U.S. Judge rules six months after protests, no evidence supports continued federal control of California Guard, returning authority to Governor Newsom.
U.S. Judge on Wednesday December 10, 2025, ordered the Trump administration to withdraw National Guard troops from Los Angeles, concluding that their continued deployment was unnecessary more than six months after immigration-related protests ended.
United States District Judge Charles R. Breyer ruled that approximately 300 Guardsmen still under federal control must be returned to California Governor Gavin Newsom. A gradual withdrawal of troops had already been underway since July 2025.
“The Founders designed our government to be a system of checks and balances,” Breyer wrote in the ruling. “Defendants, however, make clear that the only check they want is a blank one.” He described the use of the National Guard as effectively creating “a national police force made up of state troops,” noting there was no evidence that federal law enforcement efforts were significantly impeded.
Governor Newsom criticized the Trump administration’s deployment, saying the Guard had been used “against the very communities they took an oath to serve.” On social media platform X, he emphasized: “Today’s ruling is unmistakably clear: the federalization of the California National Guard must end.”
Read Also: Supreme Court FTC Firing Case Signals Major Power Shift
California Attorney General Rob Bonta echoed the judge’s concerns, accusing the Trump administration of creating “a traveling national police force.” He added, “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.”
President Trump administration has signaled it intends to appeal the decision. White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson defended the deployment, saying, “President Trump exercised his lawful authority to deploy National Guard troops to support federal officers and assets following violent riots that local leaders like Newsom refused to stop. We look forward to ultimate victory on the issue.”
The ruling underscores growing tensions between federal authority and state control of the National Guard, a key instrument in managing civil unrest. Legal experts say the case may set an important precedent regarding the limits of federal power in domestic deployments, particularly when the initial emergency has long passed.
Following the court’s decision, federal control of the California National Guard is expected to end quickly, returning operational command to state authorities. Analysts suggest the move may also influence other states where federalization of the Guard has been politically contentious, raising questions about the appropriate balance between local governance and federal oversight in domestic security operations.
This case marks one of the highest-profile legal challenges to President Donald Trump’s use of National Guard troops on domestic soil, highlighting the judiciary’s role in checking executive authority during periods of political and civil tension.