As anti-ICE riots raged through Los Angeles, leaving torched vehicles, injured officers, and vandalized federal buildings in their wake, President Donald Trump ordered the deployment of 2,000 federalized California National Guard troops and 500 U.S. Marines from Camp Pendleton to secure federal property and protect immigration agents. But instead of welcoming the support, California Governor Gavin Newsom is preparing a lawsuit—framing the move as an “unlawful” breach of state sovereignty.
It’s a bold claim. It’s also likely to fall flat.
Newsom’s legal team is reportedly building their case around 10 U.S. Code § 12406, which states that federal orders to the National Guard shall be issued through state governors. But this provision has never been interpreted to give governors veto power over federal deployments when federal interests and personnel are under threat—especially when state and local authorities have refused to enforce federal law.
Trump’s legal grounding is likely to rest not only on § 12406, but more emphatically on 10 U.S. Code § 252, known as the Insurrection Act, which allows the President to call in the National Guard and even the regular armed forces when local authorities are “unlawfully obstructing the execution of the laws.”
Trump’s memo to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth makes this abundantly clear:
“To the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.”
This isn’t a political assertion. It’s a statutory trigger. And it’s been used before—famously, and successfully.
Trump’s deployment echoes historic invocations of the Insurrection Act during the Civil Rights era:
-
1957: Little Rock, Arkansas – Eisenhower deployed troops to enforce desegregation after state resistance.
-
1962: University of Mississippi – JFK sent federal troops to quell riots resisting black student enrollment.
-
1963: Alabama – The Act was again used to suppress mobs blocking civil rights enforcement.
In each case, federal forces were dispatched to enforce federal law, over objections from state governments that either could not or would not maintain order. That is exactly what’s happening in Los Angeles.
Newsom’s assertion that California law enforcement is equipped to handle the situation is patently contradicted by public statements from LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell, who admitted:
“We are overwhelmed… We had individuals out there shooting commercial-grade fireworks at our officers. That can kill you.”
Federal buildings have been spray-painted, attacked, and in some cases evacuated, while ICE agents report being pelted with bricks, concrete, and incendiary devices. There are videos of mobs storming facilities, and federal personnel reportedly waited over an hour for local backup. If that’s not a failure to enforce the law, what is?
Legal scholars, including Georgetown’s Steve Vladeck, point out that Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act directly, instead deploying troops under federal Title 10 orders for protective purposes only. As Vladeck notes, these troops are not conducting immigration raids—they’re protecting personnel and property, a distinction that makes the deployment more legally robust, not less.
That matters because proportionality and jurisdiction are key to surviving legal challenge. Trump’s memo and the current troop activities are tightly scoped, targeting federal interests in areas where state enforcement has failed or refused to intervene.
What, then, is this lawsuit really about? It isn’t about law. It’s about optics. Newsom, who’s suffered politically through a series of high-profile failures—from his disastrous COVID mandates to growing backlash over the state’s sanctuary policies—is looking for a villain. And once again, he’s picked Trump.
But the problem for Newsom is simple: this isn’t 2020. The Trump administration is now fighting back immediately, using its full authority to defend federal law enforcement and restore order. And unlike in the past, they’re winning in the courts, as seen in the recent DOGE rulings by the Supreme Court.
