A President Against the Principle of Separation of Powers – How Trump Is Expanding the Use of the National Guard in Violation of the Constitution

San Francisco – It is a historic legal battle, the likes of which the United States has not seen in decades. Before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, President Donald Trump is defending his controversial deployment of the National Guard in California – against the explicit will of Governor Gavin Newsom, against the structure of federal authority, and against the constitutional principle of separation of powers. And it appears he might get away with it. Last week, federal judge Charles Breyer, a Clinton appointee, ruled that Trump had unlawfully mobilized the National Guard without the governor’s consent. But the appellate court immediately stayed that decision at the administration’s request. During Tuesday’s hearing in San Francisco, the three-judge panel – two of whom were appointed by Trump – appeared strikingly inclined to grant the president broad powers. While Judge Jennifer Sung, a Biden appointee, said she understood California’s arguments, she nevertheless cited a nearly 200-year-old Supreme Court ruling that grants the president wide latitude to intervene – even if that effectively overrides constitutional limits.

The central legal question is this: Can the president activate a state’s National Guard without the consent of its governor? Under Title 10 of the U.S. Code, this is only permitted under exceptional circumstances – during invasions, insurrections, or when federal laws cannot otherwise be enforced. None of those conditions apply in California. The protests in Los Angeles – peaceful, politically motivated, and constitutionally protected – meet none of these criteria. Breyer wrote clearly in his decision, “The protests in Los Angeles do not constitute a rebellion.” In doing so, he stood in defense of the citizens’ right to protest – and against the abuse of military force as a tool for domestic political control.

Governor Newsom called it an “illegal and immoral seizure of power” by Washington. His lawsuit against the federal government argues that Trump is disregarding the separation of powers, wasting the state’s resources – and undermining trust in the federal system. In truth, the issue now goes far beyond California. If the appellate court upholds Trump’s authority over the National Guard, it would set a dangerous precedent – a president using military force at will against domestic political opponents, with no accountability, no consent, no oversight. Whether the courts will stop this dangerous trend remains uncertain. What is certain is this: the American Constitution is being tested. And with it, the very founding idea of the United States – that power must be limited, divided, and accountable to the people.