California National Guard members stand guard at an entrance to the Wilshire Federal Building on June 13, 2025 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

President Donald Trump’s move to send National Guard troops and U.S. Marines to quell immigration protests in Los Angeles this summer violated a federal law against military members conducting domestic law enforcement, a federal judge in California ruled early Tuesday.

The ruling from Senior U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer represents an obstacle to any further use of National Guard troops to assist local police in more cities. Following deployments to LA and Washington, D.C., Trump has openly mused about federalizing other state National Guard troops and sending them to major cities like Chicago and Baltimore he says are overwhelmed with crime.

Breyer, whom Democratic President Bill Clinton appointed in 1997, said Trump could not use the National Guard for a wide array of police activities in California. His order goes into effect Sept. 12.

Breyer said the roughly 4,700 Guard members and Marines engaged in police activity in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which he said built on the constitutional framers’ wariness of a centralized military force conducting police work.

“Contrary to Congress’s explicit instruction, federal troops executed the laws,” Breyer wrote in a 52-page opinion. “Defendants systematically used armed soldiers (whose identity was often obscured by protective armor) and military vehicles to set up protective perimeters and traffic blockades, engage in crowd control, and otherwise demonstrate a military presence in and around Los Angeles. In short, Defendants violated the Posse Comitatus Act.”

National Guard expanded

The judge expressed concern about Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s statements they wanted to expand the role of National Guard troops for law enforcement.

“President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have stated their intention to call National Guard troops into federal service in other cities across the country… thus creating a national police force with the President as its chief,” he wrote.

The issue itself dates much further back in U.S. history, forming part of the basis for the country’s break from the English monarchy, Breyer noted.

“Indeed, resentment of Britain’s use of military troops as a police force was manifested in the Declaration of Independence, where one of the American colonists’ grievances was that the King had ‘affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power,’” he wrote.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat who sued to block Trump’s federalization of the state’s National Guard, said the ruling “sided with democracy and the Constitution” and echoed Breyer’s warning about Trump leading a national police force.

“No president is a king — not even Trump — and no president can trample a state’s power to protect its people,” Newsom said. “Trump’s attempt to use federal troops as his personal police force is illegal, authoritarian, and must be stopped in every courtroom across this country.”

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass also cheered the decision.

“The White House tried to invade the second largest city in the country,” she wrote. “That’s illegal. Los Angeles will not buckle and we will not break. We will not be divided and we will not be defeated.”

Spokespeople for the White House did not immediately return a message seeking comment.

Return to appeals court likely

Trump is likely to appeal the ruling to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, where he won a victory early in the case.

After Breyer issued a temporary restraining order in June calling on Trump to return control of the state’s National Guard to Newsom, a 9th Circuit panel unanimously blocked it from going into effect, ruling that U.S. Supreme Court precedent allowed Trump to make the determination that the proper circumstances existed to federalize National Guard troops.

That appeals ruling dealt with Breyer’s finding that Trump likely violated the president’s legal authority to federalize National Guard troops.

The appeal did not consider potential Posse Comitatus Act violations, Breyer said Tuesday. 

Protesters gather in Milwaukee's Cathedral Square to march and rally as part of the No Kings Day protests nationwide. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

Voting rights activists continue to be divided over gerrymandering. Here in Wisconsin, members of the Fair Maps Coalition, who just recently succeeded in getting representative voting maps for our state, are understandably alarmed by escalating threats to gerrymander the whole country, as Wisconsin Public Radio reports.

“I just hate it at its core,” Wisconsin League of Women Voters Executive Director Debra Cronmiller told WPR of the gerrymandering duel between Texas and California, as each state seeks to carve out more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.

“We can’t save democracy by suppressing voters, and this has to be an opportunity to think about a new process and standards, especially in Wisconsin,” iuscely Flores, Wisconsin Fair Maps organizing director, told WPR.

But the president and CEO of Common Cause, the national organization dedicated to voting rights and fair elections, told members last week that the group “won’t call for unilateral political disarmament in the face of authoritarianism.”

The Common Cause position is tricky. On the one hand the group reaffirms its commitment to nonpartisan redistricting commissions. On the other hand it gives its blessing to California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s plan to suspend exactly the sort of nonpartisan commission the group endorses — and which Wisconsin fair maps advocates have long been fighting for. Supposedly, suspending the commission is a temporary measure while Democrats in the legislature draw up gerrymandered districts in time for the midterms. After they do that, Common Cause, Newsom and various Democrats claim California can undo the gerrymander later and restart the fight for fair maps. Really?

“Independent redistricting commissions are one way — and by far the best way — to draw fair maps and achieve fair representation for every single American,” Virginia Kase Solomón, Common Cause president and CEO wrote in a letter to the group’s members. But, a follow-up email from Common Cause reiterated the group’s non-opposition to Newsom’s plan in California, saying, “As the nation’s leading anti-gerrymandering advocacy group, we understand that Trump and Republican leaders’ attempt to lock in unaccountable power poses a generational threat to our ability to decide our own futures.”

Maggie Daun brought up those same dire threats on her Civic Media radio show when she grilled me about my last column arguing that we can’t gerrymander our way back to democracy. What if this is the existential moment and Trump is about to send troops into cities across the U.S. and destroy democracy, Daun asked. I agree with her that we’re in an existential moment. But just because we want Democrats to do something to stop Trump, as so many people so passionately do, that doesn’t mean that gerrymandering to get a narrow Democratic majority in the House is the right thing to do. For one thing, a new House majority won’t be seated until 2027 and won’t fix the immediate crisis.

Trump is already sending troops into Democratic cities. And his plan to try more federal takeovers will likely unfold before the midterms. What we need right now is a massive popular movement to resist authoritarian overreach, local leaders who stand up to Trump, and courts that continue to hold the line on his administration’s assault on the rule of law.

The courts have played the biggest role in restraining Trump so far, issuing injunctions and blocking his orders Their power has been badly limited by the U.S. Supreme Court, which curtailed judges’ power to issue nationwide injunctions and greenlighted some egregious administrative actions. The current Supreme Court majority has also helped Trump’s larger project of dismantling democracy by gutting the Voting Rights Act and by allowing partisan gerrymandering — which delayed but ultimately did not derail Wisconsin’s efforts to get fair maps.

Common Cause has led the fight against both partisan gerrymandering and the destruction of voting rights. On Saturday, the group declared a National Day of Action, with rallies in communities across the country, including in Wisconsin, to resist Trump’s Texas gerrymandering scheme and his unprecedented deployment of federal troops to run roughshod over local communities. But the group’s message is somewhat muddled, mixing strong language about fairness and voting rights with tolerance for the prospect of blue-state counter-gerrymandering.

One good thing about the gerrymandering brushfire spreading across the nation is that it has provoked a bipartisan backlash. Republicans in New York and California, facing the prospect of being drawn out of their seats, have begun speaking out against the gerrymandering plan for Texas, Politico reports.

Some quick math suggests that Republicans are likely to win a nationwide redistricting war that pulls in Missouri, Indiana, Florida and other red states. But Republicans who are in a minority in California and New York are still worried about losing their seats. “Redistricting is not really an ideological exercise as much as a self-interest exercise,” California-based GOP strategist Rob Stutzman told Politico. Hence blue state Republican House members are calling for their colleagues to stand down in Texas and other red states, lest they lose their seats in the blue state counter-gerrymander. 

Instead of looking to gerrymandering, which is unfair, diminishes democracy and escalates hyper partisanship, opponents of the Trump administration need to keep building a big, pro-democracy movement that unites a majority of the country against Trump’s authoritarian overreach.

Wisconsin could lead the way. 

U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan, who has been holding town halls in Republican districts, reports being deluged with worried questions from both his own and his GOP colleagues’ constituents who don’t like the cuts to Medicaid, food assistance, and Social Security staffing in the unpopular “Big Beautiful Bill Act.” Most Americans don’t want to give away their health care, security and well-being so Elon Musk can get a tax cut.

Unfortunately, right-wing activists have played a long game, stacking the Supreme Court, blocking Democratic nominees, destroying the Voting Rights Act and putting the whole Heritage Foundation Project 2025 plan for authoritarianism in place. That won’t be undone in a single midterm election. But it is possible to leverage a broad-based populist movement of people who recognize it’s in their own interest to fight back. 

Federal Bureau of Investigation and Metropolitan Police Department officers conduct a traffic stop near the U.S. Capitol on Aug. 14, 2025 in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice will rewrite an order from Attorney General Pam Bondi that initially placed a Trump administration official in charge of the District of Columbia’s police force, after an emergency hearing late Friday afternoon on a lawsuit filed by the district.

Attorneys on behalf of the Justice Department told District of Columbia Judge Ana C. Reyes they would rewrite Section 1 of Bondi’s order by a deadline the judge set of 6:30 p.m. Eastern Friday.

In that section, Bondi’s late Thursday order named Terry Cole, administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, as head of the Metropolitan Police Department.

District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb called that move a “brazen usurpation of the district’s authority” in his suit filed early Friday against the Trump administration.

Reyes, who was nominated by former President Joe Biden, said if she did not receive the new order by the deadline, she would issue a temporary restraining order against the DOJ. She said she found that section of Bondi’s order “plainly contrary to statute” of the district’s Home Rule Act of 1973.

The exact changes to the order were not immediately available.

District filed suit Friday

Schwalb early Friday sued the Trump administration for taking control of the Metropolitan Police Department’s 3,400 officers.

The suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia argued that President Donald Trump’s Monday executive order to federalize the district’s police force “far exceeded” the president’s authority under the Home Rule Act of 1973 that allows Washingtonians to elect their local leaders, but gives Congress control over local laws and the district’s budget.

Trump has warned he may pursue similar action in other Democratic-led cities that he sees as having “totally out of control” crime, though experts have questioned the legality and mayors already have raised objections.

“This is the gravest threat to Home Rule DC has ever faced, and we are fighting to stop it,” Schwalb, a Democrat elected in 2022, wrote on social media. “The Administration’s actions are brazenly unlawful. They go well beyond the bounds of the President’s limited authority and instead seek a hostile takeover of MPD.”

District Mayor Muriel Bowser pushed back on Bondi’s order, and wrote on social media that “there is no statute that conveys the District’s personnel authority to a federal official.”

“Let us be clear about what the law requires during a Presidential declared emergency: it requires the mayor of Washington, DC to provide the services of the Metropolitan Police Department for federal purposes at the request of the President,” she said. “We have followed the law.”

The suit asks for a judge to vacate Bondi’s order and an order to prevent the Trump administration “from issuing any future orders or directives or taking any other action that attempts to place MPD under the control of anyone other than the Mayor and the Chief of Police, otherwise assert operational control over MPD, or otherwise attempt to direct local law enforcement activities.”

The suit does not challenge Trump’s decision to deploy 800 National Guard members to the district. Because the district, home to more than 700,000 residents, is not a state, the president has the sole authority over the National Guard members.

Carjacking preceded Trump order

Trump earlier this week declared a “crime emergency” after a former U.S. Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, official was injured on Aug. 3 in an attempted carjacking incident around 3 a.m. Eastern near the Logan Circle neighborhood. Two Maryland teenagers were arrested on charges of unarmed carjacking in connection with the incident.

Violent crime in the district is at a historic 30-year low.

The suit notes Trump’s previous comments about his plans for the district, from his time as a 2024 presidential candidate to his most recent remarks about taking over control of the district while at a February press conference.

“I think that we should govern the District of Columbia … I think that we should run it strong, run it with law and order, make it absolutely flawless … And I think we should take over Washington, D.C. … We should govern D.C. The federal government should take over the governance of D.C.,” Trump said in the court document.

Advocates and local leaders have criticized the president’s decision, arguing that the move is nothing more than an extension of the administration’s immigration crackdown. Checkpoints have popped up all over the city in communities with a high immigrant population. 

Additionally, the district’s police chief Thursday issued a new order to allow local police to aid federal officials in immigration enforcement for immigrants not in police custody.

Trump praised Thursday’s order, calling it “a very positive thing,” especially at checkpoints in the district.

“When they stop people, they find they’re illegal, they report them, they give them to us,” he said.

President Donald Trump announces a "crime emergency" in Washington, D.C., during a White House press conference on Aug. 11, 2025. Standing behind Trump are, from left to right, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Attorney General Pam Bondi, FBI Director Kash Patel and U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro. (Image via White House livestream)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump asserted control Monday of the District of Columbia police force and mobilized 800 National Guard troops in the nation’s capital under what he declared a “crime emergency.”

Trump took the step despite a three-decade low in violent crime in Washington, D.C., while warning he may pursue similar action in other Democratic-led cities that he sees as having “totally out of control” crime.

Trump at a press conference said that he hopes other Democratic-led cities are watching because Monday’s actions in the district are just the beginning.

“We’re starting very strongly with D.C.,” Trump said.

The president placed the Metropolitan Police Department of roughly 3,400 officers under federal control, citing the district’s Home Rule Act that allows for the federal takeover until an emergency is declared over, or 30 days after the declaration. Congress can also authorize the extension.

“We’re going to take our capital back,” Trump said.

The mayor of the district, Muriel Bowser, called Monday’s action “unsettling and unprecedented.” She added that she was not informed by the president that the district’s police force would be taken over.

DOGE staffer hurt

The escalation of federal control came after a former U.S. Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, official was injured in an attempted carjacking incident around 3 a.m. Eastern near the district neighborhood of Logan Circle. Two Maryland teenagers were arrested on charges of unarmed carjacking in connection with the incident.

The president said he is prepared to send in more National Guard “if needed,” and that he will handle the city the same way he has handled immigration at the southern border. The Trump administration has been carrying out a campaign of mass deportations.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said during the press conference that members of the National Guard will be “flowing into” the district sometime this week.

Local officials in the district protested Trump’s move. D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb, an elected official, wrote on X, formerly Twitter, that the Trump administration’s “actions are unprecedented, unnecessary, and unlawful.”

“There is no crime emergency in the District of Columbia. Violent crime in DC reached historic 30-year lows last year, and is down another 26% so far this year,” Schwalb said.

“We are considering all of our options and will do what is necessary to protect the rights and safety of District residents,” he continued.

Trump at the press conference said that he’s also directed officials to clear out encampments of homeless people in the district, but did not detail where those people would be moved.

Hundreds of federal law enforcement officers, representing agencies from the Drug Enforcement Agency to the Interior Department, were deployed across the city Saturday and Sunday.

Los Angeles and beyond

The president’s crackdown in the district occurred after a federal appeals court this summer temporarily approved Trump’s move to take control of the California National Guard from Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom for the purpose of quelling protests over the administration’s aggressive immigration raids.

The president Monday slammed several major Democratic cities – Baltimore, Chicago, New York City and Oakland – and inaccurately claimed they had the highest murder rates. 

Trump said that he hopes other cities are “watching us today.”

“Maybe they’ll self clean up and maybe they’ll self do this and get rid of the cashless bail thing and all of the things that caused the problem,” the president said.

Trump pointed at Chicago, criticizing Mayor Brandon Johnson and Illinois Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker.

“I understand he wants to be president,” Trump said of Pritzker, before taking a shot at the governor’s personal appearance. “I noticed he lost a little weight so maybe he has a chance.”

Pritzker is hosting Texas Democrats who left the state to prevent the state legislature from having a quorum after Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott called a special session in order to redistrict the state to give more seats to Republicans in Congress.

GOP applauds 

The top Republican on the U.S. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which has jurisdiction over the district, praised Trump’s decision to deploy the National Guard and take over the police department.

“President Trump is rightly using executive power to take bold and necessary action to crack down on crime and restore law and order in Washington, D.C.,” Rep. James Comer, Republican of Kentucky, said in a statement.

Comer added that the committee next month will hold a hearing with Schwalb, D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson and Mayor Muriel Bowser.

While state governors have control over their National Guards, the president has control over the National Guard members in the district. The National Guard does not have arresting authority, under the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which generally bars the use of the military for domestic law enforcement purposes.

During Trump’s first term, he deployed roughly 5,000 National Guard on Black Lives Matter protesters in the district after the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis in 2020.

And despite requests from congressional leaders, Trump notably delayed activating National Guard members during the 2021 insurrection on the U.S. Capitol, when the president’s supporters tried to subvert the certification of the 2020 presidential election.

In one of Trump’s first actions on his inauguration day in January, he pardoned hundreds of Jan. 6 rioters who were charged by the Department of Justice for their involvement in the insurrection.

Putin meeting

In a question-and-answer session after announcing the National Guard deployment, Trump told reporters he hoped his meeting this week with Russian President Vladimir Putin would help put that country on a path to peace with Ukraine, which he said would involve each country ceding some territory to the other.

Trump described the Friday summit in Alaska — Putin’s first visit to the U.S. in a decade — as a “feel-out meeting.”

Asked if Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was invited to the summit, Trump said he was “not part of it.” Any framework for peace discussed between Trump and Putin would be relayed to Zelenskyy, he said.

An end to the war would have to come from direct talks between Putin and Zelenskyy, which may or may not ultimately involve the U.S., he said.

“I’m going to put the two of them in a room, and I’ll be there or I won’t be there, and I think it’ll get solved,” he said of Putin and Zelenskyy.

Trump said he was “a little disappointed” that Zelenskyy did not immediately agree to cede territory to Russia, which invaded his country in February 2022. Zelenskyy has repeatedly said giving land to Russia was a nonstarter, including after Trump suggested it over the weekend.

“Ukrainians will not gift their land to the occupier,” Zelenskyy said in a video address Saturday, according to The New York Times.