Newsom requests Trump admin return National Guard control to California
California Governor Gavin Newsom has formally requested Trump administration officials to rescind the order to deploy the National Guard and return control of the force to California, calling the initial order unlawful and "intentionally designed to inflame the situation."
"I have formally requested the Trump Administration rescind their unlawful deployment of troops in Los Angeles county and return them to my command," Newsom wrote on X, formerly Twitter. "We didn't have a problem until Trump got involved. This is a serious breach of state sovereignty — inflaming tensions while pulling resources from where they're actually needed. Rescind the order. Return control to California."
https://www.newsweek.com/gavin-newsom-requests-donald-trump-return-national-guard-control-california-2082565Open linkView original on lemmy.world599
Comments105
Yeah okay. Like a strongly worded letter is gonna do anything?
Gavin: Just fly to DC and physically smack Trump around. You're in way better shape than he is, you're guaranteed to win.
Strongly worded letters are all the current Dems are good at.
As if the public is doing anything more substantial.
The public out there on the streets of LA this weekend are certainly doing substantial things. Why the defeatism? Go join them and help.
It's not just LA this weekend, either. People have been fighting against ICE all over the country.
There’s more ICE agents on the street than protesters
Where did you find the official count? I want to look it up too.
You might try stepping away from your keyboard and checking for yourself.
lol no there’s not
It’s not defeatism to point out the public literally voted this in.
Oh, all of us?
No but more people voted for this and that’s how the system works.
So, it's not defeatism, you're just arguing for maintaining the status quo? If that's not defeatism in the face of a system that is mass arresting people, then what is it? What exactly is your point?
Edit: ah, just noticed that you are a moderator of [email protected]. Maybe you really do want to uphold the status quo of Trump's directives.
I mean... gestures at LA?
Nah they're waiting to be saved by a party that they intentionally ensured had no control over any single segment of the government.
It's amazing how every time the Republicans are doing something shitty and the voters didn't give dems control all some people can do is point out what the dems are or aren't doing.
Dems do something 6/10 bad? "Same shit different pile fuck the dems I'm voting Republican"
Republicans do something 8/10 ghastly? "Wow why didn't the democrats stop them?"
I don't understand what these people expect Democrats to be doing to "fight back". They have absolutely no legislative power, they're already filing lawsuits en masse but ALSO don't control any meaningful courts, and they're aggressively holding town halls and publishing their message to rally the people. Some of them are getting arrested trying to forcibly do their jobs but no, the Democrats are just letting this happen!!!
The American people are waiting to be saved by a political party that they intentionally made toothless, but they forget that governing is only allowed at the consent of the governed.
It's literally their jobs to fight back though
I'm assuming that he's just creating a paper trail for when things inevitably escalate. If this is all he's got, though, it's pretty weak.
Sure smells like it. Paper trail
The best Newsom is going to be able to do is pull trump onto his podcast and "have a conversation with him" where he makes more steps to the right to hopefully nab some more "principled Republican" voters.
I appreciate that
I have so much more faith in East LA to fight back than anyone in a position of power.
This is an example of somebody in a position of power fighting back. He may be a shitbag in general, but he is fighting back.
Fighting back would have been ordering them to withdraw using his lawful authority, and if they refused, ordering their arrest. This is just fucking around.
I’m torn.
On the one hand, CA has no military, so attempting diplomacy and formal protocol is logical, even responsible. By “responsible,” I simply mean that picking a fight you know you can’t win, and doing so on behalf of the people you represent, is usually irresponsible, since they will be the ones who suffer.
On the other hand, the closest thing to diplomacy Trump understands is some combination of posturing and quid pro quo. Historically, formal correspondence of rival leaders tends to have a varnish of politeness like this, even in the midst of bloody wars. (Indeed this “formal request” does convey a demand, an accusation, and a veiled threat.) But is someone with a demonstrably facile notion of power capable of understanding such subtext, or will they see only weakness?
Most importantly, I think there comes a time to commit to the inevitable conclusion. If you know the authoritarian will continue to threaten brutality against your people to ensure their compliance, it becomes your duty to say “do your worst or pound sand,” since you know compliance only delays and worsens their suffering, and a threat to the will of a people is always greater.
We do, it's just small. And shares membership with the national guard.
https://calguard.ca.gov/csg/
Same but even smaller.
"With a strongly-worded letter, no less!"
Is an insane thing for the Governor to claim when ICE was snatching random people off the street.
Paramount had a huge problem when ICE just started grabbing people out of the front of a Home Depot for being brown. That triggered the public backlash which got the news coverage which lead to Trump trying to launch a Fallujah style invasion of LA.
The situation was fully fucked by lawless ICE officially kidnapping people well before Trump tried to ratchet tensions further.
You're conflating two different problems. Yes, ICE kidnapping people was a problem before the national guard thing, but Newsom's words were specifically about a problem with the protests.
I dont interpret that as conflation, more pointing out, why doesn't Newsom consider ICE kidnappings a problem?? He's only concerned about the unrest just like he pretends to be addressing homelessness by criminalization
"Continued chaotic federal sweeps, across California, to meet an arbitrary arrest quota are as reckless as they are cruel.
Donald Trump’s chaos is eroding trust, tearing families apart, and undermining the workers and industries that power America’s economy."
Newsom condemning ICE raids
Thank you, yes he said that.
I'm saying that "We didn't have a problem until Trump got involved. This is a serious breach of state sovereignty — inflaming tensions while pulling resources from where they're actually needed. Rescind the order. Return control to California." is a WTF level statement. Newsom will happily let ICE empty out people from homes as long as it is done politely.
Because that's not what this conversation is about. It was specifically about trump nationalizing the guard. There are other statements of him condemning ICE, it just wasn't in this particular sentence, because it wasn't the topic at hand.
Newsom "condemns" ICE the way Republicans condemn the deficit. I.e., not in any way that matters. And now events are forcing him to pretend to care.
You're moving the goal posts. This one comment that were a discussing has nothing to do with ICE, and everything to do with the national guard deployment.
You can not like the man, and many of us don't, but it's stupid to criticize him in the now for making moves in the right direction, albeit small moves. The enemy of my enemy and all that, and Newsom in the grand scheme of enemies, is far from the worst to ally with.
I don't understand how Newsom can't just order the CA national guard to not follow unlawfully given orders.
I'm not a lawyer but the statute in the Constitution that is written into the executive order as the authorization for it literally says the national guard are under control of the state Governor.
Why can't Newsom give the guard orders and tell Trump to go fuck himself and see what happens? I guess at that point you'll have conflicting orders from federal and state but, in theory, the national guard are under command of the state Governor and he's their highest authority. So they should follow Newsom's orders.
Like I said IANAL so I'm sure I'm missing something but for fuck sake this is outrageous. We're rounding people up for not having a paper, they're not even hardened criminals. If this was hardcore enforcement of actual dangerous people that would be one thing. These are just innocent undocumented migrants trying to live the their lives same as the rest of us.
I don't remember the law or EO that made it so, but sometime after September 11th the President was granted the power to take command of the National Guard. That's not what the Constitution says? Throw it on the pile.
In practical terms, in any given situation where both are giving conflicting or even antagonistic orders, do you listen to the governor of your state or the President of the United States?
It seems ignoring the constitution while continually & increasingly granting power to the federal government for more than a century may have had some consequences.
That's thee theme of this century, didn't you get the memo?
The Consequences of the 20th
Kinda depends on the orders
Spin the scenario around; follow the orders of a sane President or a regressive, criminal Governor?
Except that judgement call is largely subjective. The above is literally what any conservative voter who happens to be in the Guard would think of the current situation.
It's a messy situation to be in, one fraught with desertion, courts-martial, and sabotage.
They're required to serve at the president's command as leader of the military/executive branch. As long as it doesn't violate the constitution. Which they swore an oath to.
If trump gives any orders that go against that, then they are required to disobey them. They will not be allowed to use them as a defense during trial, or if something like the Nürburgring trial happens.
Right now, it's not against the constitution. Yet. There's a loophole they're using and Gavin knows it. He's also too much of a coward to use similar tactics against trump, so he'll high road California right into federal control.
Minor thing: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%BCrburgring compared to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials
Ah, crap, good catch, thank you :) My bad.
The last time it happened was pretty much your spin scenario. I was 5 at the time and remember my parents following it in the newspaper.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/march-20/lbj-sends-federal-troops-to-alabama
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand_in_the_Schoolhouse_Door
The conservative voter is going to side with the conservative politician, regardless of which office they hold.
Maybe. I guess we'll see.
I don't think that's right, other articles refer to another time the President deployed the National Guard without the respective governor's consent, and it was back in like 1965.
Ultimately, the President is the head of the military, and the National Guard is a part of that.
The National Guard is not part of the military.
The National Guard is part of the militia. 10 USC 246.
The relevant difference here is that the president does not have the power to appoint National Guard officers. That power is reserved to the states under Article I, Section 8, Clause 16.
Newsom is constitutionally empowered to disband the California National Guard, by discharging their Commissioned and Non-Commissioned officers.
There you go. Demote/dismiss anyone that followed Trump's orders... assuming you have a spine, which Newsom doesn't.
Move their commission to the state guard.
That would mean confronting Trump directly, and Newsom is a coward who doesn't really expect the Nat Guard to follow his orders over Trump's.
Doesn’t the insurrection act allow the US president to take control of the national guard, even without a governor’s consent?
Hence the reason Trump keeps calling protestors “insurrectionists.”
(Not that I agree with Trump’s bullshit)
Trump:
When fascists said "states rights", they actually meant "localized tyranny". As in, the ability for them to impose their tyranny on whatever size jurisdiction they currently held.
Anyone who isn't a neoliberal cuck warned they would seize the opportunity to impose their beliefs on the whole country, or the entire planet, the moment the option became available to them, because they are criminally corrupt, sociopathic authoritarian megalomaniacs, and always have been.
Trump is again violating the Constitution. he does not have Title 10 authority to federalize the National Guard for anything short of national emergencies. The Constitution assigns that responsibility to the governors of the states, not the President.
Trump’s repeated unconstitutional seizing of power should have had him forcibly removed from office many times over. That Congress has not performed their duty to the people and our Constitution is all the proof we need that a purge is required if we want to survive.
Send state troopers after the national guard. Nothing matters anymore. Form a california militia, fuck all. Send a message to the gangs that they won't prosecute crimes against the national guard because this is self-defense.
The national guard is the state's militia.
The California National Guard is militia from the state of California, but it is not the state's militia. The state also has the California State Guard, which is exclusively under the authority of the governor.
Many (Most?) states have their own dedicated militia, as well as National Guard units.
Not quite, I'm related to someone in my States guard and they focus more on humanitarian efforts and disaster response but they are trained as a militia and under the governor's command separate from the national guard
Okay, well I can do you one better. I was in the Air National Guard myself. The NG and ANG are most definitely state militias.
NG and ANG units are not exclusively state militias. They are also federal militias. The federal government can activate NG and ANG units into both state and federal service.
The State Guard can only be activated by the state's governor.
Correct about the NG and ANG. I have never heard of a State Guard until now.
I've only run across them a couple times. My state has fewer than 200 State Guardsmen.
IMO, It's more of a legal framework than a military force. The state's National Guard could be decapitated, and its body grafted in place under the SG.
Form a new one, nothing matters anymore.
Not when it's been federalized.
No, the state guard is the state's militia.
Start emergency roadwork right outside ICE facilities.
Great way to start civil war.
That would incite civil war.
What's your alternative? Roll over and let them win?
Yeah why incite a civil war, just ignore the invasion and let them win without resistance /s
Build the state guard. Stop using the national guard.
Hell, deploy state guard to protect protestors.
If it's unlawful, you don't need to ask. Just tell them to go home.
He's giving Trump an off-ramp before escalation. Most politicians are better at politics than Trump is, they don't go straight to the nuclear option.
Maybe you should when the National Guard is illegally occupying your state? If not now, when?
Expecting Trump to play ball and use California as anything but a whipping boy is a pipe dream.
After you give Trump a peaceful off-ramp, as I said.
You may be keen to jump straight into a full blown civil war but most people would rather see that all reasonable efforts to avoid it are taken first.
As fucked up as everything is Im half happy the knee jerk reactions of some of the people on here aren't taken seriously.
Reacting to an illegal occupation of the state you govern is not the part where some party involved is jumping straight into civil war! If you would like to know which one is doing that, the context clues are in the first 5 words of the sentence.
The command structure allows the president to issue those orders. The president's justification for issuing those orders is illegal; the orders themselves are not.
The command structure also constitutionally empowers Newsom to fire the commissioned and non-commissioned officers of the California National Guard, effectively disbanding their units.
I'm betting that California has some emergency provision allowing the governor to deputize these individuals into the California State Police.
I think Trump has done enough here to actually get himself convicted by the senate.
The one follows the other.
The president can not order the military to do peacekeeping operations on US soil without a justification to do so. If the justification to do so is illegal, then so is the act of ordering it.
That determination can only be authoritatively be made by the courts. Until the courts say otherwise, the president's order is presumed lawful, and the subordinate officers are compelled to obey it.
The order is one that the president is allowed to make in the specific circumstances described in the order. If the courts determine those circumstances are present, the order will have been determined to be lawful.
Newsom's authority is limited to the "appointment of officers". He can functionally disband the California National Guard, but he can't otherwise countermand the president's order.
This is a roundabout way of making the point I was trying to make.
Newsome said it was unlawful. If it is, then he should be doing more than make social media posts about it.
He wasn't using the social media post as his official action. He was announcing to the public that he had taken official action (thru the proper Dept. Of Defense channels).
Oh my gosh. We got him, guys.
As a Californian, I think our governor is such a douchebag.
The dude is such a sleazebag.
Yeah, I'm sure if you just ask nicely the nazis will go away.
We are ruled by idiots.
bingo
Not to be aggressive or contrary. But what would you suggest we do?
Something you shouldn't be talking about on Lemmy.
"Muh states rights" -Republicans
More like Yes but in two weeks
based
Stand tall Newsome!
Oh man. I needed that laugh.