Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Was it legal for president Trump to activate the national Guard in June 2025 in Los Angeles, California
1. Summary of the results
President Trump's activation of 2,000 National Guard troops in Los Angeles in June 2025 operates in a legally complex territory. The action was taken under 10 U.S.C. 12406, which allows federal deployment in cases of "rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States" [1]. This was the first such unilateral activation since 1965 without a governor's request [1].
2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints
Several crucial contextual elements need to be considered:
- The activation was made specifically in response to immigration protests and raids [2]
- Governor Gavin Newsom explicitly opposed the action, describing it as "purposefully inflammatory" [3]
- The deployment was made under Title 10 authority for a 60-day period [3]
- Constitutional law experts, including Erwin Chemerinsky, have described the action as "chilling" and potentially a way to suppress dissent [3]
- Legal expert Rob Reynolds noted that Trump "went around Newsom using a different provision of the law" [2]
- Expert Steve Vladeck suggests this could be a precursor to more aggressive troop deployments [4]
3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement
The original question oversimplifies a complex legal and political situation. Several competing interests are at play:
- Presidential Authority: The Trump administration benefits from establishing a precedent for broader federal control over state National Guard units, citing the legal justification that protests "directly inhibit the execution of the laws" [1]
- State Rights: Governor Newsom and California's state government lose authority over their National Guard troops under this federal activation [4]
- Constitutional Concerns: Legal experts and civil rights advocates are concerned about the precedent this sets for using military forces domestically to suppress dissent [3]
The legality of this action remains contested, with multiple constitutional experts expressing serious concerns about its implications for federal power and civil rights.