The California appeals court’s ruling in favor of Trump’s control over the National Guard sparked a fiery overnight message that escalates the battle for federal authority with potential constitutional consequences.
At a Glance
- A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court granted Trump authority to keep federal control of California’s National Guard pending resolution of the case
- Trump touted the ruling as a nationwide precedent—“much bigger than Gavin”—asserting federal power to act when state officials “can’t get the job done”
- Gov. Newsom immediately denounced the move as authoritarian, stating “Trump is not above the law”
- The court halted a June 12 order by Judge Breyer, which had temporarily restored control to Newsom
- The legal struggle will continue, with a district court hearing scheduled to determine a permanent injunction
Trump’s Claim and Overnight Rally
Yesterday, following the appeals court decision, Trump posted on Truth Social celebrating his “BIG WIN” and stating this moment was “much bigger than Gavin,” framing the ruling as a federal power chess move. He emphasized that the federal government can now deploy the Guard anywhere state or local authorities are “unable” to maintain order.
The escalation demonstrates Trump’s strategic intent to broaden executive authority. By invoking a national narrative—beyond a dispute with California alone—he seeks to shape the next phase of the federal-state power dynamic.
Watch a report: Trump’s Late-Night Tirade After ‘Big’ Appeals Court Verdict.
A Constitutional Flashpoint
This clash highlights enduring tensions under the U.S. Constitution. The judiciary has affirmed Trump’s likely authority to federalize state Guard forces, but also underscored that courts retain jurisdiction over his use of such powers. The unfolding case could define presidential power during domestic civil unrest—raising key questions:
- What are the constitutional limits on federal intervention in state affairs?
- How might this affect future protests or civil actions nationwide?
- Will the Supreme Court ultimately set a binding precedent?
The Daily Beast reported that the district court’s upcoming hearing is poised to shape whether this ruling remains temporary—or transforms into permanent federal policy.
If upheld, Trump’s approach could recalibrate the federal-state power balance—and set a campus for broader executive actions under his presidential vision.
