Constitutional Showdown Forces Federal Retreat

Newsworthy News -   President Trump announced the removal of National Guard troops from Los Angeles, Portland, and Chicago on January 1, 2026, following a Supreme Court ruling that severely constrained his authority to deploy state military forces domestically. The high court determined that presidential power to deploy troops within U.S. borders is limited to truly “exceptional” circumstances, rejecting the Justice Department’s argument that such decisions are beyond judicial review. This constitutional confrontation began in June 2025 when Trump mobilized nearly 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles over Governor Newsom’s vehement objections.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals formally returned control of the California National Guard to Governor Newsom on December 31, 2025, after Justice Department lawyers withdrew their appeal to maintain federal control. California Attorney General Rob Bonta celebrated the legal triumph, stating his office “worked nights and weekends to defend the Constitution and bring about an end of the President’s unlawful overreach of executive power.” The deployment had cost California taxpayers approximately $120 million over seven months, with troops primarily protecting federal buildings rather than conducting street patrols.

Despite Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s claim that Los Angeles would have “burned down” without federal intervention, LAPD records showed violent crime and property crime fell only 8% during the deployment period. This modest reduction raises serious questions about whether the massive federal expenditure and constitutional crisis were justified by actual public safety needs. Trump’s announcement on Truth Social declared that “Portland, Los Angeles, and Chicago were GONE if it weren’t for the Federal Government stepping in,” though the crime data suggests these cities were functioning normally throughout the deployment.

Governor Newsom’s successful legal challenge represents a significant victory for state sovereignty and constitutional governance against federal overreach. The Supreme Court’s ruling establishes crucial precedent limiting future presidents from commandeering state military forces without proper legal justification or state consent. Multiple judges, including conservative appointees, expressed skepticism about the administration’s claims that deployment decisions were unreviewable by courts, demonstrating broad judicial concern about unchecked executive power.