Donald Trump escalates a legal confrontation with California Governor Gavin Newsom, who urgently requests the removal of 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines. Citing U.S. Code Title X, Section 12406, the analysis argues that federal law permits presidential deployment without governor consent if states refuse to enforce immigration statutes, referencing the 1963 Alabama desegregation crisis as precedent. While Newsom frames this as a rebellion against local authority, the discussion posits Trump's move asserts ultimate presidential power over state governors, contrasting it with Texas's mobilization and questioning the double standard in viewing Obama's versus Trump's enforcement actions. Ultimately, this federalization signals a shift toward centralized executive control, challenging traditional states' rights doctrines. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, Qwen/Qwen3-ForcedAligner-0.6B, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Federal Power vs State Governors00:06:45
I'm just going to tell you, you got court in session right now.
And you know what?
Right about now, I'd be really worried if I were Gavin Newsom.
And I'd be really worried because I'd be preparing for some kind of smackdown.
Does he have a legal education?
It seems like every politician has a legal education.
I'm not so sure.
I know his ex-wife, Kimberly, did.
But Gavin Newsom doesn't strike me as the brightest bulb.
He's political to a certain extent, but not necessarily the brightest.
And he decided to take this one on.
And it's not good.
It's not good because any which way you slice it.
And we don't have to show all the video.
You've probably seen it elsewhere.
But there's a lot of bad stuff going on right now in California.
I'm pretty glad I don't live on the West Coast right about now.
And he got hit with a doozy, okay, this week because he came forward.
He had this emergency request.
He wanted the feds out of there.
We don't want you taking over our National Guard.
We don't want 4,000 National Guard troops.
We don't want the Marines here.
We don't want any of it.
And Donald Trump's like, yeah, but wait a second, because you guys aren't actually doing what you need to protect people.
You compare and contrast that, for example, with Texas.
What did Texas do?
They just brought in 5,000 National Guard.
They are mobilizing their National Guard in Texas ahead of this, you know, no King's Day thing coming up on Saturday because they want to be prepared for any of these protests.
And yet, you know, California, California's like, oh, bring it on.
It's all fine.
Well, there's this little thing, right, called Title X, U.S. Code 12406.
And it enables the president to, quote, call into federal service members and units of the National Guard.
In such numbers as the president considers necessary to execute the laws of the United States.
So he just sent another 2 000 out there, plus he sent 700 marines.
So you get grand total 4 000 national guard.
You've got 700 marines.
And you know who doesn't like it one, Gavin Newsome.
No, he doesn't like it at all because he said, wait a second, aren't I supposed to have a say in this?
Well theoretically yeah, you should.
But you know you're not actually enforcing the federal law and you're refusing To enforce the federal law, well, that's when the federal government's going to come in and trump you, literally.
Now, you know, is it warranted or does this sort of escalate the situation?
I mean, whatever happened to states' rights?
I thought that was what you do because you tell the state, this is what we're thinking of doing.
You know, you don't just send people in, you don't just send troops in.
But what do I know?
I've never run a state.
But I don't really, you know, when you come in and everyone is, when you go into the donut shop, To look for people and you're dressed in tactical gear, you're creating an issue.
You're creating a problem.
You want people to come, you've scared them.
Even when people are supposed to be there, when they come to talk to the judge, you're arresting them right after.
What is going on here?
I think what really matters from sort of a long view here is the fact that he is militarizing and deploying the guard for the purpose of policing Americans.
Protest activity, right?
Our freedom of speech, our freedom of assembly.
And there's a very big, stark demarcation between military troops and law enforcement, public law enforcement, civilian law enforcement.
And you are an army turned inside to police its citizens can cause chaos, fascism, and fascism.
And so I think that's where we're heading, right?
Chaos and fascism and, you know, Trump thinks he's a king because he can suddenly call it.
No, he's actually trying to do what he can to protect the country, right?
I mean, here, I'm going to jump into Gavin's argument.
We'll give him his due.
He and the view, right?
So Gavin's argument out in California is that the statute as it currently stands, 12406, actually only allows the president to move in with the National Guard provided that.
it's in conjunction or with approval, right, of the governor.
So the way the language is, it says it goes through the governors of the states.
But here's the thing.
If the governor is not on board with what the federal government is trying to do, then once again, you go back to the power of the presidency to call up the National Guard into federal service members and units of the National Guard in such numbers as he considers necessary to execute the law of The land, the United States.
Okay, so here's the whole thing.
Like I went and looked all this up, of course.
12406, National Guard in Federal Service.
So basically it reads that whether the U.S. or any of its territories, Commonwealth's possessions is invaded or in danger of invasion by a foreign nation.
Now don't forget, that's one of the things that they have mentioned, invasion.
There is a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States.
Well, I guess they're in danger of that as well, right?
Because they're basically saying a giant F you, go round up your own, you know, like ISIS, they're trying to arrest people.
And you've got the states saying, no, no way, not happening.
The president is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.
Well, that's actually the case, right?
Well, then he's able to go in and do this.
But this is, do you see what I outlined in red here?
Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the states or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the nation, National Guard of D.C.
So they're saying it shall be issued through the governors of the states.
But that's actually kind of loose.
That's where the loosey-goosey comes from, through the governor.
So it's not explicitly said, and you can see on the graphic that I put up on the screen, you know, he's sending these 4,000 total, 2,000 additional National Guards into California and says the requirement to issue orders through the government does, or through the governor's, I should say, does not explicitly mandate the governor's consent.
And the law is actually silent on what happens if a governor is not upholding federal law.
And again, you can go back to You know, not that we want to go back to these days, but you think about what went down in 1963 in the state of Alabama.
And it's a horrible sort of contrast to have to invoke.
But that is a case where you did not have Governor Wallace doing what the feds wanted, and they were not allowing for integration in the state.
And as a result of that, Johnson had to send in the National Guard, regardless of what the Alabama governor said, in order to ensure that the land, the law of the land was being executed.
The End of No Kings00:04:59
In that case, you could go back to commerce clause.
Here you get the commerce clause, you get the supremacy clause, you get the naturalization clause.
And if the government, Congress, makes laws, which they have, saying you cannot illegally be in the country, and they are arresting people who are not only illegally in the country, but have also committed crimes, and they're trying to deport them, and the state government is in the way, well, then you are going to have a problem, right?
I mean, you're going to have a problem.
And so this whole business about, well, you know, you can't do it, you can't do it, you can't do it, because the state doesn't allow it, it doesn't matter in this case.
The state is irrelevant.
And, you know, this is why Tom Homan's like, for goodness sakes, I should go and arrest Gavin.
He's not actually going to do that, but, you know, the president's not necessarily against it.
The California governor has been daring Tom Homan to arrest him.
Trump was asked, what do you think?
Should he?
Should he do it?
I would do it if I were Tom.
I think it's great.
Gavin likes the publicity, but I think it would be a great thing.
Watch out, Gavin.
He's done a terrible job.
I know that was hard to hear.
He was outside the helicopter, et cetera, but he's like, yeah, you know, that would be such a bad idea.
I mean, Gavin wants the publicity.
I don't really mind Gavin.
I kind of like Gavin.
It's just he's kind of being a jerk in this particular situation, shall we say.
And then, you know, you have everybody going on about this king thing.
He thinks he's a king.
He thinks he's a king.
I want to cut to the White House because just moments ago, this just came in, fresh, hot off the presses.
The president's like, no, I mean, like, if I were a king, like, I actually wouldn't have any problems doing any of this, right?
Like, actually, I'd be able to get everything signed into law.
The fact that I'm being met with roadblocks at every single darn turn.
That kind of proves that I'm not a king.
There are several no kings protests planned across the country on Saturday as well.
What are your thoughts on those?
What are they going to do?
No kings?
No kings.
I don't feel like a king.
I have to go through hell to get stuff approved.
A king would say, I'm not going to get this.
A king would have never had the California mandate to even be talking to him.
He wouldn't have to call up Mike Johnson and Thune and say, fellas, you've got to pull this off.
And after years, we get it done.
No, no, we're not a king.
We're not a king at all.
Thank you very much.
He's not a king.
He's not a king because he can't get stuff done that he needs to get done, right?
So anyway, court's in session right now.
What had happened was the judge was kind of smacking Gavin down, saying, you know what, this whole emergency thing to kick the feds out, that's not going to fly.
And so as a result of that, they said, we're going to hear arguments today, June 12th.
And so we can anticipate something coming forward rather soon.
But as I explained, it's not that it's uncharted territory.
I think you just have to go all the way back to 1963. in order to see that the feds kind of came in and stepped over them.
They did also at the time have a very clear order back then on desegregation.
And so maybe this will result in some kind of very clear order from Congress, like a clear, clear mandate.
If somebody is here illegally and is a criminal, then guess what?
They are out.
In the meantime, though, they have to rely on this section, this Title X code, section 12406, which enables the federal government to kind of jump in there as they need to in this particular case.
But back to the Kings thing, because this is actually important.
It's going to keep coming up as we go into Saturday.
They have this whole No Kings Day, which is being paid for by lots of liberal groups.
And it's under the guise of being this like completely peaceful thing.
Look, if it's completely peaceful, fine.
But when you read it, it doesn't actually seem like an attack on Trump.
They put an ad.
Walmart heiress actually put an ad in the New York Times, and it doesn't feel specifically like an attack on Trump, and I think they did that deliberately, but you know what it is.
I know what it is.
And, you know, they've been gearing up for this for a while.
This no kings thing is like their new talking point.
And this is what we heard from Garamendi.
And taking control of the National Guard, federalizing it, and saying he's going to double the number of Guards members who are here on the ground.
In your mind, do you think this is just about immigration enforcement and creating law and order, or is there something else going on here?
Well, clearly, there's something else going on here.
As was just reported, the LA police and the sheriff's department have the situation under control.
The federalization of the National Guard and then bringing in the Marines is something different.
This is about Trump pretending that he is the king of this nation, that he has the ultimate power and authority to do anything he wants to do, regardless of law, regardless of tradition.
And regardless of the tradition of the state governor in California and every other state really controlling their own National Guard.
Trump's Pretend Royal Authority00:00:27
Yeah, but you know, I would go back to what the president just said.
If he really were the king, it wouldn't be that hard, right?
He'd get stuff done.
No, it's just, it's another talking point for them.
And don't forget look, Barack Obama sent millions of people out of the country.
He actually deported more illegal migrants than any other president in history.