A US federal appeals court has ruled that President Donald Trump acted within his legal authority when he deployed thousands of National Guard troops to Los Angeles, rejecting claims from California officials that he bypassed state control in an unconstitutional power grab.
The decision, issued Thursday by a three-judge panel, overturns a lower court’s finding that Trump had acted illegally by mobilising the Guard without Governor Gavin Newsom’s consent.
Trump sent the troops in response to mass protests triggered by his administration’s immigration enforcement actions. Local officials, including the governor and Los Angeles city leaders, condemned the deployment as an unnecessary provocation that escalated tensions. Despite this, the court found the president was empowered to take such action under federal law, stating that his failure to issue the order “through” the governor did not invalidate the deployment.
In a post on social media, Trump celebrated the decision as a “big win,” saying, “If our cities and people need protection, we are the ones to give it to them.” He also praised the judiciary, adding, “America is proud of you tonight.” The administration said the deployment was necessary to protect federal personnel and property, particularly as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) carried out raids across Los Angeles.
Governor Newsom criticised the ruling, arguing that it undermines the principle of state authority. “We will not let this authoritarian use of military soldiers against citizens go unchecked,” he wrote on X, formerly Twitter. He added, “Donald Trump is not a king and not above the law.” Despite the court’s ruling, the 38-page decision noted that Trump’s actions are not “completely insulated from judicial review,” signaling that legal scrutiny of federal power remains intact.
The deployment included approximately 4,000 National Guard troops and an additional 700 Marines, marking the most significant use of military force in a US city without a governor’s consent since the civil rights era. The case has reignited debate over presidential authority and state sovereignty, particularly in moments of civil unrest.
Erizia Rubyjeana
Follow us on:
