By John Q. Hosedrinker 
California Governor Gavin Newsom announced a lawsuit against the Trump administration for its unauthorized deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles. The lawsuit will challenge the federal government’s action as illegal, unconstitutional, and lacking necessary coordination with the state. Newsom argues that the federal government’s actions violated established protocol and were further exacerbated by false statements from the Trump administration regarding the National Guard’s deployment. The governor emphasized his willingness to cooperate with law enforcement but condemned the administration’s disregard for proper procedure.
Read the original article here
California Governor Gavin Newsom has declared that the state will sue Donald Trump over the deployment of the National Guard without the governor’s consent, a move Newsom called illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional. This bold stance follows Trump’s controversial decision to invoke Title 10, circumventing the usual protocols and raising serious legal questions.
Newsom’s defiance isn’t limited to legal action. He directly challenged border czar Tom Homan, who suggested the possibility of arresting Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass for interfering with federal efforts. Newsom responded with a defiant “Come after me, arrest me,” emphasizing his commitment to his community despite the threat. This fiery exchange highlights the escalating tensions and the stark political divide fueling the conflict.
The deployment of the National Guard under Title 10 is incredibly rare and highly contentious. It bypasses the Insurrection Act, a law requiring state governors’ consent for federal intervention. This unusual approach raises concerns about potential abuse of power, particularly given the ambiguous legal language within Title 10. The Posse Comitatus Act further complicates matters, prohibiting the use of the National Guard for law enforcement unless other specific conditions are met; it would seem the invocation of Title 10 in this context breaches the Posse Comitatus Act.
The justification for Trump’s actions centers around the claim that protests constitute rebellion against the US government, thereby providing grounds for deploying the National Guard. This reasoning is highly subjective and potentially open to misinterpretation, especially given that a vast majority of protestors are exercising their rights peacefully. The historical context underscores the seriousness of the situation. The last time a president acted similarly without a governor’s consent was in 1965 when President Johnson federalized the Alabama National Guard to *protect* civil rights marchers. The stark contrast between protecting protestors then and potentially suppressing them now highlights the highly unusual nature of Trump’s actions.
The implications of Trump’s unilateral power grab are far-reaching. His actions appear to set a dangerous precedent, allowing future presidents to unilaterally deploy troops against any protest labeled a “rebellion.” This raises troubling questions about the potential erosion of democratic processes and the potential for widespread abuses of power. The underlying tension, exacerbated by the current political climate, poses a serious threat to the balance of power between the federal and state governments.
Newsom’s lawsuit and forceful challenge represent a significant countermove against Trump’s actions. The potential consequences are profound, with legal challenges expected to test the limits of presidential power and the balance of power between the federal government and individual states. The timing, just one day after Newsom hinted at withholding funds from the federal government, suggests a calculated strategy.
The reactions to the situation are deeply polarized, reflecting the broader political landscape. Supporters of Newsom see his actions as defending state rights and standing up to a tyrannical power grab. Conversely, others view his defiance as obstructionist and potentially dangerous. This division underscores the deep distrust and heightened tension characterizing the current political climate.
Beyond the immediate legal and political ramifications, the situation is fraught with symbolic weight. Newsom’s defiant stance is being lauded by many as a bold act of resistance against authoritarian overreach. The long-term consequences of this power struggle remain to be seen, but the incident certainly represents a significant escalation in the ongoing political conflict. The outcome will profoundly impact the relationship between federal and state governments and set a precedent for future political conflicts.