A federal judge is casting doubt on President Trump's decision to maintain control of California National Guard troops deployed in Los Angeles following violent protests. In a hearing in San Francisco, Judge Charles Breyer questioned the administration's authority and the need for ongoing command, citing changing conditions in the city since the initial deployment.
Breyer suggested that no crisis lasts forever, implying that the situation in Los Angeles has stabilized enough to warrant a return of control to state authorities. He also expressed concerns about President Trump's ability to deploy Guard troops "forever" under his interpretation of federal law, noting that courts should not second-guess the president's decision.
The judge's comments were made during a hearing where California officials sought a preliminary injunction to return control of remaining National Guard troops in Los Angeles. Breyer did not immediately rule on the request, having previously found the administration's deployment of the California National Guard illegal.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta criticized President Trump's actions, stating that the National Guard is not the president's personal army and should not be used to enforce his policies "forever" or for any reason. He noted that the use of Guard members in Portland, Oregon, and Chicago has sparked fierce resistance from mayors and governors.
The Justice Department argued that federal law gives the president the power to extend control of state Guard troops as long as he deems necessary, citing the need to protect federal property and personnel. However, a court ruling last September found that the administration's initial deployment violated a law limiting the use of the military in domestic affairs.
With tensions in Los Angeles having subsided since June, when President Trump deployed the National Guard, Breyer's comments have sparked debate about the president's authority to deploy troops in response to domestic unrest.
Breyer suggested that no crisis lasts forever, implying that the situation in Los Angeles has stabilized enough to warrant a return of control to state authorities. He also expressed concerns about President Trump's ability to deploy Guard troops "forever" under his interpretation of federal law, noting that courts should not second-guess the president's decision.
The judge's comments were made during a hearing where California officials sought a preliminary injunction to return control of remaining National Guard troops in Los Angeles. Breyer did not immediately rule on the request, having previously found the administration's deployment of the California National Guard illegal.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta criticized President Trump's actions, stating that the National Guard is not the president's personal army and should not be used to enforce his policies "forever" or for any reason. He noted that the use of Guard members in Portland, Oregon, and Chicago has sparked fierce resistance from mayors and governors.
The Justice Department argued that federal law gives the president the power to extend control of state Guard troops as long as he deems necessary, citing the need to protect federal property and personnel. However, a court ruling last September found that the administration's initial deployment violated a law limiting the use of the military in domestic affairs.
With tensions in Los Angeles having subsided since June, when President Trump deployed the National Guard, Breyer's comments have sparked debate about the president's authority to deploy troops in response to domestic unrest.
. He's like, "Dude, no crisis lasts forever" and it's hard not to agree with that 
. And can we talk about how this whole thing is just a PR stunt for Trump? It's like, he's trying to flex his muscles as the big cheese in LA but really he's just causing more drama 
.
It feels like Trump is using the National Guard as his personal plaything and it's getting old 
.
.
. The judge's comments are like a wake-up call for the admin, but also kinda sets up a court battle that'll drag on for ages 
. I mean, if they can't even keep control of their own troops in Cali, what else are they holding onto for dear life? 
. The Justice Dept's trying to spin this as some kinda federal property thing, but we all know it's about keeping power 
. Can't wait to see how this plays out in court 
I mean, President Trump is basically saying that he can just take control of state National Guard troops whenever he wants, and that the courts shouldn't question him about it. But what about the Constitution? Isn't there some limit on how long a president can keep the military involved in domestic affairs? 
And what about California's rights as a state? Shouldn't they be able to decide their own affairs without Trump trying to impose his will from afar? 
I'm all for public safety, but this is just so concerning... we need some accountability here! 
Like, come on dude, you can't keep an eye on every city in America forever! 
. This whole thing feels like the fed government is overstepping its bounds and using the military as a personal backup squad 
.
.
.
The city has calmed down, but is it really that stable? 
. The judge's concerns are valid, and I think a return of control to state authorities would be a good idea 
. But like I get it, the Justice Dept is all "Hey, we gotta protect federal property"... yeah, sure, because that's exactly why you're deploying troops in the first place 
. i'm not surprised judge breyer is questioning this though, it does seem fishy that the president can just keep deploying troops forever 
and we shouldn't be keeping the National Guard there for, like, forever 
. I mean, President Trump's got a lot of power, but even he can't just keep using the military to enforce his policies willy-nilly 
, the National Guard is not some personal army that can be used at the president's whim 
. It's all about balance and respecting state authorities 
!