2,000 More CA National Guard Deployed As Senators Unveil Bill To Limit Presidential Authority

LOS ANGELES, CA — As a legal fight over who gets control over the California National Guard spills into Wednesday, President Donald Trump tightened his grip on federal troops, deploying 2,000 more troops to Los Angeles.

The embattled Title 10 order from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth came just hours after a three-judge panel heard arguments on whether the Trump administration has to return command of the guard to Gov. Gavin Newsom.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer previously ruled that Trump’s use of Title 10, which allows the president to command the guard when the country is under invasion or rebellion, was improper, writing that “the protests in Los Angeles fall far short of ‘rebellion.’”

Although it remains unclear when the panel will rule, Hegseth dodged a question from Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) over whether his office would adhere to the district court's decision.

"I don't believe district courts should be determining national security policy," he said on Wednesday morning on Capitol Hill. "If it goes to the Supreme Court, we'll see."

Meanwhile, in response to the legal fight, three U.S. senators, two from the Golden State, unveiled legislation Wednesday morning that would aim to "limit unchecked presidential authority" under the Insurrection Act.

The newly proposed act would reshape centuries-old legislation that currently gives the president "broad and vague authority to deploy troops" with or without the request of a state, according to a news release from Senators Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.).

“Our military should be focused on defending our national security — not silencing speech a president disagrees with or policing our own citizens,” said Padilla.

READ MORE: Sen. Padilla Forcibly Removed From DHS Secretary Noem's Conference In LA

Trump's move marks the first time the president has activated a state National Guard without the governor’s permission since 1965 during the integration of schools in the Deep South. Democratic leaders in California argue the military's presence has only heightened tensions alongside a disruptive drive to carry out a massive deportation effort in California.

Last week, a district court ordered the president to return control of the guard to Newsom, who has fiercely criticized Trump's move as an overstep of the governor's authority when he deployed federal troops last week amid immigration-raid unrest in LA.

While U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer said Trump had deployed the Guard illegally and exceeded his authority, the administration quickly appealed, and a three-judge appellate panel temporarily paused that order. Breyer's order applied only to the National Guard troops and not the Marines, who were also deployed to LA but were not yet on the streets when he ruled.

Newsom said ahead of the hearing that he was confident in the rule of law.

“I’m confident that common sense will prevail here: The U.S. military belongs on the battlefield, not on American streets,” Newsom said in a statement.

While the three-judge panel, which convened in a San Francisco courtroom on Tuesday, has not released its formal ruling, the judges appeared skeptical of California's case.

The showdown stems from last week’s chaotic events in Los Angeles, where thousands took to the streets to protest immigration raids. Trump responded by deploying 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to the city — despite resistance from Newsom and L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, who both said local law enforcement could manage the isolated incidents of unrest.

All three judges, two appointed by Trump, suggested that presidents have wide latitude under the federal law that is being debated and that courts have little say.

“If we were writing on a blank slate, I would tend to agree with you,” Judge Jennifer Sung, a Biden appointee, told California’s lawyer, Samuel Harbourt, before pointing to a 200-year-old Supreme Court decision that she said seemed to give presidents broad discretion.

Despite their hesitancy, the judges did not appear to embrace arguments made by a Justice Department lawyer that courts could not even review Trump's decision.

California attorney Samuel Harbourt argued that the federal government failed to consult the governor before making the decision and did not consider less extreme alternatives.

“There’s World A, where ICE is enforcing the law as it prefers, and World B, where any obstacle results in the most extreme option — militarizing the situation,” Harbourt told the court.

“The statute says the president may call on federal service members and units of the Guard of any state in such numbers that he considers necessary," Brett Shumate, an attorney for the federal government, said, adding that the statute “couldn’t be any more clear.”