Trump Just Hijacked California’s National Guard. I’m a Lawyer, and I’m Telling You—This Is a Full-Blown Constitutional Crisis.
I never imagined I’d be writing these words about a sitting U.S. president, but here we are.
Donald Trump has crossed a line that no president should ever dare to approach. Without any consent from California’s elected leadership, and without legal justification, Trump has taken control of a unit of our state’s National Guard. That’s not dramatic phrasing. That’s what happened. And if you’re not alarmed, you should be.
Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta are in the process of suing Trump and the Department of Defense for what I believe is a blatant and illegal seizure of state military resources. They’re doing it to stop a runaway federal power grab that is already creating fear and confusion in California communities.
I support Gov. Newsom and California in this legal fight fully. Because in my opinion, this isn’t just about the Golden State—it’s about defending every state’s right to govern itself without a wannabe dictator barging in.
I’ll share a link to the lawsuit once I receive same. I’ll also share my legal analysis of all causes of action.
Right now, in addition to what I’ve already written and shared here on Substack, let me break down what we know about the latest developments.
Trump’s Power Grab Has No Legal Ground
There was no emergency. No crisis. No breakdown of local control. Despite that, Trump ordered 2,000 National Guard troops into federal service, without the Governor’s sign-off and with no coordination with local law enforcement. That’s not how it works. Not legally. Not constitutionally. Not in the United States of America.
Under the law, the president can’t take over a state’s militia unless certain conditions are met. There must be an actual rebellion or an invasion. Not a protest. Not public outcry. Not community outrage at unjust ICE raids. But that’s exactly what was happening in Los Angeles: people were standing up and speaking out, peacefully for the most part, after aggressive, unannounced federal raids tore through their neighborhoods.
Instead of respecting that process, or better yet, backing off, Trump decided to escalate. He triggered military involvement that wasn’t needed, wasn’t asked for, and wasn’t authorized.
What Happened in L.A. Was and is Chaos Trump Created—Then Used as a Pretext
Let’s be clear about who lit the match.
On June 6, ICE started sweeping through Los Angeles like it was a war zone. They made arrests with zero local coordination. Children were detained. Families were torn apart. The raids sparked protests, just as any community would respond to overreach and cruelty. These protests weren’t riots. They were the sound of democracy, people demanding answers and accountability.
And while a few incidents required police intervention, local and state authorities had the situation under control. The streets were calming down by the time federal troops were deployed. No one asked for soldiers. No one needed them. Trump just sent them anyway. Then he went online and tried to spin the whole thing as an uprising. In my opinion, it was nothing more than a staged excuse to grab power and look tough.
The Legal Case Is Clear: Trump Is Breaking the Rules
The law Trump is hiding behind—10 U.S.C. § 12406—has rarely been used. It’s meant for real, legitimate emergencies. Not a PR stunt. Not a made-for-TV moment. Not a photo op with soldiers in uniform. The last time this statute was used alone, Nixon called up the Guard to deliver mail during a strike. Before that, Johnson used it to protect civil rights marchers from racist violence. There’s no comparison to what’s happening in Los Angeles today.
And let’s not forget the irony here. The very same voices screaming about “states’ rights” now seem perfectly fine with Washington strong-arming California. Even Trump himself once said he couldn’t send in the Guard without a Governor’s approval. He said it on national television. Now he’s doing the exact opposite.
This Isn’t Just About California—It’s About All of Us
What worries me most is what this means for the rest of the country. If Trump can take over California’s National Guard without consent, what’s stopping him from doing it in Texas? In New York? In Michigan, Georgia, Arizona, or anywhere else that disagrees with him?
This is how autocracy starts, not with a bang, but with a memo. Not with martial law, but with the slow erosion of legal norms. If we let this stand, we’re greenlighting a future where presidents can deploy troops against their political enemies under the flimsiest of pretenses.
I believe the Newsom/California lawsuit isn’t just a legal challenge. It’s a line in the sand.
This Is About Our Kids, Our Rights, and the Future of American Democracy
Think about what’s at stake. The National Guard isn’t just a name on a uniform. These are our neighbors, our firefighters, our emergency responders. Californians who protect us when wildfires rage and floods rise. When Trump federalizes those units, he’s stripping away critical state resources. And he’s doing it for politics, not protection.
This is a president who doesn’t care about checks and balances. He doesn’t care about the rule of law. He’s not trying to lead, he’s trying to dominate. That’s not strength. That’s weakness hiding behind a uniform.
So I’m urging every American reading this: Pay attention. Stay informed. Speak up. This isn’t just another headline. It’s a flashing red warning light on the dashboard of our democracy. And if we don’t respond now, with courage, with clarity, and with legal action, we may not get another chance.
We’re not just fighting to win this lawsuit. We’re fighting for the soul of the United States.
And in my opinion, we better win.
Mitch Jackson, Esq. | links
Thank you for reading, sharing and caring.
This post is free, but building a future rooted in truth and democracy takes real investment. If my work speaks to you, consider supporting—because independent journalism that actually gives a damn is worth backing.
I believe the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1) squarely exposes Trump and his administration to liability, because it allows any person to sue when “by threats, intimidation, or coercion,” someone interferes with rights secured under federal or state law—even if the wrongful acts don’t include violence or discriminatory intent.
In my opinion, the administration’s threats to deputize local law enforcement to suppress lawful protest, or coercive rhetoric aimed at deterring peaceful assembly and free speech, meet the statute’s low threshold: a reasonable person would feel intimidated or coerced from exercising their constitutional rights .
This is not about proving animus or prejudice, it’s about conduct that chills legally protected conduct. As a result, any official or agency involved in those coercive acts could be sued, including for damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees, as the Act empowers aggrieved citizens to hold even the most powerful government actors accountable.