26 Republican attorneys general back Trump’s federalization of the National Guard, accusing California leaders of enabling unrest.

Republican Attorneys General Rally Behind Trump

Twenty-six Republican state attorneys general issued a joint statement Tuesday supporting President Donald Trump’s decision to federalize the National Guard in California. The statement condemned the response of state and local officials to the recent riots and protests in Los Angeles County, asserting that the lack of action left the federal government with no choice but to intervene.

“In California, we’re seeing the results of leadership that excuses lawlessness and undermines law enforcement,” the attorneys general wrote. “When local and state officials won’t act, the federal government must.”

The attorneys general characterized Trump’s decision as the “right response” to widespread unrest stemming from opposition to federal immigration enforcement actions. Their comments stand in sharp contrast to those of California Governor Gavin Newsom, who has openly opposed the federal deployment and filed a lawsuit against the administration.

Newsom’s Lawsuit Sparks Legal Battle

Governor Newsom accused Trump of violating California’s sovereignty by federalizing the National Guard without the state's consent. Typically, the Guard operates under dual authority, with both state and federal governments playing roles. Newsom’s lawsuit alleges that Trump’s decision amounted to an “unprecedented usurpation of state authority and resources.”

Newsom contends that California’s law enforcement had the situation under control and that the president’s intervention only intensified the unrest. He has argued that using military force in response to protests is not an effective long-term strategy and risks further escalation.

However, Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr, who led the Republican coalition in issuing the statement, rejected Newsom’s assertions. “We all saw what was happening,” Carr said. “Federal law enforcement officers were being attacked by mobs. Local officers reported being overwhelmed and needing help.”

Carr accused Newsom of “gaslighting” the public and criticized him for not accepting federal assistance. He argued that peaceful disagreement with federal immigration policy is acceptable, but the violent actions that unfolded in Los Angeles required immediate intervention.

“Why in the world would he not accept the help of the federal government at a time where there was mob rule, arson, and assaults occurring, instead of coddling the criminals?” Carr asked.

As tensions between state and federal authorities escalate, the legal outcome of Newsom’s lawsuit could have significant implications for how National Guard deployments are handled in future emergencies. For now, the sharp political divide remains front and center, with both sides accusing the other of undermining public safety and constitutional order.