California Governor Gavin Newsom is playing a dangerous game—one part gaslighting, one part constitutional ignorance, and all parts political theater.
After violent anti-ICE riots swept through Los Angeles and now San Francisco—complete with federal agents injured, cars torched, and highways blocked by destructive insurrectionists flying the flags of other nations—President Trump exercised his clear constitutional authority and federalized portions of the California National Guard under Title 10.
Newsom’s response? He called—completely lacking any hint of circumspection—the deployment “unlawful” and “a direct assault on state sovereignty”. He even labeled it “purposefully inflammatory.”
That’s not just wrong—it’s nearly laughable, save that it actually gives aid and comfort to those wreaking havoc in the streets of his state. And it’s revealing. When a governor refuses to do his duty, he doesn’t get to cry foul when the president steps in to do it for him.
In fact, it’s the governor’s rhetoric that’s inflammatory. Far from restoring calm and control, it’s throwing fuel on the fire.
Let’s be clear: the president’s authority to nationalize the Guard is not new, novel, or remotely in question.
Here’s why Newsom is wrong on the law:
The President of the United States may federalize the National Guard—often colloquially called “nationalize”—under several clear constitutional and statutory authorities:
“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.”
Once federalized, the Guard is no longer under the governor’s command.
This authorizes the President to activate the Guard if federal law is obstructed—as it clearly was in Los Angeles. Rioters targeted ICE agents. Local leaders refused to intervene. Enforcement was physically blocked.
Used by presidents from Jefferson to Eisenhower to George H.W. Bush, this law allows the use of federal troops and the National Guard to suppress insurrection, enforce federal law, and restore public order—even over state objection. Eisenhower invoked it in 1957 to enforce school desegregation in Arkansas. Bush used it in 1992 during the Los Angeles riots, federalizing California Guard units and deploying active-duty forces after local authorities lost control.
These authorities are specifically designed for situations in which state leadership is derelict, defiant, or complicit. Newsom’s permission is not required.
In 1957, President Eisenhower faced just such a scenario when Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus used the state’s National Guard to block black students from entering Little Rock Central High School in open defiance of federal desegregation orders.
Eisenhower didn’t ask permission. He federalized the Arkansas Guard, removed it from Faubus’s control, and deployed the 101st Airborne to restore order and enforce the law.
A hostile governor—even one as slick and sanctimonious as Newsom—cannot block federalization. That is precisely why these powers exist—and they remain just as valid today.
The federal government not only has the right but also the obligation to protect its personnel when local officials refuse to do so. In Los Angeles, ICE agents were under literal assault. Fireworks were launched at police vehicles. Rioters blocked the 101 freeway and coordinated violent tactics online. The city was in a state of anarchic freefall.
And what did Governor Newsom and L.A. Mayor Karen Bass do? They postured. They blamed federal officers. They called the response “inflammatory.” In other words, they prioritized political points over public safety.
The federal government doesn’t need permission to protect itself or its officers. It doesn’t need a permission slip from a governor who is actively undermining federal law. And it certainly doesn’t owe deference to state officials who stoke the flames and then accuse others of playing with fire.
Newsom’s claim that this move violates “state sovereignty” is false and hypocritical. The same party that used every federal lever to enforce mask mandates and vaccine requirements across all 50 states now recoils in horror when the federal government defends its agents from physical attack. Their understanding of “sovereignty” is purely situational—and almost always political.
What’s actually at stake here is the rule of law. And when state leaders actively obstruct federal immigration enforcement, refuse to safeguard federal personnel, and attack the lawful exercise of presidential authority, they aren’t bystanders—they’re participants.
They aid and abet those defying the Constitution, and in doing so, become part of the insurrection.
If the violence continues, President Trump has the legal authority to go further. Under 10 U.S.C. § 252 (Insurrection Act), he can use “such of the militia and the armed forces… to suppress the insurrection” when local officials cannot—or will not—do so. And if California’s political leadership refuses federal orders, more units can be nationalized under § 12406, removing command from Sacramento entirely.
The states are not sovereign over federal law. Immigration enforcement is a national power. When states attempt to nullify it—by policy, rhetoric, or obstruction—they risk ceding operational control and must be held to account.
The only thing unlawful here is Gavin Newsom’s conduct—and the violent obstruction of federal law by the insurrectionist mob he refuses to control. If the governor continues to defy federal authority, the consequences must go far beyond words.
The radical left’s war on law enforcement—and any form of immigration control—is coming to a head.
And it’s time to pay the piper.
Charlton Allen is an attorney and former chief executive officer and chief judicial officer of the North Carolina Industrial Commission. He is founder of the Madison Center for Law & Liberty, Inc., editor of The American Salient, and host of the Modern Federalist podcast. X: @CharltonAllenNC
