When chaos erupted on the streets of Los Angeles earlier this month, the smoke carried more than the scent of burning buildings.
It brought to the surface a deeper conflict—one not between protesters and police, but between federal and state authority.
At the heart of this standoff are two men with a long history of public disagreements: President Donald Trump and California Governor Gavin Newsom.
Riots Ignite a Constitutional Crisis
The unrest began after ICE agents conducted large-scale immigration raids on June 6.
What started as protests quickly spiraled into looting, property damage, and street violence.
Over 250 people were arrested. Officers, civilians, and even police horses were injured.
President Trump responded by deploying 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 active-duty Marines to Los Angeles.
He claimed the action was necessary to protect federal buildings and maintain order.
Governor Newsom pushed back immediately. He argued the president had no right to send federal troops into California without state approval.
Along with Attorney General Rob Bonta, Newsom filed an emergency lawsuit to block the deployments.
The motion accuses Trump of violating the 10th Amendment and the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits the use of military force in domestic law enforcement.
A federal judge has not yet ruled on the case, but the legal stakes are high.
The outcome could define the limits of presidential power during civil unrest.
A Legal Fight Over Federal Power
JUST IN: Federal judge denies Gavin Newsom’s effort to force President Trump to withdraw the National Guard from LA, sides with President Trump
Rough day for Gavin.
“A federal judge has denied the state of California’s request to stop Trump from using the California National… pic.twitter.com/csp3mZl7Jv
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) June 10, 2025
Newsom and Bonta’s legal proceedings have hit an early hurdle.
A federal judge denied California’s immediate request to stop the deployment.
This initial ruling did not throw out the lawsuit itself, but it allowed the National Guard and Marines to remain on duty for now.
The case is far from over.
A hearing is scheduled for Thursday, June 12, where the court will examine the broader constitutional questions at stake.
California is expected to argue that using federal troops to enforce immigration law and manage local unrest undermines the authority of elected state leaders.
In the meantime, federal forces remain in place.
The legal fight has shifted to whether the White House can override state control in moments of crisis—a question that could reshape the balance of power for years to come.
Confusion Over a Call
A pointed disagreement has surfaced between President Trump and Governor Newsom over whether they spoke during the height of the Los Angeles unrest.
Trump told Fox News he had called Newsom in the early hours of June 7, offering call logs that showed two attempts—one said to last 16 minutes.
Newsom wasn’t having it. He insisted there was “no call, not even a voicemail.”
In a sharp post on X, he noted that the logs showed the wrong day entirely, suggesting Trump had either misunderstood the timeline or simply got it wrong.
“He doesn’t even know what day it is,” Newsom wrote.
It’s not just a clash of egos—it’s a glimpse into how fractured communication became at a moment when clarity mattered most.
While the city faces chaos in the streets, the nation’s top leaders can’t agree on whether or not they’ve even spoken.
City Hall on Defense
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass has imposed a curfew in Downtown L.A. from 8 p.m. to 6 a.m.—a decision announced after several days of visible violence and looting.
Critics argue the delay reflects a broader pattern of weak leadership from California officials in times of crisis.
The timing of the curfew—coming only after federal troops were deployed—raises questions about local authorities’ readiness and resolve.
Mayor Bass has publicly opposed Trump’s deployment of troops, calling it an overreach, yet her late response to escalating disorder has cast doubt on the effectiveness of her administration’s crisis management.
A Dangerous Precedent
For many legal scholars, the core issue isn’t partisan. It’s structural.
The federalization of the California National Guard—done without the governor’s consent—is the first such move since the 1960s.
If allowed to stand, it could set a precedent for future federal interventions in state matters.
While California’s leaders have condemned the violence and looting, they’re united in their belief that law enforcement—especially the use of military force—must remain under state control.
Trump disagrees. He’s framed the riots as a national security issue and cast the deployment as both legal and necessary.
What Comes Next
A ruling is expected by June 12.
If the court grants California’s motion, federal troops may be ordered to stand down.
If not, they’ll remain on the streets of Los Angeles under Trump’s direction.
Beyond the courtroom, this conflict is already shaping public opinion.
It touches on questions of immigration policy, public safety, and the constitutional balance between Washington and the states.
No matter how the court rules, the events in Los Angeles have drawn clear battle lines.
It’s not just about broken windows and burned cars. It’s about who decides how—and when—America uses its force at home.
This article was written with the assistance of AI. Please verify information and consult additional sources as needed.
