The resurfacing of a 2020 video of Donald Trump stating that he “can’t call in the National Guard unless requested by a governor” is drawing sharp scrutiny amid the escalating standoff between Trump and California Democrats over his recent decision to deploy over 4,100 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to Los Angeles without formal state approval.
In the original clip—recorded during the civil unrest of his first presidential term—Trump emphasized legal limitations:
“We can't move in the National Guard unless we're requested by the governor… I can call [an] insurrection, but there's no reason to ever do that.”
Fast forward five years, the situation has reversed dramatically. Amid ongoing pro-immigration protests in Los Angeles, the Trump administration has unilaterally expanded the federal presence in California, prompting outrage from state leaders.
California Governor Gavin Newsom announced Monday that the state would file a lawsuit against the Trump administration, calling the deployment “illegal and immoral.” In an MSNBC interview, Newsom said:
“The state’s National Guard has been deployed without my knowledge or approval. That’s a violation of federalism and of the Constitution. We’re going to fight it in court.”
The core of the legal and constitutional debate lies in who has control over the National Guard. Normally, Guard units operate under a dual-control system—federal and state—but they can only be federalized for domestic law enforcement if:
-
A state governor requests it, or
-
The Insurrection Act is invoked by the president.
Trump has not officially invoked the Insurrection Act, but his administration is operating in a grey area—asserting emergency powers while denying the use of that specific statute. This circumvention is at the heart of California’s legal challenge.
In his response on Truth Social, Trump dismissed Newsom’s objections and mocked him as “incompetent,” defending his deployment decision:
“If we had not done so, Los Angeles would have been completely obliterated… Instead of thanking me, they’re lying to the people of California and America by calling these ‘peaceful protests.’”
He added:
“We will always do what is needed to keep our Citizens SAFE, so we can, together, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”
Why This Matters
-
The contradiction between Trump’s 2020 statement and his current actions has ignited a national debate on executive overreach, state sovereignty, and the use of military force in civil unrest.
-
Legal scholars and civil rights advocates argue that this could set a dangerous precedent—where the federal government deploys state-controlled forces without consent.
-
Politically, this deepens the divide between Republican-led federal policy and Democratic-led states, particularly California, as immigration becomes a renewed flashpoint ahead of the 2025 election cycle.
The situation remains fluid, and whether or not the courts intervene could have major implications for the balance of power between state and federal governments.
