Federal Judge Rules Trump’s National Guard Deployment Unlawful

Los Angeles

A federal judge ruled on September 2, 2025, that President Donald Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles in June 2025 violated federal law. The judge determined that the deployment, which included 4,200 National Guard troops and 700 Marines sent in response to protests against immigration raids, breached the Posse Comitatus Act that restricts military involvement in domestic law enforcement.

The deployment, intended to bolster security amidst escalating protests, has cost California taxpayers approximately $120 million. This financial burden included $71 million for food and other necessities, $37 million in military pay, and $3.5 million for travel costs associated with the troops. Critics, including California Governor Gavin Newsom, denounced the expenditure as a case of “waste, fraud, and abuse,” and emphasized its detrimental effect on both taxpayer dollars and the operational readiness of the National Guard.

Judge’s Findings

Judge Charles Breyer highlighted in his ruling that while some protests in Los Angeles turned violent, they did not escalate to levels of rebellion that would necessitate military intervention. Breyer asserted that conventional law enforcement was capable of managing the situation without the military’s assistance. Despite the ruling, it was noted that approximately 300 National Guard troops remained on the ground in Los Angeles at the time of reporting.

State Response and Legal Actions

Governor Newsom, who opposed the deployment from the beginning, had previously filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, claiming the actions were unjustifiable and illegal. His office also submitted a public records request regarding the costs incurred during the federalization of the National Guard, which went unanswered. In addition, California initiated further legal action seeking to regain authority over its National Guard, removing it from federal control.

Political Implications

This ruling marks a significant limitation on presidential power concerning the use of military forces for domestic policing. The fact that the deployment was found unlawful resonates with the core tenets of the Posse Comitatus Act, established in 1878, which allows for military intervention in rare and defined circumstances. Lawmakers have reiterated the importance of maintaining these legal boundaries to prevent any potential overreach of military authority.

Federal Response

In reaction to the judge’s ruling, the Trump administration, represented by spokesperson Anna Kelly, announced plans to appeal the decision. Additionally, Trump indicated intentions to deploy National Guard troops in other Democratic cities, such as Chicago and Baltimore, raising concerns over further military presence in domestic matters. Judge Breyer cautioned that ongoing military deployments could pave the way for the establishment of a national police force under direct presidential control.

Context of National Guard Deployment

The deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles was initially prompted by protests against federal immigration raids, which sparked significant unrest in various communities. This situation marks a broader discussion on state versus federal authority in managing law enforcement affairs, particularly as various states seek to assert their sovereignty against what they perceive as federal overreach.

As legal battles continue, the outcomes may have lasting implications not only for California but also for the relationship between states and the federal government regarding military use and public safety.