Federal judge blocks the Trump administration from deploying members of the California National Guard in L.A.

San Francisco, Dec. 10, 2025 — A federal judge on Wednesday ordered an immediate end to the deployment of California National Guard troops in Los Angeles, ruling that the federalization of the state's forces had become "illegal" and an unconstitutional overstep of executive authority.

U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer, sitting in San Francisco, granted a preliminary injunction sought by California officials, directing the Trump administration to relinquish control of the remaining approximately 100 Guard members to Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom. The order, which stems from a months-long legal battle, blocks the White House's plan to keep the troops on duty until February 2026 to safeguard federal personnel and property amid lingering tensions from summer protests."This is not a rebellion; it is a democracy," Breyer wrote in his 35-page ruling, rejecting the administration's characterization of anti-immigration raid demonstrations as an insurrection-like threat under Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which allows presidents to federalize state National Guard units in emergencies.

The judge emphasized that the Posse Comitatus Act — a Reconstruction-era law barring the military from domestic law enforcement without congressional approval — had been violated, and that conditions in Los Angeles had stabilized sufficiently to render the deployment obsolete.

The decision marks the latest chapter in a high-stakes clash between the Republican-led federal government and blue-state leaders, who have accused the Trump administration of weaponizing the military to suppress dissent in Democratic strongholds. The initial deployment in June 2025 mobilized over 4,000 California National Guard troops — plus about 700 U.S. Marines — in response to widespread protests dubbed the "No Kings" movement, which erupted after federal immigration agents conducted high-profile raids targeting undocumented communities in Los Angeles.

Demonstrators, waving "Abolish ICE" banners and clashing with law enforcement, decried the operations as heavy-handed and racially motivated, leading to dozens of arrests, including one for hurling a Molotov cocktail at officers.

Gov. Newsom, who has positioned California as a bulwark against Trump's border policies, hailed the ruling as a "vindication of states' rights and the rule of law." In a statement from Sacramento, he lambasted the deployment as "an unprecedented power grab that turned our National Guard into a federal paramilitary force," vowing to redirect the troops toward wildfire response and disaster relief efforts instead.

"This isn't about partisanship; it's about preventing a slide toward martial law in our cities," Newsom added.The Trump administration, however, vowed a swift appeal, with White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson firing back in a terse release: "President Trump exercised his lawful authority to deploy National Guard troops to support federal officers and assets following violent riots that local leaders like Newsom refused to stop."

Justice Department lawyers had argued during a hearing last Friday that ongoing threats to immigration agents — including sporadic vandalism of federal buildings — justified the extension, insisting courts lacked jurisdiction to second-guess presidential emergency declarations.

Breyer dismissed that claim as "an overly expansive view of executive authority," noting that troop numbers had dwindled from thousands to just hundreds by late October, with no evidence of hindered federal operations.The ruling's immediate impact is limited: Breyer stayed his order until Monday, December 15, to allow for appellate review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which previously paused an earlier injunction against the initial deployment.

Legal experts predict a fast-tracked appeal could reach the Supreme Court, where the administration's conservative majority might tilt the scales. "This is federalism on trial," said UC Berkeley law professor Meghan Strong, who represented California in the case. "Once the exigency passes, federalization must end — full stop."

On the streets of Los Angeles, reactions were swift and polarized. Immigrant rights advocates gathered outside the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building — a frequent Guard patrol site — chanting "Hands off our Guard!" and unfurling banners echoing the summer unrest.

"These troops weren't protecting anyone; they were intimidating families," said Maria Gonzalez, a community organizer with the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights. Meanwhile, Trump supporters in Echo Park waved American flags, decrying the decision as judicial activism that emboldens "anarchists."

The saga echoes broader tensions in Trump's second term, where federal-state showdowns over immigration have escalated from policy disputes to courtroom dramas. Similar efforts to deploy Guard units in Portland, Oregon, were temporarily frozen in October after lawsuits from both states alleged unauthorized "troop borrowing."

Critics, including the ACLU, warn that unchecked federalizations could erode civil liberties, while administration allies argue they're essential for quelling "lawlessness in sanctuary cities." As the clock ticks toward Monday's deadline, all eyes turn to the Ninth Circuit — and beyond. For now, the troops stand down, but the battle lines in America's immigration wars remain firmly drawn. 17GEN4.com