Gavin Newsom Demands Trump Remove National Guard From LA Immigration Protests: ‘Breach of State Sovereignty'
Gov. Gavin Newsom has formally requested that Donald Trump recall the National Guard from Los Angeles and other areas where Californians are protesting the ongoing immigration raids, calling the federal deployment 'a serious breach of state sovereignty.'
Newsom shared his official letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Sunday afternoon in an Instagram post, saying, 'I have formally requested the Trump Administration rescind their unlawful deployment of troops in Los Angeles County and return them to my command. We didn't have a problem until Trump got involved. This is a serious breach of state sovereignty — inflaming tensions while pulling resources from where they're actually needed. Rescind the Order. Return order to California.'
In a Saturday night memorandum, Trump ordered the deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops to aid federal law enforcement officers battling growing unrest in downtown L.A. and surrounding areas. Newsom immediately condemned the order, suggesting it would only enflame tensions.
Federal officials told reporters on Sunday that several law enforcement officers had been injured in the skirmishes.
Read the entire text of Newsom's letter below:
Dear Secretary Hegseth:
On June 7, 2025, President Trump issued a memorandum to your office entitled 'Department of Defense Security for the Protection of Department of Homeland Security Functions.' The memorandum purports to invoke 10 U.S.C. § 12406 to 'call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard . . . to temporarily protect ICE and other United States Government personnel who are performing Federal functions, including the enforcement of Federal law, and to protect Federal property.' The memorandum further directs 'actions as necessary for the Secretary of Defense to coordinate with the Governors of the States and the National Guard Bureau in identifying and ordering into Federal service the appropriate members and units of the National Guard under this authority.'
Section 12406 states that 'the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary' to (1) repel an invasion of the United States by a foreign nation; (2) suppress a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or (3) execute the laws of the United States when the President is unable to do so with regular forces. Section 12406 further states that '[o]rders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States.'
Last night, the Adjutant General of California received a memorandum from your office with the subject line 'Calling Members of the California National Guard into Federal Service,' which states that '[t]wo thousand members of the California National Guard will be called into Federal service effective immediately for a period of 60 days.' Notably, this directive did not issue 'through the governor[] of the State[]' as required by section 12406; the Department of Defense did not transmit this directive to the Office of the Governor, nor was it approved or ordered by the Governor of California. This directive is also inconsistent with the President's memorandum, which anticipates 'coordinat[ion] with the Governors of the States' in identifying and ordering units of the National Guard into federal service.
At present, law enforcement authorities from the City and County of Los Angeles are safeguarding public safety, and, as demonstrated by the robust law enforcement response yesterday evening to protect federal facilities, local law enforcement resources are sufficient to maintain order. In dynamic and fluid situations such as the one in Los Angeles, State and local authorities are the most appropriate ones to evaluate the need for resources to safeguard life and property. Indeed, the decision to deploy the National Guard, without appropriate training or orders, risks seriously escalating the situation.
There is currently no need for the National Guard to be deployed in Los Angeles, and to do so in this unlawful manner and for such a lengthy period is a serious breach of state sovereignty that seems intentionally designed to inflame the situation, while simultaneously depriving the State from deploying these personnel and resources where they are truly required. Accordingly, we ask that you immediately rescind your order and return the National Guard to its rightful control by the State of California, to be deployed as appropriate when necessary.
Sincerely,
David SappLegal Affairs SecretaryOffice of Governor Gavin Newsom
The post Gavin Newsom Demands Trump Remove National Guard From LA Immigration Protests: 'Breach of State Sovereignty' appeared first on TheWrap.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Federal appeals court to hear arguments in Trump's long-shot effort to fight hush money conviction
Five months after President Donald Trump was sentenced without penalty in the New York hush money case, his attorneys will square off again with prosecutors Wednesday in one of the first major tests of the Supreme Court's landmark presidential immunity decision. Trump is relying heavily on the high court's divisive 6-3 immunity ruling from July in a long-shot bid to get his conviction reviewed – and ultimately overturned – by federal courts. After being convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records, Trump in January became the first felon to ascend to the presidency in US history. Even after Trump was reelected and federal courts became flooded with litigation tied to his second term, the appeals in the hush money case have chugged forward in multiple courts. A three-judge panel of the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals – all named to the bench by Democratic presidents – will hear arguments Wednesday in one of those cases. Trump will be represented on Wednesday by Jeffrey Wall, a private lawyer and Supreme Court litigator who served as acting solicitor general during Trump's first administration. Many of the lawyers who served on Trump's defense team in the hush money case have since taken top jobs within the Justice Department. The case stems from the 2023 indictment announced by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, who accused Trump of falsely categorizing payments he said were made to quash unflattering stories during the 2016 election. Trump was accused of falsifying a payment to his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, to cover up a $130,000 payment Cohen made to adult-film star Stormy Daniels to keep her from speaking out before the 2016 election about an alleged affair with Trump. (Trump has denied the affair.) Trump was ultimately convicted last year and was sentenced without penalty in January, days before he took office. The president is now attempting to move that case to federal court, where he is betting he'll have an easier shot at arguing that the Supreme Court's immunity decision in July will help him overturn the conviction. Trump's earlier attempts to move the case to federal court have been unsuccessful. US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, nominated by President Bill Clinton, denied the request in September – keeping Trump's case in New York courts instead. The 2nd Circuit will now hear arguments on Trump's appeal of that decision on Wednesday. 'He's lost already several times in the state courts,' said David Shapiro, a former prosecutor and now a lecturer at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. And Trump's long-running battle with New York Judge Juan Merchan, Shapiro said, has 'just simmered up through the system' in New York courts in a way that may have convinced Trump that federal courts will be more receptive. Trump, who frequently complained about Merchan, has said he wants his case heard in an 'unbiased federal forum.' Trump's argument hangs largely on a technical but hotly debated section of the Supreme Court's immunity decision last year. Broadly, that decision granted former presidents 'at least presumptive' immunity for official acts and 'absolute immunity' when presidents were exercising their constitutional powers. State prosecutors say the hush money payments were a private matter – not official acts of the president – and so they are not covered by immunity. But the Supreme Court's decision also barred prosecutors from attempting to show a jury evidence concerning a president's official acts, even if they are pursuing alleged crimes involving that president's private conduct. Without that prohibition, the Supreme Court reasoned, a prosecutor could 'eviscerate the immunity' the court recognized by allowing a jury to second-guess a president's official acts. Trump is arguing that is exactly what Bragg did when he called White House officials such as former communications director Hope Hicks and former executive assistant Madeleine Westerhout to testify at his trial. Hicks had testified that Trump felt it would 'have been bad to have that story come out before the election,' which prosecutors later described as the 'nail' in the coffin of the president's defense. Trump's attorneys are also pointing to social media posts the president sent in 2018 denying the Daniels hush money scheme as official statements that should not have been used in the trial. State prosecutors 'introduced into evidence and asked the jury to scrutinize President Trump's official presidential acts,' Trump's attorneys told the appeals court in a filing last month. 'One month after trial, the Supreme Court unequivocally recognized an immunity prohibiting the use of such acts as evidence at any trial of a former president.' A White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. If Trump's case is ultimately reviewed by federal courts, that would not change his state law conviction into a federal conviction. Trump would not be able to pardon himself just because a federal court reviews the case. Bragg's office countered that it's too late for federal courts to intervene. Federal officials facing prosecution in state courts may move their cases to federal court in many circumstances under a 19th century law designed to ensure states don't attempt to prosecute them for conduct performed 'under color' of a US office or agency. A federal government worker, for instance, might seek to have a case moved to federal court if they are sued after getting into a car accident while driving on the job. But in this case, Bragg's office argued, Trump has already been convicted and sentenced. That means, prosecutors said, there's really nothing left for federal courts to do. 'Because final judgment has been entered and the state criminal action has concluded, there is nothing to remove to federal district court,' prosecutors told the 2nd Circuit in January. Even if that's not true, they said, seeking testimony from a White House adviser about purely private acts doesn't conflict with the Supreme Court's ruling in last year's immunity case. Bragg's office has pointed to a Supreme Court ruling as well: the 5-4 decision in January that allowed Trump to be sentenced in the hush money case. The president raised many of the same concerns about evidence when he attempted to halt that sentencing before the inauguration. A majority of the Supreme Court balked at that argument in a single sentence that, effectively, said Trump could raise those concerns when he appeals his conviction. That appeal remains pending in state court. 'The alleged evidentiary violations at President-elect Trump's state-court trial,' the Supreme Court wrote, 'can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal.'
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fox News Host Jesse Watters Uses Edited Clip to Cover Up Trump Flub
Fox News' Jesse Watters Primetime conveniently omitted a portion of Donald Trump's comment about a phone call with Gavin Newsom in order to make the California governor look bad. The attempted dunk tried to skirt the fact that Trump told reporters in the Oval Office Tuesday afternoon that he last spoke with Newsom 'a day ago,' which Newsom denied. 'There was no call. Not even a voicemail,' he wrote on X in response. Fox News anchor John Roberts obtained a record of a call from Trump to Newsom on Friday night Pacific time (Saturday morning in the east), and admitted the calls were not made 'a day ago,' as Trump claimed. 'This was June the 7th. Now, granted, this was on Saturday,' the Fox anchor said. However some on the right, like Watters, spun the story as somehow proof that Newsom was lying. When Watters introduced the topic Tuesday night, Fox's broadcast of Trump's comments just so happened to begin a split-second after he said those three words, omitting, 'a day ago' from its broadcast. 'Called him up to tell him: got to do a better job. He's done a bad job, causing a lot of death and a lot of potential death,' Trump said, as Fox portrayed it. Watters made no mention of the omission Tuesday night. Instead, he went ahead bashing Newsom anyways. 'Newsom responded, and he said there wasn't a phone call. He said Trump never called him. Not even a voicemail, he said. But John Roberts got Trump's call logs, and it shows Trump called him late Friday night and they talked for 16 minutes,' Watters said confidently. 'Why would Newsom lie and claim Trump never called him? Why would he do that?' he then asked. Newsom has already said that Trump didn't even talk about the National Guard during their call last week. 'We talked for almost 20 minutes and this issue never came up,' he told MSNBC. 'He never once brought up the National Guard. He's a stone-cold liar.'
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The days around Trump's trade war announcements saw spikes in lawmaker stock market transactions
In the days before President Donald Trump suddenly paused most of the punishing tariffs on foreign countries he had revealed in early April, more than a dozen congressional lawmakers were tied to thousands of dollars' worth of stock transactions, including significant purchases as the US stock market tumbled, a CNN analysis of financial filings shows. Seven Democrats and three Republicans reported stock transactions made on April 7, two days before Trump instituted the pause, according to a CNN review of a database of congressional financial filings compiled by Capitol Trades, a platform by the financial data research firm 2iQ which tracks lawmakers' financial activity. That day, a post on X erroneously suggested a pause was already underway, tumbling stocks and sending the markets into a state of turbulence. The next day, on the eve of Trump's tariff reprieve, seven Republicans and four Democrats were tied to transactions, filings show. The White House that day announced it would impose hefty tariffs on China and the S&P 500 closed at its lowest level so far this year. Then came April 9. 'BE COOL!' and 'THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO BUY,' Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform that day, hours before his White House announced a 90-day pause on tariffs against a number of countries save for China. The announcement set the S&P 500 on track to post its biggest single-day gain since October 2008. House and Senate lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have long traded stocks, and their reported transactions so far this Congress have largely mirrored Americans' high volume of trading activity amid the frenetic market shifts fueled by the president's whipsaw economic policy. While lawmakers who spoke with CNN denied having advance briefings, some who bought ahead of the president's tariff reprieve stood to make significant gains after it spurred a market rebound. Lawmakers told CNN the trades were made largely by third-party financial advisors with unilateral control over their portfolios. But experts and some on Capitol Hill say questions around the timing of the transactions strikes at the heart of an ethical and optical question that has long dogged Congress: Can lawmakers play the market without generating suspicion their access to information gives them an unfair advantage, or should they ban the practice altogether? 'At a time where there was significant or important non-public information swirling around Washington, the public can't help but fear that members of Congress are using their access to information to personally profit,' Indiana University Maurer School of Law Professor Donna Nagy, who has testified before Congress on the issue, told CNN after viewing the trading data. 'And whether that perception is true or not, it is destructive. It fuels a corrosive belief that lawmakers are using their positions for purposes of profit and not for the public interest.' Lawmakers, their spouses, and children are permitted to make trades but they are mandated to report any activity done on their behalf within 45 days. They are only required to disclose a monetary value range for trades. From March 31 — just before the president's April 2 'Liberation Day' announcement of tariffs of at least 10% across all countries — through the April 9 pause, a total of 35 lawmakers (19 Republicans and 16 Democrats) reported purchases between about $8.6 million and $27.9 million and sales between about $5.9 million and $22.4 million across 1,265 transactions. Not all of the trades were individual stocks; some involved were mutual funds or public bonds. From March 31 through April 9, Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna reported the most transactions at 438, while GOP Rep. Kevin Hern reported the single highest-value transaction of up to $5 million on April 4. Eleven lawmakers reported one transaction. Fourteen lawmakers reported two transactions or fewer. The transactions Khanna reported, his communications director Sarah Drory told CNN, were not stock trades but part of a trust managed by an independent third party that stems from money his wife had before they were married. Hern spokeswoman Miranda Dabney, meanwhile, told CNN: 'Rep. Hern does not have day-to-day management or control over his stock portfolio or his businesses.' In statements provided to CNN, representatives for the lawmakers who reported trades during that period pointed to various agreements with third-party financial advisors and noted that some purchases were bonds and not individual stocks. The offices told CNN the lawmakers are not directly involved in the purchases. 'President Trump was telling the entire world for months, and even decades, about the benefits of tariffs. It was even a central component of his 2024 presidential campaign. Suggesting any behind-the-scenes coordination is ridiculous,' a spokesperson for Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene said, pushing back on concerns around the timing of the trades. The Georgia Republican – whose 11 reported purchases on April 8 included between $1,000 and $15,000 worth of stock each, according to the filings – does not direct her own trades but instead has a fiduciary agreement with her portfolio manager, the spokesperson said. Around Trump's trade war, a number of Republicans publicly pledged support for Trump's economic policy while protecting their own financial interests. Sen. Markwayne Mullin sold between $290,000 and $700,000 in stocks across industries from a joint account on April 8 through 'an independent, third-party operator firm that manages all stock portfolio investments on his behalf,' according to his spokesperson. At the same time, the Oklahoma Republican was publicly supporting the president's escalating trade war, despite the financial decisions that appeared to mirror broader consumer concerns. Hern, the fourth-highest ranking Republican in the House said on February 13, shortly after Trump announced 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from all countries: 'These reciprocal tariffs will incentivize other nations to level the playing field and remove long-standing, exorbitant tariffs.' On March 31 — two days before Trump announced expansive tariffs on April 2 — a trust affiliated with Hern sold between $500,000 and $1 million worth of structured investments. For Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, one of the Republicans behind the push to ban lawmaker stock trading, having an intermediary conduct the trades does little to assuage concern. 'Members of Congress should come here to advance the interests of their constituents, not to enrich themselves using stock trading,' Roy said. Rhode Island Rep. Seth Magaziner, one of the leading negotiators on the Democratic side of the effort to ban congressional stock trading who participates in regular meetings on the issue, similarly told CNN: 'We should eliminate the opportunity for members of Congress to engage in any sort of insider trading because the opportunity clearly exists.' The director of government affairs at the Project on Government Oversight Dylan Hedtler-Gaudette told CNN, 'You occasionally have these moments where it really clarifies and distills down just how bad this is. And I think the tariff announcements and subsequent trades and transactions are a prime example of that.' March 3 — the day before Trump levied an additional 10% tariff on China and a 25% tariff on Mexican and Canadian imports with some exceptions — saw the highest number of lawmakers reporting stock trading in a single day through mid-April, according to CNN's analysis. Sixteen lawmakers, evenly split among Democrats and Republicans, reported hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of transactions that day — most of them purchases. The president had confirmed at an afternoon White House event on March 3 that the tariffs would take effect the next day, leading to a sharp selloff in stocks. At that point, March 3 had so far been the worst day for the market. Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Dave McCormick, who reported purchases between $50,000 and $100,000, was the only lawmaker to report having personally traded on March 3. McCormick did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Lawmakers reached by CNN sought to distance themselves from the transactions filed during those key dates around Trump's tariffs announcements. CNN reached out to the 16 lawmakers who reported transactions on March 3, and the 35 lawmakers, some of whom overlapped, who reported having transactions between March 31 and April 9. Those who responded to CNN said they were unaware of trades being made through various agreements with financial advisors. They said the filings did not reflect traditional stock trades and that they had no interactions with the administration around key announcements. Some told CNN the filings reflected trades or reinvestments through a joint account or by a spouse. Democratic Rep. Josh Gottheimer is waiting on congressional approval for a blind trust, a spokesman told CNN. GOP Rep. Bruce Westerman, meanwhile, has instructed his investment advisor to not invest in individual stocks and is in the process of putting his assets back into a fund, after receiving heat for recent investments, spokesperson Kinsey Featherston shared. Democratic Rep. Julie Johnson has begun the process of divesting her stocks, managed by an independent third party, into ETFs and mutual funds upon becoming a member of Congress, her spokesperson told CNN. Some said they supported efforts to ban lawmaker trading of individual stocks, even those with active portfolios, including Khanna and GOP Rep. Rob Bresnahan. The STOCK Act passed with overwhelming support in 2012 to increase transparency about lawmaker stock trading and made it illegal for lawmakers to use inside information for financial benefit. But lawmakers and experts argue problems persist with existing reporting structures and enforcement mechanisms. Along with only being required to report a monetary range of transactions, lawmakers also don't report the timing of a trade on a given day, which could be useful context for those determining whether seemingly well-timed trades could be based on non-public information. There is also currently no designated oversight body to determine whether lawmakers hold a conflict of interest in their trading practices. Legal experts say that even lawmakers who use financial advisors to trade on their behalf are not necessarily insulated from scrutiny, and it depends on the details of the agreement. The $200 fine for late filings is hardly a deterrent, experts argue. 'That doesn't pass the sniff test even a little bit because there is no guarantee that they're not talking to those people because there is no prohibition against them from talking to those financial advisors,' Hedtler-Gaudette said of the arrangements most lawmakers have with their financial advisors. As efforts to ban congressional stock trading have fallen short, scholars and ethics experts have argued that members of Congress are privy to more information than the average American and are often faced with legislative decisions that overlap with their investment portfolios. 'It is essentially completely legal for a congressman, congresswoman or senator to go to Goldman Sachs, Blackrock or Vanguard and be like, 'Hey I'm proposing this regulation, what do you think will be the impact on the market?' There is nothing to stop you from that,' said Dr. Jan Hanousek Jr., an assistant professor at the University of Memphis who has studied the patterns of lawmaker stock trading. 'This is an insane problem.' Beyond ethics concerns, a 2022 Fox News poll found that 70% of respondents supported banning members of Congress and their families from trading stock, while a January UC San Diego study found that even when lawmakers make their trading practices public, it 'erodes' the legitimacy of Congress. The push to ban lawmaker stock trading last peaked when dozens of federal officials and some lawmakers made lucrative stock and mutual fund trades as the government was preparing for the financial onslaught of the Covid-19 pandemic in early 2020. The Department of Justice has since closed investigations into the moves. But in a sign this Congress' bipartisan group of lawmakers may be closer to finding the political will to ban the practice, House Speaker Mike Johnson, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and the president himself have publicly supported the effort, following news of lawmaker stock trading activity around the tariff announcements. 'I have been working on this issue for years,' Roy told CNN. 'We can and should fix the problem during this term now that President Trump and the Speaker have signaled their support for the measure. We have the will and the mandate of the American people to do this. Let's deliver.' CNN's John Towfighi contributed to this report.
