California National Guard federalized; Marines deployed to LA

On 7 June 2025 President Donald J. Trump signed a presidential memorandum titled “Department of Defense Security for the Protection of Department of Homeland Security Functions,” federalising approximately 2,000 California National Guard members under Title 10 of the U.S. Code and deploying them to Los Angeles in response to protests against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations in the city on 6-7 June 2025.¹ The Department of Defense additionally deployed approximately 700 active-duty Marines from Camp Pendleton to support the operation under U.S. Northern Command direction.² The memorandum invoked 10 U.S.C. § 12406(2) and (3), which authorise the President to call National Guard members into federal service when “there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States” or “the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”³ California Governor Gavin Newsom did not consent to the federalisation; this was the first federalisation of a state National Guard without the governor’s consent since President Lyndon B. Johnson federalised the Alabama National Guard on 20 March 1965 during the Selma-to- Montgomery march under Executive Order 11207.⁴

1. By federalising the Guard under Title 10 the memorandum places those personnel — and the deployed active-duty Marines directly — under the Posse Comitatus Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1385, which bars federal active-duty forces from direct civilian law-enforcement roles absent statutory exception. Title 32 status (state command, federal funding) is outside § 1385; Title 10 federalisation triggers it. Their lawful tasks include protection of federal personnel, property and functions; direct law-enforcement actions against civilians would require Insurrection Act invocation under 10 U.S.C. §§ 252 (enforcement of federal authority) or 253 (interference with constitutional rights).⁵⁶

2. California filed California v. Trump, No. 3:25-cv-04870 (N.D. Cal., filed 9 June 2025), challenging the federalisation as outside the statutory triggers of § 12406 and as a violation of the Tenth Amendment.⁷ On 12 June Judge Charles R. Breyer issued a temporary restraining order barring continued federalisation; on 19 June a Ninth Circuit panel in Newsom v. Trump, No. 25-3727 (9th Cir.), granted an administrative stay of the TRO pending the substantive stay motion under the Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009), four-factor test.⁸⁹ The state argues the Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990), Militia-Clauses framework does not foreclose its challenge to a unilateral § 12406(2)-(3) invocation.¹⁰

3. Federalised Guard personnel are paid from federal appropriations under Title 10; concurrent California state missions — wildfire response, state emergencies — lose the personnel federalised under the order for the duration of the activation, which under § 12406 may continue while the Presidential authority remains in effect.³