Judge Orders Return of California Guard Troops to State Control

A federal judge has ruled that President Donald Trump’s use of California National Guard troops in Los Angeles must end, sending a clear message that the federal government cannot unilaterally federalize state forces without a governor’s approval.

The Court’s Decision

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer granted a preliminary injunction sought by California officials who opposed an extension of the president’s unusual move. The Guard, normally activated only by a governor at the request of local authorities, had been placed under federal control in June during a surge of immigration‑enforcement operations. Breyer’s order, issued on a Wednesday, was temporarily put on hold until Monday, allowing the case to proceed while the court considered the full arguments.

California’s Argument

California officials contended that conditions in Los Angeles had changed since the troops were first called up. The administration initially called more than 4,000 Guard members, but that number had fallen to several hundred by late October. According to the Associated Press, only about 100 troops remain in the Los Angeles area.

“Today’s ruling is abundantly clear – the federalization of the National Guard in California is illegal and must end,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement. “The President deployed these brave men and women against their own communities, removing them from essential public safety operations. We look forward to all National Guard servicemembers being returned to state service.”

California argued that the administration used isolated incidents of violence in downtown Los Angeles during the June protests as a pretext to federalize the Guard, creating what Attorney General Rob Bonta called a months‑long military occupation without justification. Bonta said, “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. This is a good day for our democracy and the strength of the rule of law.”

Trump Administration’s Justification

Justice Department lawyers maintained that the Guard was still needed in Los Angeles to protect federal personnel and property, such as the federal detention center in downtown LA. White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said, “President Trump exercised his lawful authority to deploy National Guard troops to support federal officers and assets following violent riots that local leaders like Newscum refused to stop.” She added, “We look forward to ultimate victory on the issue.”

The administration also extended the federalization until February and tried to deploy Guard members in Portland, Oregon, as part of an effort to send the military into Democratic‑run cities over objections of mayors and governors.

Judge’s Order and Legal Context

The 35‑page order signed by Breyer states: “Six months after they first federalized the California National Guard, Defendants still retain control of approximately 300 Guardsmen, despite no evidence that execution of federal law is impeded in any way—let alone significantly. What’s more, Defendants have sent California Guardsmen into other states, effectively creating a national police force made up of state troops.”

A judge previously ruled against the Trump administration’s plans to deploy the California National Guard to Oregon. Conan Nolan reports for NBC4 News at 3 p.m. on Monday, Oct. 6, 2025. Breyer, appointed by President Clinton, is the younger brother of former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer.

Historical Significance

Trump took command of the California National Guard following protests over his stepped‑up enforcement of immigration laws. The call‑up was the first time in decades that a state’s National Guard was activated without a governor’s request, marking a significant escalation in the administration’s mass‑deportation policy. Troops were stationed outside a federal detention center in downtown Los Angeles where protesters gathered and were later sent on the streets to protect immigration officers as they made arrests.

California sued, and Breyer issued a temporary restraining order that required the administration to return control of the Guard members to California. An appeals court panel put that decision on hold, allowing the preliminary injunction to remain in effect while the case moved forward.

Key Takeaways

• Judge Charles Breyer granted a preliminary injunction ending the federalization of California National Guard troops.
• California officials argue the Guard was used as a personal police force without the governor’s approval.
• The Trump administration maintained that the troops were needed to protect federal property and personnel.

The ruling underscores the limits of presidential power over state National Guard units and reaffirms the constitutional requirement that governors retain control over their state forces.

Closing

The federal court’s decision restores California’s authority over its National Guard, ending a months‑long federal occupation that many saw as an overreach. The case highlights the ongoing tension between federal immigration enforcement priorities and state sovereignty, and it sets a precedent for how similar disputes may be resolved in the future.