Trump Praises Appeals Court for Upholding National Guard Deployment in Los Angeles Amid Legal Battle

Former President Donald Trump expressed his appreciation after a federal appeals court allowed him to maintain a National Guard presence in Los Angeles, overriding a lower court ruling that had challenged his authority to deploy troops in the state without the governor’s consent.

In a statement posted to his Truth Social account, Trump wrote,

“The Appeals Court ruled last night that I can use the National Guard to keep our cities, in this case Los Angeles, safe. If I didn’t send the Military into Los Angeles, that city would be burning to the ground right now. We saved L.A. Thank you for the Decision!!!”

The ruling came from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which granted the Trump administration’s emergency request to halt the enforcement of a decision made earlier in the week by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer. That lower court ruling had argued that the president exceeded his constitutional authority when he federalized elements of the California National Guard.

Breyer ruled that Trump’s actions violated the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not explicitly granted to the federal government to the states. Specifically, Breyer contended that deploying the Guard without California Governor Gavin Newsom’s consent was unconstitutional and ordered the Guard units to be returned under the governor’s control.

However, that decision was put on hold pending further legal proceedings. The appeals court granted the stay shortly after the Trump administration filed its appeal, giving the former president a temporary legal victory while a full hearing is scheduled for the following Tuesday.

The legal showdown stems from California’s lawsuit against Trump, the Department of Defense, and then-Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. The state challenged the president’s authority to deploy the National Guard in Los Angeles beyond protecting federal facilities and personnel. California argued that Trump’s expanded use of troops for broader law enforcement activities encroached on state sovereignty and demanded judicial intervention to restrict their role.

Democrats swiftly condemned Trump’s actions, including former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who delivered a fiery critique at a press conference on Capitol Hill. Surrounded by fellow Democratic lawmakers, Pelosi denounced the president for what she described as an unconstitutional power grab.

“I hope the president would read Article 10 of the Constitution, and I urge all of you to do that, as well,” she stated, referencing a fictional constitutional provision in her remarks. “Because section 12046 of Article 10 says that the National Guard cannot be called up by the president without the consent of the governor.”

The problem, however, is that there is no Article 10 in the U.S. Constitution—it contains only seven articles. Legal experts and observers quickly pointed out that Pelosi was likely confusing the Constitution with Title 10 of the United States Code, which outlines the conditions under which the president may federalize the National Guard.

Even so, her interpretation of that statute was also challenged. Legal analysts note that Title 10 explicitly grants the president the authority to call National Guard units into federal service when deemed necessary, and that while orders are relayed “through the governors,” gubernatorial approval is not required.

Historically, this authority has been used by presidents from both parties. In one notable instance, President Lyndon B. Johnson used Title 10 to federalize the Alabama National Guard during the civil rights movement to ensure the protection of peaceful demonstrators in Selma.

Commentator Matt Margolis of PJ Media wrote,

“Federal law has long acknowledged the president’s right to federalize the National Guard, and the Supreme Court has affirmed this authority multiple times. The statute requires communication through the governors, but not their approval.”

Pelosi also faced criticism for a separate claim made during the same press conference, in which she asserted that she had “begged” Trump to send in the National Guard ahead of the January 6 Capitol riot. However, former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund later refuted that claim on social media, stating that he was actually prevented from deploying the D.C. National Guard when he requested assistance before the violence unfolded.

The back-and-forth between state and federal authority has reignited long-standing constitutional debates over executive power, federalism, and the use of military forces on U.S. soil. As the appeals process continues, legal experts say the case could set a new precedent for how and when a president can unilaterally mobilize state-based forces without governor involvement.

The 9th Circuit’s temporary stay gives Trump the upper hand for now, but with a full hearing set for Tuesday and California vowing to continue the legal fight, the final outcome remains uncertain.