'He is not a king:' Newsom extols court in Guard win over Trump
SAN FRANCISCO — California Gov. Gavin Newsom lit into President Donald Trump on Thursday, heralding 'a new day in this country' after a federal judge ordered the president to end his unilateral deployment of the state's National Guard troops.
"He is not a monarch. He is not a king, and he should stop acting like one," Newsom told reporters outside the federal courthouse after an emergency hearing in downtown San Francisco.
He said, "Today is a big day for the Constitution of the United States, for our democracy, and I hope it's the beginning of a new day in this country where we push back against overreach, we push back against these authoritarian tendencies of a president that has pushed the boundaries, pushed the limit, but no longer can push this state around."
Newsom's remarks came moments after a federal judge ordered Trump to relinquish control of California's National Guard troops, ruling his deployment of the Guard to Los Angeles was illegal and unconstitutional. The ruling is on hold until noon Friday, and the Trump administration has already appealed the decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Newsom also mercilessly mocked Trump for his upcoming military parade — calling it 'a vulgar display of weakness' — and referred to the president as 'a stone cold liar' for claiming he spoke with the Democratic governor in advance about commondeering his National Guard.
'I would love to share the readout, but I revere the office of presidency, so I'll keep it in confidence. He is quite literally made up components of that conversation,' Newsom said. 'He never discussed the National Guard, period, full stop. I would love to share with you what he actually talked about. It would send shivers up your spine.'
The ruling comes after Newsom and state Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit Monday challenging Trump's move to use the National Guard to quell protests over ICE raids in Los Angeles.
Newsom said local law enforcement had the situation under control, calling Trump's move 'authoritarian' and an intentional effort to inflame violence and justify his use of executive power.
"The National Guard will go back to border security, working on counter drug enforcement and fentanyl enforcement, which they were taken off by Donald Trump,' Newsom told reporters after the ruling. 'The National Guard will go back to working on what we refer to as the rattlesnake teams, doing vegetation and forest management, which Donald Trump took them off in preparation for wildfire season. The National Guard men and women will go back to their day jobs, which include law enforcement that he took them off the job."
Newsom added: "Clearly, there's no invasion, there's no rebellion. It's absurd."
Trump's move to seize control of the Guard troops is exceedingly rare in modern American history. Not since the civil rights era of 1965 has a U.S. president deployed the National Guard without a governor's consent.
Attorneys for the Trump administration contend Trump didn't need the governor's consent to take control of the Guard given resistance to federal immigration enforcement efforts. Trump has accused Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass of failing to control unrest as scofflaws burn cars and assault police.
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, who issued the temporary restraining order, bristled at the administration's stance that the president's position cannot be second-guessed — even by the courts — because he is the commander-in-chief.
'That's the difference between a Constitutional government and King George,' Breyer told a packed courtroom earlier Thursday. 'It's not that a leader can simply say something and it becomes it.'
Breyer — a Clinton appointee and the younger brother of former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer — noted that, under federal law, the president has the authority to call up the National Guard in limited situations, provided such orders are 'issued through the governors of the states.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
31 minutes ago
- New York Post
What will it take for Gavin Newsom to focus on his day job?
President Donald Trump rightly took the ruling upholding his National Guard deployment to Los Angeles as a 'BIG WIN,' but it can be a winner for Californians, too — if it inspires their governor to focus on the job they elected him to. Gov. Gavin Newsom vows to litigate on, but if necessary the Supreme Court will slap him down, too. What will get him to quit his near-nonstop posturing to set himself up for a 2028 presidential run, and get his nose to the gubernatorial grindstone? It's bad enough that he sided with LA Mayor Karen Bass in obstructing ICE efforts to deport child predators, murderers and other worst-of-the-worst 'asylum seekers' — posturing that all but invited the riots that Trump deployed the Guard to shut down. Worse that this rush to the left came after Newsom's fake to the right with a series of podcasts where he pretended sympathy to centrist criticisms of the far-left agenda. That follows his haplessness during the Los Angeles fires — a disaster Trump credibly tied to Newsom's green obsessions. Other Gavin grotesquerie included rushing to meet the president on Trump's LA visit bare weeks after prepping for all-out legal #resistance to the new prez. California is plagued with soaring homelessness, elevated crime rates and brutally high costs of living: Even its welcome to illegal immigrants hasn't prevented a historic switch from growth to decline. That is: On Newsom's watch, Cali is for the first time ever losing seats in the House of Representatives because so many residents are fleeing to less-toxic jurisdictions. The Golden State is a natural near-paradise, but Newsom & co. are destroying it. That governor is still devoting his time and energy to a years-off national run is damning proof that he doesn't care a whit for the people of California.
New York Times
36 minutes ago
- New York Times
Where the Legal Fight Over the California National Guard Stands
President Trump's decision this month to send National Guard troops to Los Angeles against the wishes of Gov. Gavin Newsom has sparked a legal battle that could reshape how much latitude a president has to deploy the military on U.S. soil. On June 10, days after Mr. Trump federalized the California National Guard in response to protests over immigration raids, the state filed a lawsuit calling the move illegal. Even as the Trump administration added active-duty Marines to the mix, a judge ordered it to return the National Guard to the control of Mr. Newsom. But an appeals court blocked that move, and Mr. Trump maintains authority over those troops today. Mr. Trump's decision to deploy troops came after Immigration and Customs Enforcement started carrying out raids at workplaces in the city, sweeping up hundreds of migrants for potential deportation and drawing protesters. While the majority protested peacefully, a subset committed violent acts like throwing objects and burning vehicles. Here's where things stand in the case. What made Trump's decision to deploy troops significant? Normally, governors control their state's National Guard and dispatch such troops themselves when there is a need to quell civil disorder or fight a natural disaster. On rare occasions, the president may take control of a guard or otherwise deploy troops under federal control on domestic soil, but in recent decades that has happened only at a governor's request. Mr. Trump's move was the first time in more than six decades that a president had taken control of a state guard over a governor's objections, raising profound questions about presidential power, state sovereignty and civil liberties. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
New York Times
40 minutes ago
- New York Times
Trump and the Great Wait for Israelis and Iranians
When it comes to foreign conflicts, there are two President Trumps. There is the firebrand isolationist of the 2016 presidential campaign, who as president set the stage for the American withdrawal from Afghanistan and, in 2019, called off an airstrike on Iran with only 10 minutes to go. And there is the president who, in early 2020, authorized a drone strike to kill Iran's top security and intelligence commander. This week, Trump gave himself up to two weeks to decide which approach he will take toward the war that Israel began last week by attacking Iran. The extra time could allow him to expand his arsenal of options and calibrate the thorny politics of any decision. But it will also come with real consequences for Israelis and Iranians. Today, I called my colleague Patrick Kingsley, The Times's bureau chief in Jerusalem. He explained how Trump's delay is shaping calculations on both sides — and how, for civilians, two weeks could feel like a very long time indeed. Can you describe life for Israeli and Iranian civilians in this moment? There's a mood of terror and fear in both countries as the airstrikes come down. In Israel, civilians are rushing, sometimes several times a day, into bomb shelters to avoid getting hit by Iranian missiles that have regularly been fired into civilian areas. At least two dozen Israelis have been killed. In Iran, where there are far fewer shelters, the death toll is higher than 200, which includes many civilians. Following Israeli evacuation orders, often issued at very short notice, huge numbers of Iranian civilians have been forced to flee Tehran — a city of roughly 10 million. That has led to massive traffic jams and gas shortages, all against the backdrop of prolonged internet blackouts. We don't know if an American strike would end the suffering. But two weeks of diplomacy doesn't immediately end it, either. It locks us in for up to two weeks of continued fighting between Israel and Iran, killing civilians in both countries. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
