Federal Judge Charles Breyer has rejected California Governor Gavin Newsom’s emergency motion to halt President Trump’s deployment of 4,700 military personnel to Los Angeles, leaving federal troops on the ground despite fierce objections from state leadership.
Key Takeaways
- A federal judge denied Governor Newsom’s emergency request to block President Trump’s deployment of 700 Marines and 4,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles, but scheduled a hearing for a temporary restraining order.
- President Trump activated the National Guard without Newsom’s consent, claiming intervention was necessary to prevent violence and protect federal properties and immigration officials during protests.
- This marks the first time in over 30 years that Marines have been deployed within the U.S. for civil unrest, the last occurrence being during the 1992 Rodney King riots.
- California officials argue the deployment violates state sovereignty, escalates tensions, and is costing an estimated $134 million in federal funds.
Federal Judge Denies Newsom’s Emergency Motion
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer has denied California Governor Gavin Newsom’s emergency request to immediately halt President Trump’s deployment of troops in Los Angeles. The denial represents a significant victory for the administration’s border enforcement strategy, allowing federal forces to remain in place while providing additional time for the government to prepare a formal response to Newsom’s legal challenge. Despite rejecting the immediate intervention, Judge Breyer has scheduled a hearing for a temporary restraining order, indicating this legal battle is far from over. The Trump administration now has until Wednesday at 2 p.m. ET to respond to Newsom’s filing.
California’s lawsuit specifically sought to “prevent the use of federalized National Guard and active duty Marines for law enforcement purposes on the streets of a civilian city.” The state argues that deploying military personnel for domestic law enforcement violates constitutional principles of federalism and state sovereignty. Newsom’s legal team claims the federal action threatens to establish a dangerous precedent that could undermine state authority nationwide. The judge’s decision not to grant immediate relief allows the approximately 700 Marines and 4,000 National Guard members to remain in Los Angeles.
Trump Defends Deployment as Necessary Security Measure
President Trump has vigorously defended his decision to deploy federal troops, arguing it was essential to prevent widespread destruction in Los Angeles. “If I didn’t ‘SEND IN THE TROOPS’ to Los Angeles the last three nights, that once beautiful and great City would be burning to the ground right now, much like 25,000 houses burned to the ground in L.A. due to an incompetent Governor and Mayor,” Said President Trump.
The deployment represents the most significant military presence in an American city in decades. While President Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act, he has relied on presidential authority to protect federal property and personnel. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth explained the administration’s rationale: “We believe ICE agents should be allowed to be safe in doing their operations, and we have deployed National Guard and the Marines to protect them in the execution of their duties.”
The federal presence follows protests that erupted after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) conducted raids across Los Angeles. These operations, part of President Trump’s broader immigration enforcement agenda, have sparked significant community backlash. Federal officials maintain that the military presence is purely defensive in nature, intended to deter violence and ensure the safety of immigration officers carrying out lawful operations against illegal immigration.
California Officials Condemn Federal Intervention
Governor Newsom has been vocal in his opposition to what he characterizes as federal overreach. In an official statement, Newsom declared: “The federal government is now turning the military against American citizens. Sending trained warfighters onto the streets is unprecedented and threatens the very core of our democracy. Donald Trump is behaving like a tyrant, not a President. We ask the court to immediately block these unlawful actions,” Stated Governor Newsom.
The governor’s legal filing warned that deploying military personnel with a “warrior culture” to civilian areas could have “devastating consequences” for California and potentially establish a dangerous nationwide precedent. California Attorney General Rob Bonta has joined Newsom in challenging what they describe as the unlawful federalization of the National Guard. The state argues that federal troops are being used for civilian law enforcement activities beyond simply guarding federal buildings, which they contend violates both constitutional principles and Title 10 authority.
Historical Context and Current Tensions
The current deployment represents the first time Marines have been mobilized inside the United States for civil unrest since the 1992 Rodney King riots, which also occurred in Los Angeles. That historical parallel has heightened concerns among critics who worry about the potential for escalation. The federal government estimates the current deployment will cost approximately $134 million, with Marines reportedly instructed to avoid direct engagement with demonstrators. Despite the substantial military presence, reports indicate that most demonstrations have remained largely peaceful, though some confrontations have occurred.
“Following President Trump’s doubling down on the militarization of the Los Angeles area through the takeover of 4,000 more California National Guard soldiers and the unlawful deployment of the U.S. Marines, Governor Newsom and Attorney General Bonta are filing an emergency request for the court to block President Trump and the Department of Defense from expanding the current mission of federalized Cal Guard personnel and Marines. This mission orders soldiers to engage in unlawful civilian law enforcement activities in communities across the region, beyond just guarding federal buildings.”
The confrontation between California and the federal government highlights the intensifying debate over immigration enforcement and states’ rights under the Trump administration. With additional protests against immigration raids occurring in other cities, including San Francisco and Dallas, this legal battle may set important precedents for federal authority in managing civil unrest and enforcing immigration policy across the nation.
