Newsom and Pritzker Rally Governors to Resist Trump’s National Guard Deployments

In a rare show of bipartisan defiance, California Governor Gavin Newsom and Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker on Monday urged fellow state leaders to band together in opposition to President Donald Trump’s decision to deploy National Guard troops into states that object to the move. The two governors warned that if the National Governors Association (NGA) fails to take a stand, their states may withdraw from the association entirely.

In separate but harmonized letters to the NGA, Newsom and Pritzker described the federal deployments as a dangerous overstep of executive power and a violation of the constitutional balance between states. Newsom wrote that sending Guard units from one state into another—especially when the destination governor objects—amounts to “an infringement of state sovereignty.” He urged NGA members to denounce the tactic and insisted that politicizing state Guard forces sets a perilous precedent.

He warned that once constitutional norms are breached, “they are difficult to repair,” and cautioned that today’s target could become tomorrow’s victim. Newsom declared: “If the NGA cannot unequivocally tell the federal government that deploying troops across state lines over the objections of the receiving state’s governor is unacceptable, California will withdraw from the association.”

Pritzker echoed the message in his letter, calling the deployments “an illegal abuse of federal power.” He particularly criticized the Texas National Guard’s movement into Illinois at the request of the Trump administration, claiming it was part of a “manufactured political stunt” that trampled gubernatorial authority and ignored state sovereignty.

“This is exactly the kind of federal and interstate overreach we have warned against,” Pritzker wrote. “If the president continues to override governors and insert military assets into states without their consent, we will have abandoned the foundational principles that have safeguarded our republic for nearly 250 years.”

He went on to demand that the NGA consistently defend those principles, regardless of which administration is in power. If the association remains silent, he said, “Illinois will have no choice but to withdraw.” He added, “I remain hopeful that principled leadership will prevail over political calculation, and that we can stand together.”

Pritzker closed by saying, “The men and women who serve in our National Guard units should never be treated as political props. Governors must unequivocally reject authoritarian impulses as Trump and his allies seek to usurp the authority of state executives—and, in doing so, override the will of the American people.”

The NGA, which includes governors from both parties, has occasionally taken public positions on national issues. On September 29, for example, the NGA’s chair, Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt (a Republican), and vice chair, Maryland Governor Wes Moore (a Democrat), jointly urged Congress to avert a government shutdown. Their bipartisan statement warned that political brinksmanship over funding jeopardizes the well-being of states and citizens alike.

Trump’s federalization of National Guard troops is not new. Earlier in June, he deployed California’s Guard to Los Angeles amid protests over immigration enforcement. Subsequent deployments have reached Washington, D.C., Memphis, and Chicago under various federal justifications. The administration has consistently defended the measures as responses to rising tensions or threats against federal facilities.

Yet federal intervention has not gone unchallenged. In early September, a federal judge in Oregon blocked Trump’s intended deployment of Oregon’s Guard to Portland, ruling that authorities had not shown evidence of sufficient unrest. That order also prohibited further troop movements from California and Texas to other states.

Despite judicial resistance, Trump has defended his strategy. “Every one of them [states] is willing to offer whatever we need,” he told reporters in the Oval Office, suggesting Republican-led states are eager to assist. Meanwhile, critics and some governors see the deployments as power plays—an attempt to pressure states that disagree with federal policy.

Newsom and Pritzker’s call to arms is meant to forestall further executive unilateralism. By demanding that the NGA speak out or face the loss of two major members, they are testing whether state leaders will defend institutional norms or remain silent in the face of shifting power dynamics.

At stake is more than a single mission. The struggle highlights how far a presidency can reach into states’ internal affairs—especially in matters of public safety and military force. Governors now face hard choices: resist federal encroachment at the risk of political backlash or cede state authority in the name of cooperation.

The coming days may reveal whether the NGA will rally behind the principle of state sovereignty—or whether it will remain a passive observer as structural norms are challenged. For California and Illinois, the stakes are clear: defend the guardrails of federalism or walk away from the association that is supposed to protect them.