Gov. Gavin Newsom is out here crying foul because President Trump invoked Title 10 to federalize and deploy the National Guard into Los Angeles. He’s threatening lawsuit after lawsuit, bleating about “state sovereignty,” and blaming the chaos on himself being bypassed. But make no mistake—this isn’t about lawful process; it’s about partisan obstruction. The governor’s defiance is unconstitutional grandstanding.
Let’s be clear: the President has legal authority to send federalized Guard troops into states under Title 10 when violence reaches insurrection levels or state governments cannot—or refuse to—uphold law and order. And whatever you may think of his politics, President Trump’s move is consistent with precedent, necessity, and legal authority.
1. Federal Troops in L.A.: Trump Isn’t Breaking Rules—He’s Upholding Them
Newsom has launched legal filings against the deployment of ~300 National Guard troops, calling the move unconstitutional because he wasn’t consulted and local law enforcement is “capable.”^1,2 But the Department of Defense invoked Title 10—a federal statute allowing the President to federalize Guard units without the governor’s approval when maintaining civil order is in question. In fact, this deployment marks the first time since 1992 that a president has sent federalized Guard units to California.^3,4 That kind of authority isn’t optional. It’s built into federal law.
Furthermore, this isn’t about undermining LAPD or local sheriffs. It’s about supplementing them when violent anti-ICE riots overwhelm them. LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell said as much—his officers are “overwhelmed,” facing commercial-grade fireworks, concrete blocks, and rampant vandalism.^3 Newsom’s insistence that this is unnecessary flir ts dangerously with political ideology, not public safety.
2. Title 10 Isn’t Optional for the Executive—it’s Constitutional
Under Posse Comitatus, active-duty U.S. armed forces generally can’t be used for domestic law enforcement. But the law explicitly excludes the National Guard when federalized under Title 10.^5 There is nothing novel or illegal about the President’s decision. The Guard, once federalized, falls directly under the President’s command—completely legal and constitutionally backed. That’s why he can bypass governors when unrest threatens public safety or federal assets.
What Newsom dismisses as “federal overreach” is exactly what U.S. law contemplates. By criminalizing lawful executive authority, Newsom is effectively promoting civil unrest as a political tool.
3. History: When Governors Failed, Presidents Acted
Little Rock, 1957: Governor Orval Faubus, a segregationist Democrat, deployed the Arkansas National Guard to prevent integration at Central High. Federal troops were needed because state leadership refused to enforce federal law. President Eisenhower responded by federalizing the Guard and sending in the 101st Airborne Division to uphold Brown v. Board of Education.^6,7 Not because he wanted to, but because he had to. Would Newsom have preferred Ike wait for Faubus’s blessing? Unthinkable.
Kennedy and Birmingham/Boston riots (1963): Bobby Kennedy originally hesitated to send in troops to quell segregationist riots, but finally deployed federal forces to protect civil rights and public safety. Again, when governors or local politicians fail, the federal government has not just the right, but the duty to step in.
Nixon and campus disorder (late 1960s–early ’70s): College campuses erupted in violence—from the Hippy-led anti-war protests, Kent State and beyond. Guard and federal troops were deployed to restore order under Title 10 and Insurrection Act authority. If not for this, riots would have consumed entire campuses—and perhaps cities.
Each of these examples rests on the same principle: when local leadership fails, the President can and must act. Governors like Newsom—who put partisanship ahead of public safety—shouldn’t obstruct lawful action with lawsuits.
4. Let’s Compare Apples to Apples
- Faubus vs. Eisenhower (Little Rock): Gov. Faubus illegally used guard troops to block enforcement of a Supreme Court ruling. Federal troops were necessary to uphold the Constitution—just as Trump’s forces are necessary when L.A. devolves into violence.^6
- Nixon on campuses: Peaceful protest deserves protection—but violent rioting deserves response. Nixon acted. Governor Newsom, by contrast, is letting violence play out unchecked unless the President retreats.
If Trump’s national security measures are overreach, then by identical logic, these historical examples were too. That’s not a moral equivalency; that’s called the rule of law.
5. Law & Order or Lawlessness?
Newsom is playing a dangerous game. His refusal to permit even federalized Guard troops—troops ready to protect order, not enforce any political agenda—speaks volumes. He’s essentially betting on violence as leverage. Meanwhile, cities burn, police are injured, businesses are looted, and everyday citizens suffer.
Contrast that with a president who declares that cities won’t be allowed to burn again—under any administration. President Trump is following legal precedent, historical necessity, and constitutional authority to maintain civic peace. He’s not calling tanks to Torrance; he’s supplementing local forces with trained personnel under federal control.^2,8
6. Governor Newsom: Your Partisanship Isn’t an Excuse
You accuse the President of stoking tensions. However, it’s your obstruction that’s allowing the riots to continue. Let’s rewind:
- Days of rioting over ICE enforcement;
- Stores looted, cars burned, and officers injured;
- Yet you still oppose federalized Guard troops—because you were bypassed?^1
That’s political theater. That’s obstruction. That endangers lives—and undermines the Constitution.
7. A Call to Governors Everywhere
This isn’t partisan—it’s constitutional. The President can act under Title 10. He must act when the state level is inadequate. If you can’t manage your state’s civil order, you shouldn’t be able to block lawful federal intervention.
Today, that governor is Gavin Newsom. Tomorrow, it could be you. If unrest breaks, and you’re suing rather than safeguarding, what message are you sending? That politics matters more than peace. That lawsuits matter more than lives.
8. Bottom Line
- The President acted within the authority of Title 10. Lawful. Constitutional.
- Precedent: From Eisenhower to Nixon, federal intervention followed governors who failed or refused to act.
- Newsom’s lawsuit isn’t about legality—it’s about politics.
- Americans deserve law and order, not partisan obstruction.
Governor Newsom, you must choose: side with lawful enforcement, or side with chaos. But don’t pretend the law is on your side—it’s not. You can legislate accountability in Sacramento. But this isn’t about lawmaking; it’s about law enforcement, and that falls on the President when state leadership falls short.
Endnotes
- Newsom filed suit challenging the legality of the federal deployment, citing lack of coordination and state capacity. time.com+2theguardian.com+2washingtonpost.com+2nypost.com
- Trump administration invoked Title 10 and federalized the National Guard; Defense Secretary Hegseth affirmed legal authority. washingtonpost.com+4theguardian.com+4politico.com+4
- LAPD Chief McDonnell admitted officers were “overwhelmed” by violent protests. theguardian.com+13sfchronicle.com+13nypost.com+13
- This action is the first Title 10 deployment in CA since the 1992 L.A. riots. washingtonpost.com+4theguardian.com+4reuters.com+4
- Posse Comitatus allows Title 10 federalized Guard deployment for law enforcement exceptions. en.wikipedia.org+15en.wikipedia.org+15x.com+15
- In 1957, Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard and deployed the 101st Airborne to enforce integration. en.wikipedia.org+9history.com+9en.wikipedia.org+9
- Faubus had illegally deployed state Guard units to block integration before federal intervention. en.wikipedia.org+1nps.gov+1
- Title 10 deployment in L.A. allowed federal personnel to assist local law enforcement, not replace it. newsweek.com+1nypost.com+1
Trent Anderson, Columnist for Direct Line News, Contact Trent.Aderson@gmail.com
Direct Line News is a Maryland-based free-access publication committed to the Republican reform tradition.
About The Author
