Trump Now Has Access to California’s National Guard - and Newsom Lost Because He Entered the Wrong Social Media Battle

It was a ruling that struck Sacramento like a thunderclap - and was celebrated in Washington as a return to old power dynamics. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco on October 22, 2025, denied the rehearing of the case Newsom v. Trump. That means Donald Trump, in his capacity as President, may federalize California’s National Guard to use it for “national security missions” - a euphemism for expanding the massive immigration operations along the West Coast. The case, originally filed by Governor Gavin Newsom and the State of California against Trump, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth, and the Department of Defense, aimed to protect the independence of California’s National Guard. Newsom argued that Trump’s directive to deploy the Guard in support of ICE operations violated the principle of state sovereignty. But the appellate court ruled otherwise.

The panel consisted of Judges Mark J. Bennett, Eric D. Miller, and Jennifer Sung. The decision was made without a hearing before the full court - the so-called “en banc” procedure was expressly denied. The official notice, signed by the court’s clerk, Molly C. Dwyer, reads plainly: A judge had requested reconsideration, but a majority of the active judges declined. The rehearing was denied. Period.

Judge Marsha S. Berzon filed a separate statement, Judge Ronald M. Gould a dissenting opinion - a sign that even within the liberal 9th Circuit nerves are fraying. Gould, once one of Trump’s fiercest judicial critics, indirectly accused the court of yielding to political reality. Berzon warned that the decision sent a dangerous signal, as it made federal access to state resources virtually limitless. But the majority of the judges apparently wanted to close the matter. For Trump, the ruling is more than just a legal victory - it is a display of power. The president can now, based on the San Francisco decision, place California’s National Guard under federal command to expand what is being called “Operation Homeland Purity.” The mission officially includes “logistical and security support” for the apprehension and deportation of migrants. Internal Defense Department documents, however, show that the plans go far beyond logistics: they also envision deploying armed units for border and airport operations.

Newsom had spent months presenting himself as a symbol of resistance against Trump’s immigration policy - and did exactly what Trump expected: he took the conflict to social media. His sharp X posts, in which he called the president a “constitutional violator” and “authoritarian opportunist,” went viral. But they had the opposite effect. Many warned him, almost pleading, to remain factual, to avoid engaging in Trump’s social media battles. Trump used them to personalize the confrontation, to shift the debate from legal to emotional terrain - and to portray Newsom as a weak governor who “plays X while America protects itself.”

A mechanism long evident in Germany as well: the AfD has perfected the logic of outrage. Anyone who engages with their digital provocations loses control of the narrative. It is not facts that shape the debate, but speed, volume, and the play for attention. That is precisely the mistake Newsom made - and one that many in Berlin, Munich, or Dresden are currently repeating.

While Newsom spoke of federalism and the rule of law, Trump spoke of “borders” and “security.” Language won, not law. California had the stronger arguments, but Trump had the louder echo chamber.

In political circles, the ruling is seen as a lesson in the power of performance. Newsom, who for months had sought to position himself as Trump’s counterfigure, underestimated the mechanics of a public sphere that no longer responds to legal nuance but to slogans.

Now that the legal path is exhausted, California has little room to maneuver. Newsom’s administration can at most attempt to file an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court of the United States - but the chances are slim. The Supreme Court is predominantly conservative, and the likelihood that Chief Justice Roberts would even agree to hear such a case is minimal.

In Sacramento, internal discussions are already underway about how to respond to the looming federalization. A confidential memo from the governor’s office describes a “constitutional crisis” and a “de facto federal command over state resources.” But the political reality is clear: with the 9th Circuit’s decision, Trump’s plan is legally sanctioned.

What remains is an image of shifting boundaries. The court once known as “the most liberal in the nation” has given the president free rein - in a case that touches the balance between state and union more profoundly than any since the Reagan era.

Perhaps, in hindsight, it will be said that the decisive mistake was not made in the courtroom but in the digital arena. Newsom wanted to confront Trump where he is loudest. But Trump’s America does not play by the rules of reason, only by those of domination. And so a legal dispute has become a case study in how power asserts itself in a media democracy: not through argument, but through control of tone.