US appeals court allows Trump control of National Guard in LA
A US appeals court on Thursday ruled that President Donald Trump could continue control of National Guard troops in Los Angeles, over the objections of California Governor Gavin Newsom.
Trump ordered the deployment of thousands of National Guard troops and hundreds of Marines into Los Angeles this month in response to protests over federal immigration sweeps -- a move opposed by city leaders and Newsom.
Trump was within his rights when he ordered 4,000 members of the National Guard into service for 60 days to "protect federal personnel performing federal functions and to protect federal property," the three-judge panel wrote in their 38-page unanimous ruling.
"Affording appropriate deference to the President's determination, we conclude that he likely acted within his authority in federalizing the National Guard," they said
The president celebrated the decision in a post on Truth Social Thursday night, calling it a "BIG WIN."
"All over the United States, if our Cities, and our people, need protection, we are the ones to give it to them should State and Local Police be unable, for whatever reason, to get the job done," Trump wrote.
- 'Not a king' -
The state of California had argued that Trump's order was illegal because it did not follow the procedure of being issued through the governor.
The judges said Trump's "failure to issue the federalization order directly 'through' the Governor of California does not limit his otherwise lawful authority to call up the National Guard."
But they said the panel disagreed with the defendants' primary argument that the president's decision to federalize members of the California National Guard "is completely insulated from judicial review."
Governor Newsom responded to the decision saying Trump "is not a king and not above the law."
"Tonight, the court rightly rejected Trump's claim that he can do whatever he wants with the National Guard and not have to explain himself to a court," he posted on X.
"We will not let this authoritarian use of military soldiers against citizens go unchecked."
California is not without options. The state could request the case to be reheard or it could petition the Supreme Court for intervention.
- Immigration tensions -
The ruling comes against a backdrop of heightened tensions in Los Angeles, which has become ground zero of Trump's immigration crackdown across the United States.
The city has seen scattered violence but mostly peaceful protests in recent weeks, ignited by an escalation in federal immigration sweeps that have targeted migrant workers in garment factories, car washes and other workplaces.
Local media reported further raids across the city on Thursday targeting Home Depot stores, a home improvement retailer where day laborers often gather in parking lots seeking work.
The protests, though largely peaceful, saw sporadic and spectacular violence. Damage included vandalism, looting, clashes with law enforcement and several torched driverless taxis.
Last week, a lower court judge had ordered Trump to return control of the California National Guard to Newsom, saying the president's decision to deploy them to protest-hit Los Angeles was "illegal."
Trump, who has repeatedly exaggerated the scale of the unrest, also sent 700 US Marines to Los Angeles despite the objections of local officials, claiming that they had lost control of the "burning" city.
It was the first time since 1965 that a US president deployed the National Guard over the wishes of a state governor.
Trump appointed two of the judges on the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit panel, and former president Joe Biden appointed the third, the New York Times reported Thursday.
sla/tc/abs/tc/ecl
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Bloomberg
8 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
The White House Plans for Texas Could Backfire
President Donald Trump's push for Texas lawmakers to redraw the state's congressional districts in hopes of preserving the slim Republican majority in the US House is yet another example of the president putting his own fortune above his party's. In an ideal world, it's also a good idea — because it could lead to more competitive elections and a more representative democracy. Of course, that's the opposite of Trump's intention: He wants to make it more difficult for voters to punish him for his unpopular policies.


Fox News
12 minutes ago
- Fox News
Fox News ‘Antisemitism Exposed' Newsletter: Evangelicals with Trump in support of Israel's war on Iran
Fox News' "Antisemitism Exposed" newsletter brings you stories on the rising anti-Jewish prejudice across the U.S. and the world. IN TODAY'S NEWSLETTER: - Evangelical leaders praise Trump's support for Israel amid war with Iran- DeSantis-sponsored rescue flights evacuate 1,500 Jewish Americans from Israel- 'Globalize the intifada' phrase stirs tensions on NYC campaign trail TOP STORY: Some of the most influential evangelical leaders in the U.S. told Fox News Digital that they believe President Donald Trump's support for Israel is unwavering as the Jewish state finds itself at war with Iran. Pastor John Hagee, founder and chairman of Christians United for Israel, which numbers 10 million members, said, "I do not think President Trump will allow himself to be played by Iranian negotiators or American isolationists. VIDEO: Americans Against Antisemitism founder Dov Hikind joins 'Fox & Friends First' to discuss the latest on escalating tension between Israel and Iran and the possible role the U.S. could play as both nations trade missile strikes. WATCH HERE: RON TO THE RESCUE: As violence escalates in Israel during its conflict with Iran, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is dispatching four planes to evacuate 1,500 stranded Americans. Mano Maritime cruise ship Crown Iris picked up the evacuees in Ashdod, Israel, and took them on a 13-hour steam trip to Lanarca, Cyprus. Most passengers were from a program called Birthright Israel, which provides educational trips to the Holy Land. BIG APPLE BIGOTRY: Middle East tensions seeped onto the New York City campaign trail this week as President Donald Trump considers striking Iran. Mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani refused to support banning the phrases "Globalize the intifada" and "From the river to the sea", comparing that leadership style to Trump. See what rival Andrew Cuomo had to say. HARDENING TARGETS: The NYPD ramped up security at Jewish sites across New York City after Israel launched strikes on Iran, kicking off a new war in the Middle East. "Out of an abundance of caution, we are increasing security at houses of worship and at Israeli diplomatic sites,' Mayor Eric Adams wrote on X. "I am praying for peace in the region." UN REPORT BLASTS ISRAEL: A new UN report accuses Israel of committing "the crime against humanity of extermination." Israel is restricting religious freedoms at holy sites in Jerusalem by subjecting Palestinians to "increased security checks, checkpoints, harassment and assault. DEGREES OF HATE - Recent UCLA graduate Isabella Brannon writes about how her Humanities commencement and others at the school were marred by blatant antisemitism, while students cheered and faculty stood by. GUEST EDITORIAL: Helena Ivanov, an associate research fellow at the Henry Jackson Society, writes that unchecked misinformation on social media is helping to fuel campus antisemitism. Fabricated stories about Israel and Hamas in the wake of Oct. 7 have left students with a warped perspective on Jews and the Middle East, she found. QUOTE OF THE WEEK: "They claim Jews exclude non-Jews from religious sites when the exact opposite is true. Only Israel protects freedom of religion for Christians, Muslims and Jews, while Jews have been banned and Jewish religious sites have been systematically trashed by Palestinian Arabs for a century." - Ann Bayefsky, director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust, responding to new UN report blasting Israel. - Looking for more on this topic? Find more antisemitism coverage from Fox News here. - Did someone forward you this email? Subscribe to additional newsletters from Fox News here. - Want live updates? Get the Fox News app here


Axios
13 minutes ago
- Axios
Axios-Ipsos poll: Americans want to force presidents to share health records
Eight in 10 Americans want legally required and publicly released cognitive tests and disease screenings for U.S. presidents — and age limits on the presidency, according to the latest Axios-Ipsos American Health Index. About 3 in 4 say politicians aren't honest about their health, and that presidents should be legally required to share their medical records with the public. Why it matters: The issue of presidents' health has become particularly poignant in light of the decline of Joe Biden, who was 82 when he left office, and the return of Donald Trump, who's now 79 and was the oldest president to be inaugurated in U.S. history. Trump rarely has offered glimpses into his health records. His team released a memo after his physical in April that pronounced him in "excellent health," but political foes such as California Gov. Gavin Newsom have questioned Trump's mental fitness and whether he's up to the job. Biden's White House physician had claimed that Biden was in great shape for a man of his age. But during his presidency, Biden's staff tried to conceal his declining health. Biden's recent cancer diagnosis has drawn new attention to the lack of legal requirements for public officials to disclose their medical status. What we're watching: Democrats surveyed in the poll appear to favor such disclosures slightly more than Republicans — and, overall, Americans are less interested in forcing past presidents to share their records than requiring current ones to do so. What they're saying:"The American public is sending a very clear signal that they don't trust the information they're receiving, that it's not sufficient, and that public officials should be held to a higher standard when it comes to being forthcoming about their health," said Mallory Newall, Ipsos vice president for U.S. public affairs. "Americans want more transparency about their elected officials' health. They're looking for a younger generation to serve." The big picture: The balance between public officials' medical privacy and the public's right to know has swung sharply toward more disclosure, the poll showed. It found strong bipartisan appetite for increased transparency about public officials' health, and for a maximum age at which officeholders and Supreme Court justices can serve. (Respondents were not asked what age the maximum age should be.) By the numbers: 72% of Americans strongly or somewhat disagree with the idea that most elected officials are honest with the American public about their health. 74% overall agree that there should be a legal requirement for any current president to share their health records. The public is much more divided on former presidents' health, with just 40% agreeing there should be a legal requirement to share their health records and 57% opposed. About 8 in 10 Americans broadly favor age limits for Supreme Court justices and members of Congress, as well as for presidents. More Democrats (83%) favor a legal requirement that the current president share health records than Republicans (70%) or independents (72%). The same goes for age limits and for mandatory cognitive screening and disease testing with sharable results. But in each case, more than three-quarters of Republicans, Democrats and independents support those requirements. Between the lines: Public officials aren't held to any legal standards for disclosing their medical status. While America is getting older and life expectancies generally have increased, questions about aging politicians' fitness to serve and their ability to make critical judgements have moved to the forefront. That's partly driven by a nonstop news cycle that keeps many in the limelight and can expose frailties. But the rules for talking about their health are mostly rooted in traditions like the president's annual physical. Former White House physician Jeffrey Kuhlman has argued for a battery of cognitive tests, rather than a screening exam, to assess presidents' memory, language and problem-solving skills. Methodology: This Axios/Ipsos Poll was conducted June 13-16, 2025, by Ipsos' KnowledgePanel®. This poll is based on a nationally representative probability sample of 1,104 general population adults age 18 or older.