caught in the crossfire. Tuesday’s hearing can’t come soon enough to sort out this mess.
