FnF News
Title: Federal Judge Halts Trump’s National Guard Power Grab in California, Citing “Grave Constitutional Violation”
By Khadija Khan | FNF News | June 13, 2025
In a historic legal ruling that could reshape the boundaries of federal power, a federal judge in California issued a sweeping temporary restraining order Thursday against former President Donald Trump, barring him from asserting control over the California National Guard and ordering all federally redirected personnel to return to the command of Governor Gavin Newsom.
The order, effective noon Friday, stems from Trump’s unauthorized attempts to redirect state National Guard units to assist with his politically charged immigration enforcement campaign along the U.S.-Mexico border—actions that the court found were in violation of the Tenth Amendment and a “gross overreach” of constitutional authority.
“There exists no constitutional or statutory basis by which a private citizen, even a former president, may unilaterally federalize state-controlled military forces,” wrote U.S. District Judge Lillian Mercado in the 42-page opinion. “The court finds that such action represents a serious encroachment on the sovereign rights of the State of California and presents an imminent threat to the rule of law.”
This is the first time in U.S. history that a former president has been legally restrained from commanding military forces—and the implications are enormous, both legally and politically.
The Trump Directive That Sparked a Constitutional Showdown
At the center of the storm is Trump’s controversial “Secure the Nation” initiative, a post-presidency immigration enforcement plan developed through his PAC, America First Alliance. While Trump currently holds no public office, he has used his political platform to lobby state legislatures, coordinate paramilitary-style border initiatives, and issue public “directives” pressuring Republican governors to deploy their National Guards under a nationalized framework to curb what he claims is a “foreign invasion” at the southern border.
Earlier this month, Trump shocked legal observers by attempting to issue federal activation orders for the National Guards of California, New York, and Illinois—none of which are under Republican control. In a memorandum circulated to conservative media and sent to military officers through unofficial channels, Trump declared the “federalization of all National Guard assets relevant to border security.”
Though legally toothless, Trump’s directive caused confusion and alarm—especially in California, where conservative-aligned Guard units reportedly began preparing for deployment following communications from Trump’s private team.
Governor Gavin Newsom immediately denounced the move as a “bizarre and dangerous power grab”, and filed for emergency relief in federal court.
Tenth Amendment Front and Center
Judge Mercado’s ruling was not only a firm rebuke of Trump but also a detailed reaffirmation of the U.S. Constitution’s Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states.
The court made clear that while the President of the United States can federalize the National Guard under specific conditions—such as insurrection, invasion, or other emergencies—no current law allows a private citizen or former president to exercise such authority.
“To permit such actions would invite a constitutional crisis,” the judge wrote. “This court cannot and will not recognize extralegal claims to military command.”
Legal experts say the decision is likely to set precedent for the growing legal gray area created by Trump’s post-presidency political activism.
California Officials Declare Victory for States’ Rights
California officials celebrated the ruling as a critical win in the fight against encroaching authoritarianism and a signal that courts are willing to check rogue political actors—even those with a national following.
Governor Newsom, in a press conference at the State Capitol, said:
“Donald Trump is not a king, not a commander-in-chief, and certainly not in control of our National Guard. This ruling reaffirms that no one is above the Constitution—not even someone who once swore to defend it.”
Attorney General Rob Bonta echoed the sentiment:
“This wasn’t just about who commands troops. It’s about whether we still believe in federalism, separation of powers, and the idea that states have the right to govern themselves.”
Trump Camp Responds with Fury
As expected, Trump’s camp exploded with outrage.
On his Truth Social account, Trump wrote:
“Radical Left Judge BLOCKS OUR EFFORTS to secure the border with California’s Guard. Total disgrace. Biden and Newsom are DESTROYING AMERICA and our great heroes in uniform are being BETRAYED!”
Steve Bannon, one of Trump’s closest advisors, called the ruling “illegitimate” and accused the judge of “acting under orders from the Deep State.”
Despite their protests, legal analysts widely agree that Trump’s case is weak, bordering on incoherent.
“Trump isn’t in office. He has no legal authority over the National Guard,” said former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance. “This is basic constitutional law. You can’t just wake up one morning, claim command over state troops, and expect courts to accept it.”
Echoes of Insurrection and the Rise of Shadow Governance
Critics argue that Trump’s actions are part of a broader effort to test the limits of post-presidency influence—and possibly blur the lines between private political movements and federal authority.
Since leaving office in 2021, Trump has built what many now call a “shadow government” structure, complete with policy councils, foreign envoys, and even paramilitary coordination efforts in red states. Legal experts say the attempted National Guard activation may have been a trial balloon for something much more serious: the use of loyalists within state governments and security forces to carry out federal-style operations in defiance of official authority.
Historian Timothy Snyder likened the move to “the early stages of authoritarian consolidation,” warning that “Trump’s latest stunt looks a lot like an attempt to create a parallel chain of command that bypasses the electoral process.”
Political Implications: 2026 and Beyond
The restraining order lands in the thick of the 2026 presidential campaign season, with Trump still polling as the dominant figure in the Republican field despite not yet formally announcing his candidacy. His ongoing legal entanglements—ranging from election interference in Georgia to civil suits in New York—haven’t deterred his base. But the National Guard controversy may mark a turning point, especially among independent voters who view his actions as increasingly dangerous.
“Voters may tolerate bombast, even bigotry, but when a former president starts playing commander-in-chief with no legal authority, alarm bells go off,” said GOP strategist Sarah Longwell.
Polls released Friday morning by Morning Consult show a 7-point drop in Trump’s favorability among independent voters, specifically following news of the court’s ruling.
What Happens Next?
Judge Mercado’s temporary restraining order is just the first step. A preliminary injunction hearing is scheduled for later this month. If granted, it would permanently bar Trump or any political surrogate from issuing military-related directives to California’s National Guard.
In the meantime, Governor Newsom has ordered a full audit of all Guard communications and suspended any personnel involved in unauthorized coordination with Trump’s office.
The Biden administration, while not directly involved in the case, issued a statement through the Department of Defense affirming that “only the sitting President of the United States may lawfully federalize the National Guard, and only under circumstances defined by Congress and the Constitution.”
Conclusion: A Defining Moment for the Constitution
In an era marked by unprecedented challenges to democratic norms, Judge Mercado’s ruling may become a landmark in the fight to protect the boundaries between lawful governance and political theater.
As former President Trump continues to wield influence without formal authority, this case may be remembered as the one that drew a clear legal line: you can campaign, you can organize, you can run again — but you cannot command an army.