Trump's Late-Night Tirade After ‘Big' Appeals Court Verdict
President Donald Trump embarked on a scathing rant against California Governor Gavin Newsom after scoring a 'big win' surrounding the L.A. protests.
A California appeals court ruled Thursday that Trump can continue to control California's National Guard in a blow to Newsom's attempt to reassert authority over his own state.
The three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the president's argument he lawfully exercised his authority in taking control of the guard. It added the president showed enough evidence to justify such an argument.
'We emphasize, however, that our decision addresses only the facts before us,' the ruling states. 'And although we hold that the President likely has authority to federalize the National Guard, nothing in our decision addresses the nature of the activities in which the federalized National Guard may engage.'
The ruling is not permanent, but extends a pause on a June 12 ruling in favor of Newsom as the battle makes it way through the courts.
Trump took control of the state's National Guard last week amid anti-ICE protests, arguing that they were needed in order to support ICE agents and quell protests.
Newsom filed a lawsuit in response, with a District Court judge agreeing that Trump was using the National Guard illegally in Los Angeles and ruling that he had to return control over to Newsom—a finding which that was paused hours later and subsequently extended on Thursday.
The appeals court, consisting of two Trump appointees and one Biden appointee, unanimously ruled that Trump had a 'considerable' basis to call up the National Guard, making him the first president in 60 years to activate a state's National Guard against the wishes of its governor.
In a late-night tirade to Truth Social following the ruling, Trump gloated, 'BIG WIN in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on the President's core power to call in the National Guard!'
He continued, taking aim at Newsom, 'The Judges obviously realized that Gavin Newscum is incompetent and ill prepared, but this is much bigger than Gavin, because 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.'
He finished, 'This is a Great Decision for our Country, and we will continue to protect and defend Law abiding Americans. Congratulations to the Ninth Circuit, America is proud of you tonight!'
Newsom, meanwhile, responded to the ruling on X, posting that he planned to continue the fight. 'Donald 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 continued, 'We will not let this authoritarian use of military soldiers against citizens go unchecked.'
Despite ruling in Trump's favor, the court rejected his assertion that the courts had 'no role' in reviewing his decision to federalize the National Guard.
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, the judge respinsible for the June 12 decision, is expected to hold a hearing Friday on a decision about issuing an indefinite injunction on the issue.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
21 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Man Who Came to US as Young Child Faces Deportation After Over 30 Years
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Karem Tadros, who has lived in the United States for more than 30 years after immigrating from Egypt with his family, who are all U.S. citizens, faces deportation to an unspecified country following his release from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in New Jersey, he told Newsweek in a Friday phone interview. Newsweek has reached out to ICE for comment via email on Friday. Why It Matters Tadros, who was detained from early May until mid-June, has been released but is still awaiting final court orders regarding his deportation status to a third country. His detention comes amid an immigration crackdown under the Trump administration. In addition to people residing in the country illegally, immigrants with valid documentation—including green cards and visas—have been detained and face legal jeopardy. President Donald Trump has pledged to carry out the largest mass deportation operation in U.S. history, and in the initial months of his second term, his administration has deported more than 100,000 people. Many migrants have been deported as a result of Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which grants the president authority to deport noncitizens without appearing before a judge, among other wartime authorities. The Trump administration has held discussions with several countries about taking in U.S. detainees who lack legal status and cannot be returned to their home countries due to safety risks or fears of persecution. (L): A photo of Karem Tadros as provided by him. (R): Federal agents patrol the halls of immigration court at the Jacob K. Javitz Federal Building on June 18, 2025 in New York City. (L): A photo of Karem Tadros as provided by him. (R): Federal agents patrol the halls of immigration court at the Jacob K. Javitz Federal Building on June 18, 2025 in New York City. Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images What To Know On May 7, federal immigration officials detained 39-year-old Tadros. He told Newsweek in a phone call that agents arrived at his house, asking for Tadros, stating they had a warrant for his arrest and that there was an "administrative problem in their office that needs to be taken care of." They reportedly told him he would be gone for an hour. Tadros said they did not arrest him while he was walking out of the house to the unmarked agents' car. Once he was in the car, the agents reportedly informed him that he had a final deportation order. He then spent over a month at the Elizabeth Contract Detention Center in New Jersey, according to court documents reviewed by Newsweek. Tadros says he has a current work permit set to be renewed in August. He came to the U.S. as a young child, just over 3 years old, his attorney, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, told Newsweek in a phone interview on Friday. He said he came to the U.S. on March 17, 1989. Tadros told Newsweek he was told he came at age 4, but also in the year 1989. Tadros' family members, an older brother, mother, and father, all obtained U.S. citizenship, he told Newsweek. "All the members of my family are U.S. citizens. They're all supporting me. We're all equally shocked," he said. His citizenship process was halted due to his 2006 conviction, telling Newsweek it was for "intent to distribute oxycodone." He said, "I was on the right path. I made a terrible mistake when I was younger." He spent six days in a county jail and was released on bail, completing his probation afterwards, he said. "Because of that, I was detained at Hudson County facility for 13 months. And I was released by the judge on a court date with no supervision, no nothing. So 17 years go by, now it's 2025, I haven't seen a single ICE officer since I was detained back in 2008, 2009," he added. In those legal proceedings, a judge found he would face persecution if he were deported to Egypt, thus ruling against it. "The government appealed that decision, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed that decision in April of 2009," Sandoval-Moshenberg told Newsweek. Both Tadros and his lawyer told Newsweek that he is at risk of persecution because of his religion and lack of language knowledge. Tadros told Newsweek he has "a Jesus tattoo on my right shoulder." There are an estimated five to ten percent of the Egyptian population identifying as Christian. The administration isn't trying to change that ruling, and instead is looking to send Tadros to a third country. On June 16, Tadros was granted a Writ of Habeas Corpus, as U.S. District Judge for the District of New Jersey, Evelyn Padin, found the "petitioner has remained in perfect compliance with the conditions of release dictated in the April 9, 2009 Order of Supervision." The judge found it was "unlawful" for the government to keep Tadros detained and ordered his release. The judge's order stated that "ICE may identify a third country within thirty to sixty days of this order to which the Petitioner may be removed." The judge denied the Trump administration's request to place an ankle monitor on Tadros. He must stay within the tri-state area. During his June court proceeding, Tadros first learned of the possibility of being sent to Uzbekistan. His lawyer told Newsweek that's also when he found out that Sudan and Libya rejected his case. Hundreds of people have been sent to third-country locations. More than 200 Venezuelan nationals accused of gang affiliations were transferred to El Salvador, where they were imprisoned in the country's high-security mega-prison. The administration has also attempted to deport migrants to more unstable nations, including Libya and South Sudan, despite concerns over widespread violence and human rights conditions. These efforts have faced legal challenges, with U.S. courts blocking transfers to such conflict zones for now. The Trump administration has defended the use of third-country deportations as a necessary measure to deter unlawful entry and ease pressure on the U.S. immigration system. What People Are Saying Assistant Homeland Security Secretary Tricia McLaughlin previously told Newsweek: "The Trump administration is enforcing immigration laws—something the previous administration failed to do. Those who violate these laws will be processed, detained and removed as required." What Happens Next The Trump administration has just under 60 days to confirm a country for Tadros' detention.
Associated Press
21 minutes ago
- Associated Press
California argues in court against Trump's National Guard deployment
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — California's challenge of the Trump administration's military deployment on the streets of Los Angeles returned to a federal courtroom in San Francisco on Friday after an appeals court handed President Donald Trump a key procedural win in the case. The hearing comes a day after the 9th Circuit appellate panel allowed the president to keep control of National Guard troops he deployed in response to protests over immigration raids. The appellate decision halted a temporary restraining order from U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, who found Trump acted illegally when he activated the soldiers over opposition from California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Despite the appellate setback, California's attorneys are expected to ask Breyer on Friday for a preliminary injunction returning control of the troops in Los Angeles, where protests have calmed down in recent days, to Newsom. Trump, a Republican, argued that the troops have been necessary to restore order. Newsom, a Democrat, said their presence on the streets of a U.S. city inflamed tensions, usurped local authority and wasted resources. The demonstrations have appeared to be winding down, although dozens of protesters showed up Thursday at Dodger Stadium, where a group of federal agents in SUVs and cargo vans had gathered with their faces covered a parking lot. The Los Angeles Dodgers organization asked them to leave, and they did. On Tuesday, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass lifted a curfew in downtown Los Angeles that was first imposed in response to vandalism and clashes with police after crowds gathered in opposition to agents taking migrants into detention. Breyer found that Trump had overstepped his legal authority, which he said allows presidents to control state National Guard troops only during times of 'rebellion or danger of a rebellion.' 'The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of 'rebellion,'' wrote Breyer, a Watergate prosecutor who was appointed by President Bill Clinton and his brother to retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. The Trump administration argued that courts can't second-guess the president's decisions. The appellate panel ruled otherwise, saying presidents don't have unfettered power to seize control of a state's guard, but said that by citing violent acts by protesters in this case, the Trump administration had presented enough evidence to show it had a defensible rationale for federalizing the troops. For now, the California National Guard will stay in federal hands as the lawsuit proceeds. It's the first deployment by a president of a state National Guard without the governor's permission since troops were sent to protect Civil Rights Movement marchers in 1965. Trump celebrated the appellate ruling in a social media post, calling it a 'BIG WIN' and hinting at more potential deployments. '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. Newsom, for his part, has also warned that California won't be the last state to see troops in the streets if Trump gets his way. 'The President is not a king and is not above the law. We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump's authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens,' Newsom said. Meanwhile, Vice President JD Vance was traveling to Los Angeles on Friday to meet with U.S. Marines who also have been deployed to protect federal buildings, his office announced.
CBS News
22 minutes ago
- CBS News
Murkowski says she has been "pretty clear" about her concerns with Trump's "big, beautiful bill"
Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski says she has been "pretty clear" about her concerns over potential cuts President Trump's so-called "big, beautiful bill" would make to Medicaid and food benefits for her constituents in Alaska. In an interview for "CBS Sunday Morning," Murkowski told CBS News senior correspondent Norah O'Donnell that she hasn't given any absolute deal-breakers in the Senate legislation — but she's voiced her reservations about the Medicaid proposals. "I have not given anybody in the administration an absolute, this is my red line, right?" Because I think it's important that every step of the way, I communicate where my concerns are," Murkowski told O'Donnell in the interview airing this weekend. The reconciliation bill — or "one big, beautiful bill," as Mr. Trump and Republicans in Congress have dubbed it — has passed the House, but remains up for debate in the Senate, where some Republicans are pushing for deeper cuts to Medicaid than the House-passed version allows. Medicaid is the entitlement program that offers government-backed health care for both low-income Americans and those with disabilities, with the federal government and states splitting the costs. While the House version adds a new work requirement to Medicaid for childless adults, the Senate wants work requirements to expand to parents of older children. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, provides food benefits to the poorest Americans, and some Senate Republicans are hoping to place more requirements on states. "So I've been pretty clear that when it comes to Medicaid, those cuts that would harm Alaskan beneficiaries, that's not something that I can take home, right? We have some of the highest health care costs in the country. We have 40% of Alaska's kids that are on Medicaid. I want to try to do what we can to address certain aspects of our entitlement spending. We've got to do that. But doing it with the most vulnerable bearing the brunt of that is not the answer," she said. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a Republican from North Dakota, wants the reconciliation bill to pass by the July 4 holiday, but that deadline is quickly approaching. Watch more of the interview with Sen. Lisa Murkowski on "CBS Sunday Morning" on Sunday, June 22.
