Judge Orders Trump to Return Control of California National Guard to State

| Published June 13, 2025

A federal judge has issued an order requiring President Donald Trump to relinquish federal control of the California National Guard, returning its command to the state government. The decision follows days of legal back-and-forth between the White House and California officials regarding the deployment and use of Guard personnel within the state.

The ruling, handed down on June 12, stems from a dispute over the Trump administration’s emergency order earlier this month to assume federal command of the California National Guard amid reports of organized criminal activity at the U.S.–Mexico border. The move drew immediate backlash from California Governor Gavin Newsom, who argued that the federal takeover undermined state sovereignty and bypassed established protocols for National Guard deployment.

According to court documents, the federal judge found that the administration’s justification for asserting federal control failed to meet legal requirements for such an action. The order mandates that operational control of the California National Guard be returned to the state immediately.

The Trump administration had previously defended the decision, citing heightened security concerns and a need for uniform command over border operations. In response, California state attorneys filed an emergency motion in federal court, requesting the restoration of command to the state government, asserting that federalization had been conducted without proper consultation.

The judge’s ruling does not prevent the National Guard from continuing its mission in border areas but reasserts that any further deployment within California must be approved and managed by the governor unless explicitly authorized under federal emergency law.

White House officials have not yet released a statement regarding the decision. Governor Newsom, in a brief press conference following the ruling, called it a “win for state authority and constitutional balance,” while reiterating his administration’s commitment to border security in coordination with federal agencies.

The California National Guard remains active in various support roles near the southern border, including logistics, surveillance, and assisting law enforcement. As of this writing, operational adjustments are underway to align with the court’s directive.

Here are the implications of the federal judge’s order requiring President Trump to return control of the California National Guard to the state:

1. Reinforcement of State Sovereignty
   The ruling underscores the constitutional principle that states maintain control over their National Guard units except in specific, legally defined emergencies.

2. Limitations on Federal Emergency Powers
   It places judicial limits on the executive branch’s ability to federalize state forces without meeting strict legal criteria, potentially impacting future federal responses to domestic issues.

3. Legal Precedent for Intergovernmental Disputes
   The case sets a precedent for how courts may handle future conflicts between state governments and the federal executive over control of security and emergency resources.

4. Political Tensions Between States and the White House
   The incident could escalate political friction between California’s Democratic leadership and the Trump administration, influencing cooperation on border security, immigration, and public safety.

5. Impact on Border Enforcement Operations
   Operational changes due to the shift in command could alter the coordination and scope of National Guard involvement in border enforcement and related missions.

6. Judicial Oversight of Military Authority
   The decision affirms that military deployments within U.S. borders, even in response to national security concerns, remain subject to civilian judicial review.

7. Influence on Public Perception and Media Coverage
   The ruling may shape narratives about executive overreach or state resistance, potentially influencing public opinion ahead of political milestones or elections.

8. Template for Other States
   Other governors may cite this ruling when pushing back against perceived federal overreach, particularly in states with policies that conflict with the White House.

9. Administrative and Operational Challenges
   Transitioning command from federal to state control in real time may disrupt ongoing missions, training, and logistics, affecting Guard effectiveness in the short term.

10. Revival of Legal Debates on the Militia Clause
    The case could revive scholarly and legal debate around the Constitution’s Militia Clause and the balance of power between state and federal military authority.

Overall Takeaway:
The federal judge’s order compelling President Trump to return control of the California National Guard to the state highlights the enduring constitutional balance between state authority and federal power. It signals that even in matters of national security, executive actions involving military force remain subject to legal boundaries and judicial oversight. The case not only reaffirms state sovereignty but also adds new legal and political weight to ongoing debates over the scope of federal emergency powers.

SOURCES: BREITBART – Judge Orders Trump to Return Control of California National Guard to State

REDSTATE – Breaking: Federal Judge Orders Trump to Return California National Guard to State Control