A tense federal courtroom in San Francisco on Friday became the latest backdrop for a widening clash between California officials and the Trump administration over who should control National Guard troops stationed in Los Angeles.
According to The Associated Press, rather than revisiting past debates, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer focused intently on one core question: whether the administration has any legal basis to keep state Guard troops under federal authority months after their initial deployment.
Breyer made clear he was skeptical.
“No crisis lasts forever,” he said during the hearing. “I think experience teaches us that crises come and crises go. That’s the way it works.”
California has asked Breyer to issue a preliminary injunction to return control of the remaining Guard members to the state. While the judge did not immediately rule, his questions repeatedly challenged the government’s justification for maintaining the mission.
Breyer pressed Justice Department attorney Eric Hamilton to provide evidence that local or state authorities were unable or unwilling to protect federal personnel or property.
The judge noted that President Donald Trump already had access to tens of thousands of active-duty troops stationed in California.
Hamilton argued that federal law gives the president broad authority to extend federal control over state Guard troops “as long as he deems that necessary,” and pointed to an incident earlier this week in which incendiary devices were thrown into a federal building.
He warned the court against discounting what occurred in Los Angeles during the summer’s unrest.
“We cannot turn a blind eye to what happened in Los Angeles in June of this year,” Hamilton said.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, however, said the administration’s position sought limitless control over state forces.
“The National Guard is not the president’s traveling private army to deploy where he wants, when he wants, for as long as he wants, for any reason he wants, or no reason at all,” Bonta said after the hearing.
The dispute traces back to Trump’s decision to federalize more than 4,000 California National Guard troops following violent protests tied to his stepped-up enforcement of immigration laws.
Although that number has dwindled to roughly 100 troops remaining in Los Angeles, the administration has resisted returning command to the state.
The deployment was unusual from the start — the first time in decades that a state’s Guard units were activated without a request from its governor.
The troops were stationed outside a downtown federal detention center amid protest activity and later deployed to protect immigration officers as they made arrests.
California sued, and Breyer issued a temporary restraining order requiring the administration to return control of the Guard. But an appeals court put that ruling on hold, allowing the deployment to continue.
In September, Breyer ruled after a full trial that the federalization violated the law. Other courts have similarly blocked the administration from deploying National Guard troops to cities such as Portland and Chicago.
For now, Breyer is weighing whether to step in again — a decision that could determine the future limits of presidential authority over state military forces.
