Governors Warn of Federal Overreach as Newsom and Pritzker Threaten to Withdraw from NGA

A growing dispute between state leaders and the White House deepened this week as California Governor Gavin Newsom and Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker issued a rare joint warning to their counterparts nationwide, urging them to stand together against what they described as an unprecedented violation of state sovereignty by President Donald Trump’s administration.

Both Democratic governors condemned Trump’s decision to deploy National Guard units across state lines without the consent of local governors — a move they argue represents a dangerous step toward federal overreach. In separate letters sent to the National Governors Association (NGA), the pair demanded that the organization take a firm stance against the deployments or risk losing two of its most influential members.

Newsom’s letter, first reported by The San Francisco Chronicle, accused the federal government of “politicizing” the National Guard and violating the constitutional boundaries between state and federal authority. He warned that California would withdraw from the NGA if the group failed to condemn the practice.

“It should not be difficult for governors, regardless of political affiliation, to agree that deploying a state’s National Guard into another state against the wishes of that state’s governor is a clear abuse of power,” Newsom wrote. “Once these norms are broken, history shows they are difficult to repair — and the same power could easily be turned against those who ignore the danger today.”

Pritzker echoed those concerns in his own message to NGA leadership, calling the federal deployments “an illegal abuse of power” and condemning Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s decision to cooperate with the Trump administration’s effort by sending Texas Guard units into Illinois.

“This action undermines the principles of state sovereignty and the constitutional balance that has protected our democracy for nearly two and a half centuries,” Pritzker said. “When the President overrides a governor’s authority to control their own state’s Guard, we abandon one of the most fundamental safeguards of the republic.”

Both governors emphasized that their objections were not merely political but rooted in constitutional principle. They argued that the NGA — a bipartisan organization meant to represent state interests — has a duty to speak out against federal encroachments, regardless of which party holds the presidency.

Pritzker went further, warning that the association’s credibility would suffer if it failed to defend its members. “The strength of the NGA lies in our ability to apply our values consistently,” he wrote. “If the organization remains silent while state authority is being trampled, Illinois will have no choice but to withdraw.”

Newsom struck a similar tone, noting that the National Guard was never intended to serve as a tool for political display. “The brave men and women who serve in these units swear an oath to their state and to the nation,” he said. “They are not props for political theater.”

The governors’ remarks followed a series of controversial National Guard deployments ordered by the Trump administration earlier this year. In June, the White House federalized portions of the California National Guard to assist in Los Angeles following protests related to immigration enforcement operations. Subsequent deployments were announced in Washington, D.C., Memphis, and Chicago — all cities led by Democratic mayors who publicly objected to the presence of out‑of‑state troops.

The situation escalated further when reports surfaced that Guard members from Texas were dispatched to Illinois to assist federal immigration authorities, despite objections from Pritzker’s office.

Trump has defended his actions, arguing that the deployments are necessary to protect federal agents and maintain public order. “Republican governors across the country have been eager to help,” the president said during a recent Oval Office appearance. “They want to make sure our agents are safe.”

However, critics — including several legal scholars — say the federalization of Guard units without state approval undermines the principle of local control over domestic security. A federal judge in Oregon appeared to agree, blocking a planned deployment of Oregon’s National Guard to Portland and ruling that there was “no substantial evidence of widespread unrest” that would justify the order.

The court’s decision also temporarily halted the transfer of additional personnel from California and Texas, intensifying the ongoing standoff between the administration and state governments.

Meanwhile, the NGA’s leadership — currently chaired by Oklahoma Republican Kevin Stitt and vice‑chaired by Maryland Democrat Wes Moore — has yet to issue a statement addressing the governors’ demands. In late September, both leaders released a bipartisan message urging Congress to avoid a government shutdown, but they have so far remained silent on the Guard controversy.

Observers say the dispute could test the unity of the governors’ organization, which has historically avoided taking sides in partisan conflicts. “If California and Illinois follow through on their threat to withdraw, it could fracture one of the last remaining bipartisan coalitions in American politics,” said political analyst Renee Carter.

As tensions rise, Newsom and Pritzker insist their actions are about defending the constitutional order, not political maneuvering. “This is not about party lines,” Newsom said. “It’s about protecting the very idea of state sovereignty and ensuring that no president — present or future — can erase it with a single order.”