this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2025

597 points (98.9% liked)

politics

24062 readers

4570 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

outrageousmatter@lemmy.world

aidan@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

Theonetheycall1845@lemmy.world

JuBe@lemmy.world

Lasherz12@lemmy.world

597

Newsom requests Trump admin return National Guard control to California (www.newsweek.com)

submitted 2 days ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

109 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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."

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 39 points 2 days ago

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.

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 139 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (4 children)

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.

[–] aramova@infosec.pub 72 points 2 days ago (22 children)

Strongly worded letters are all the current Dems are good at.

load more comments (22 replies)

[–] Almacca@aussie.zone 41 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] brygphilomena@lemmy.dbzer0.com 27 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Build the state guard. Stop using the national guard.

[–] brygphilomena@lemmy.dbzer0.com 29 points 2 days ago

Hell, deploy state guard to protect protestors.

[–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 104 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I have so much more faith in East LA to fight back than anyone in a position of power.

[–] Drusas@fedia.io 51 points 2 days ago (2 children)

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.

[–] osaerisxero@kbin.melroy.org 74 points 2 days ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Septimaeus@infosec.pub 19 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] brygphilomena@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

We do, it's just small. And shares membership with the national guard.

https://calguard.ca.gov/csg/

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 21 points 2 days ago (1 children)

We didn’t have a problem until Trump got involved.

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.

[–] BassTurd@lemmy.world 40 points 2 days ago (7 children)

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.

load more comments (7 replies)

[–] Ironfist79@lemmy.world 17 points 2 days ago

Yeah, I'm sure if you just ask nicely the nazis will go away.

[–] LePoisson@lemmy.world 80 points 2 days ago (3 children)

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.

[–] Carmakazi@lemmy.world 53 points 2 days ago (12 children)

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?

[–] dhhyfddehhfyy4673@fedia.io 35 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It seems ignoring the constitution while continually & increasingly granting power to the federal government for more than a century may have had some consequences.

[–] A_Union_of_Kobolds@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago

That's thee theme of this century, didn't you get the memo?

The Consequences of the 20th

load more comments (11 replies)

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 29 points 2 days ago

I don’t understand how Newsom can’t just order the CA national guard to not follow unlawfully given orders

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.

[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 24 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

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)

[–] Bieren@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

“No” - president taco

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 45 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Trump:

[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 14 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

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.

[–] demizerone@lemmy.world 17 points 2 days ago (1 children)

We are ruled by idiots.

[–] propitiouspanda@lemmy.cafe 25 points 2 days ago (4 children)

We're ruled by rich people who know exactly what they're doing.

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] Reality_Suit@lemmy.world 33 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (7 children)

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.

[–] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 19 points 2 days ago (10 children)

The national guard is the state's militia.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 19 points 2 days ago

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.

[–] Ironfist79@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

Not when it's been federalized.

load more comments (8 replies)

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 19 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Oh my gosh. We got him, guys.

As a Californian, I think our governor is such a douchebag.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 25 points 2 days ago (6 children)

"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.

If it's unlawful, you don't need to ask. Just tell them to go home.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 33 points 2 days ago (4 children)

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.

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] sarcasticsunrise@lemmy.world 15 points 2 days ago

"Muh states rights" -Republicans

load more comments