On June 6, 2025, thousands of protesters took to the streets of Downtown Los Angeles in response to several Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids intended to arrest individuals who had entered the country illegally. What began as a peaceful demonstration soon escalated as local law enforcement clashed with protestors, resulting in the release of tear gas by police and Molotov cocktails by protestors. As protests grew, so did the federal response, launching a battle not only between citizens and law enforcement, but between California and the White House. In the streets of Los Angeles, the National Guard stood at the intersection of a power struggle that’s as old as the Constitution.
Citing “Third World lawlessness” and a need to “liberate Los Angeles” in a speech at Fort Bragg, President Trump invoked Title 10, Section 12406 of the U.S. Code, a rarely-used provision that allows the president to federalize state National Guard units. The White House claimed deployment was necessary to ensure that ICE agents were able to continue their raids while also protecting federal property.
California Governor Gavin Newsom pushed back, calling Trump’s move “purposefully inflammatory.” In an official release outlining his plan for assisting the city of Los Angeles and criticizing the President’s actions, Newsom argued, “This is the wrong mission and will erode public trust.” Newsom also told NPR that Trump was “sowing more division.”
But beyond just a political battle, the Los Angeles National Guard deployment represents a much larger constitutional power struggle, exposing the legal ambiguities and political tension at the heart of American federalism. While the battle between federal and state governments has been tested time and time again throughout American history, our country has not yet established a clear enough line between these two spheres of political power. The present dispute between Trump and Newsom highlights the danger of failing to draw that line, leaving an institution as crucial as federalism subject to short-sighted political battles.
The standoff between Trump and Newsom is both political and legal. The conflict stems from a patchwork of constitutional clauses and federal statutes that blend together to make the National Guard one of the most complex instruments — and examples — of American federalism in action. Federalism is defined by Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute as “a system of government in which the same territory is controlled by two levels of government,” and is typically understood to represent the concurrent powers of state and national governments in the U.S. The National Guard is a unique creation of federalism, acting as both a state militia and a federal reserve force.
Under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress has the power to “provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” At the same time, the 10th Amendment reserves the power to the states to control militias when they are not in federal service. At the beginning of America’s constitutional history, the Federalists, who supported a strong central government, engaged in contentious debates surrounding the militia and other issues with Anti-Federalists, who supported reserving more power to the states. These Federalist and Anti-Federalist debates defined the creation of the Constitution and much of the legal framework upon which the U.S. government is built.
The balance of federal and state power began to tip toward the federal level throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. The Insurrection Act of 1807 grants the president power to federalize state militias to respond domestically to rebellion and domestic violence at a state’s request, or to enforce federal law. This act still stands in court as a notable exception to the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which later restricted the U.S. military from participating in domestic law enforcement. Despite multiple calls for the Insurrection Act’s appeal, the Supreme Court has yet to strike it down.
While the national guard’s development is a unique example of the challenges inherent in federalism, it occurred amidst a backdrop of broader competing state and federal interests. In the early 19th century, the Nullification Crisis saw South Carolina defy the tariff of 1828 and push for a state’s right to nullify federal laws. The Doctrine of Nullification, published under the leadership of Vice President John C. Calhoun, argued that states had the right to declare federal laws unconstitutional and therefore not binding within their borders. President Andrew Jackson pursued a compromise that prevented this crisis from growing, but not before passing the Force Bill that authorized the President to use the military to collect tariffs. South Carolina rescinded its nullification of the tariffs but also nullified the Force Bill, demonstrating a continued assertion of states’ rights.
The foundation for the modern National Guard, in particular, was not laid until the Militia Act of 1903, which established the National Guard as an organized and federally recognized militia. Also known as the “Dick Act,” in reference to its congressional sponsor Charles W.F. Dick, this law required state units to follow federal training and organizational rules and outlined the distinction between the National Guard and the Reserve Militia, which included all able-bodied men between certain ages. The later National Defense Act of 1916 officially integrated state militias into the federal military structure, specifically expanding federal power over the National Guard. By the time of the World Wars, the President could federalize National Guard units more easily without the compliance of governors, and the legal boundaries between state and federal control began to blur even further.
Later in the century, in 1957, Arkansas Gov. Orval Faubus used the state’s National Guard to prevent Black students from entering Little Rock Central High School in an effort to continue the segregation declared unconstitutional in Brown v. Board of Education. President Dwight D. Eisenhower responded by federalizing the National Guard and sending in troops to enforce desegregation. This crisis was yet another dramatic display of federal power used to uphold constitutional rights in spite of state protests.
More recently, modern challenges to the demarcations of federalism have emerged around COVID-19 mandates and sanctuary city policies. Federal and state governments continue to battle for control over some of the nation’s most contentious issues. Each flashpoint reflects renewed tensions over who sets the rules in American life, and each holds the potential for yet another dispute over what constitutes a crisis worthy of federal intervention.
President Trump’s approach to federalism today further complicates this dynamic. Trump often demands loyalty and compliance from state officials while simultaneously criticizing federal overreach, shifting his stance depending on political convenience. While increasing federal power through the use of the National Guard, he frequently argues that certain questions of rights, such as abortion, must be sent back to the states. His administration’s continued combative nature toward states that resist his policies exposes just how fluid the balance of federal and state power remains.
Together, this amalgam of Constitutional provisions, statutory changes, and on-the-ground disputes creates an enduring tension that underscores the existence of the National Guard. Under typical conditions in our current national understanding of federalism, governors act as the commanders-in-chief of their state’s National Guard. But under Title 10 of the U.S. Code, Section 12406, the President can federalize those units, effectively removing them from the governor’s control, in contentiously-defined cases of invasion, rebellion, or failure to enforce federal law.
In the case of the Los Angeles protests, the Trump administration argued that widespread protests and attacks on federal facilities met the legal threshold for rebellion or obstruction. Governor Newsom countered that the move stretched the law’s intent by using a statute designed for existential threats to respond to civil unrest.
This dispute is still being intensely litigated in court as of the writing of this article. U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer noted that Trump had violated the Tenth Amendment on June 12. In August, a California judge ruled that President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles violated the Posse Comitatus Act. But around 250 troops still remain in L.A., a drastic reduction from the nearly 5,000 initially deployed.
Amidst today’s polarized politics, federalism plays out along increasingly partisan lines. Red and blue states adopt diametrically opposed approaches to law enforcement, public health, immigration, and gun control, often daring the federal government to intervene. But what has changed is the platform, not just the policies.
In the age of social media and 24-hour news, governors — especially ones who may have their eyes on a presidential run — can broadcast defiance in real time, leveraging national attention to build political capital and frame federal intervention as overreach. In a now-viral clip, Gavin Newsom seemed to dare Trump to continue his overstepping, saying, “Arrest me. Let’s go.” Tom Homan, Trump’s border czar, has previously said that he would arrest anyone who obstructed federal immigration law enforcement. Trump responded to Newsom, “I would do it [arrest Newsom] if I were Tom. I think it’s great.”
The Newsom-Trump standoff over the National Guard isn’t an outlier. It’s a symptom of larger political instability, and a reminder that federalism is far from a settled issue. As the Los Angeles incident reveals, disputes over who controls state military forces and the enforcement of federal law are no longer quiet legal disputes. They have risen to prominence in televised political theater, elevated further by the rise of social media in politics. The escalation in Los Angeles has served as a catalyst for more intense clashes, particularly as polarization continues to rise and different levels of government struggle to work together. From Washington, D.C. to Chicago to Portland, Oregon, more and more U.S. cities are becoming national backdrops for federal overreach.
In a nation where emergencies demand rapid cooperation between all levels of government, the tension between state sovereignty and federal authority is both a safeguard against swift corruption and a stumbling block to decisive action. As the line between legal authority and political will blurs with each new confrontation, federalism remains a simultaneously central and unresolved force in American life.
To prevent future conflicts from spiraling into constitutional crises, the U.S. must establish clearer legal standards for federal intervention and apply them more consistently. We must elect leaders who show clear respect for the rule of law and who recognize the limits of their power. Our courts must resist political pressure from state and federal leaders and apply the law fairly in all situations. Without well-defined boundaries and predictable enforcement, every new emergency risks becoming another stage for political showdowns rather than effective governance.
