Fact check: What is president Trump´s legal standing in ordering the CA national guard to intercede without Governor Newsom´s consent?

1. Summary of the results

President Trump's legal standing to order the CA National Guard without Governor Newsom's consent is highly questionable and unprecedented. Legal experts indicate that the president does not have clear legal authority for this action ^[1]. This marks the first such deployment without gubernatorial consent since 1965 ^[2]. The deployment relies on 10 U.S.C. § 12406, but its relationship with the Posse Comitatus Act remains ambiguous ^[3].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Several crucial contextual elements need to be considered:

• A federal judge, Charles Breyer, has already ruled the action illegal, citing violations of statutory authority and the Tenth Amendment, though an appeals court has stayed this ruling ^[4]
• The president's authority to deploy federal military forces is meant for extraordinary circumstances ^[5], specifically:
• Cases of rebellion
• Invasion
• When law enforcement tools are insufficient

None of these conditions clearly apply to the current situation ^[1]

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question oversimplifies a complex legal situation. Important considerations include:

• Legal Precedent: This case raises novel legal questions about the scope of § 12406 and inherent presidential powers ^[5]
• Active Opposition: Governor Newsom has filed a lawsuit challenging the president's authority ^[2]
• Judicial Skepticism: Judge Breyer has expressed significant skepticism about the president's unilateral authority to "federalize" the National Guard ^[6]
• Constitutional Limits: The case highlights fundamental tensions between presidential power and constitutional limits ^[6]

The situation remains in flux, with ongoing litigation and competing interpretations of presidential authority under federal law.