By John Q. Hosedrinker 
California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, alleging the federalization of 2,000 California National Guard members was unlawful and an overreach of presidential authority. Bonta argues the deployment was unnecessary, as protests had subsided before the action, and that it diverted crucial resources from wildfire preparedness. The suit seeks a court order to halt the deployment, claiming the president abused his power for political gain and infringed upon the governor’s authority. The White House countered that the deployment was necessary to quell unrest, while Governor Newsom accused Trump of manufacturing a crisis for political purposes.
Read the original article here
California’s Attorney General is suing Trump over what he considers an unlawful National Guard deployment. The core issue revolves around the legality of sending National Guard troops into a state without the governor’s consent. Unless the Insurrection Act was invoked—which it wasn’t in this instance—or Congress granted authorization, such an action would appear to be a clear violation of established legal norms. The speed with which this legal challenge should be resolved is also a point of concern.
This lawsuit raises questions about the precedent set, particularly in light of the massive George Floyd protests in 2020. Those protests, historically large in scale and spread across many states and cities, saw the deployment of tens of thousands of National Guard and other service members. While Trump’s rhetoric was inflammatory, he didn’t directly order the National Guard deployments then; that responsibility remained with individual state governors. The current situation, therefore, feels strikingly different. The perceived lack of accountability surrounding past actions fuels anxieties about this latest incident.
The cynicism surrounding the lawsuit’s potential impact is significant. Many feel that suing Trump is futile, given his history of disregarding court orders and the vast resources at his disposal, including legal support from firms he’s influenced and his allies. The sheer volume of alleged illegal actions from the Trump administration, this action being just one of many, leads to a sense of overwhelming helplessness. There’s a widespread sentiment that a much more robust approach than lawsuits is needed.
The question of whether the governor of California could simply reassign the National Guard troops to a less controversial task is also being explored. The governor, not Trump, is the Commander-in-Chief of the California National Guard, which suggests a degree of control over their deployment. The possibility of reassigning them to something as innocuous as guarding a lamppost is presented as a sarcastic commentary on the situation; however, the central point remains: the governor’s authority over the National Guard within the state is paramount.
The broader political context is also being discussed. Some believe this deployment is part of a deliberate strategy to provoke violence and create a pretext for more drastic actions. There are concerns about potential escalation leading towards the invocation of the Insurrection Act and the imposition of martial law, undermining democratic processes. The argument that the current situation represents a significant step toward civil war is also a pervasive concern.
The use of quotation marks around the word “unlawful” in news reports is being debated. Some view it as a sign of journalistic failure, reflecting a lack of firm stance on the legality of the situation. However, others argue it’s proper journalistic practice to quote the Attorney General directly, letting readers draw their own conclusions, and avoiding potential legal issues of libel or slander if a court later rules otherwise. Accurate reporting requires quoting sources accurately, even if the implications of those quotes are contentious.
The scale of the response to relatively minor protests is a point of major contention. Many believe that deploying thousands of National Guard troops and considering active duty military deployment in response to a few hundred protestors represents a massive overreaction. The protests themselves are described as mostly peaceful, with a small minority engaging in violence. The contrast between this response and the far larger, yet overwhelmingly peaceful George Floyd protests further strengthens the argument for overreach.
Underlying the legal and political arguments is a sense of deep frustration and a feeling of powerlessness. The belief that Trump will not be held accountable, that the system is incapable of effectively checking his actions, adds to the overall sense of despair. The question of what actions can effectively counter this type of behavior is unresolved, highlighting the immense challenges facing those seeking to uphold the rule of law in the face of perceived authoritarian actions. The comparison to Lyndon B. Johnson’s actions in Selma is brought up, highlighting a historical precedent but also pointing to the very different contexts of the two events and the vastly different political climates in which they occurred. The continued potential for deployment of active duty Marines, despite initial denials, remains a serious concern. The overall situation demonstrates the precarious state of the nation’s political and legal systems.