Guard call up is invalid- they can be held personally responsible.

[James48]

Guard Members ordered to duty were not properly activated-

The Governor's office states the call into Federal service of members of the State's National Guard was not issued through the State's Governor -- as required by federal law -- nor was it transmitted to, nor approved or ordered by.

"Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States" -10 U.S.C. 12406, National Guard in Federal service: call https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title10-section12406&num=0&edition=prelim

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/06/department-of-defense-security-for-the-protection-of-department-of-homeland-security-functions/

Basically that means they aren’t properly activated, and , if anything happens, they may be held personally responsible- as their normal governmental immunity is now in question. Those Guard are not properly activated. They should stand down and be sent home. They are not there properly.

[marble falls]

1. Will TACO taco or will he pardon all the troops, or will he double down? Get popcorn out!

[JustAnotherGen]

48. Double Down

He's trying to get people to comply in advance of the 14th.

On that issue - If there is all this *American Carnage*

[Javaman]

2. Gavin needs to communicate this directly to those soldiers.

watch them melt into the scenery.

[Doodley]

3. I recommend the protestors print that and hand them out to the National Guards.

[HariSeldon]

14. I recommend blunt-nosed paper airplanes

It's really hard to construe those as "weapons."

[FailureToCommunicate]

24. Love it!

https://www.foldnfly.com/#/1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-2-1

[jmowreader]

60. Oh dude, you have no idea

Joseph Rosenbaum threw a plastic bag with clothes in it at Kyle Rittenhouse, and during Rittenhouse's trial his defense successfully argued that the bag was a Lethal Weapon whose throwing justified Rosenbaum's murder.

So...yeah, if someone throws a paper airplane at one of the troops and gets shot dead, the shooter's attorney will probably argue that "well, it COULD have been a killer drone!"

[FailureToCommunicate]

23. Yes! If only they could be dropped from upper story windows, like confetti parades.

Similar to dropping "surrender" leaflets on enemy troops in the war(s).

[dem4decades]

4. I doubt this matters, since when have laws stopped Trump?

[MadameButterfly]

33. He is losing lots of court cases

Yes, he has been allowed to get away with a lot but he is being called out on everything now. Better late than never.

If Trump completely ignores the courts he needs the military to support that. We are now in a battle for the hearts and minds of the guys with the guns.

[spooky3]

5. I think the goal is to let the Guardspeople know--they don't have

Immunity so should make their own decisions regardless of what TSF wants.

[Silent Type]

6. So far, I've only seen LA police roughing up anyone. In fact, other than National Guard around detention center, not

sure Guard has been involved in anything.

In any event, the immigrants -- missing a paper or two who are likely hiding at home -- are the ones who'll get hurt out of all this.

[LymphocyteLover]

50. and I doubt they WILL do much of anything. There's hardly any protest. No rioting.

It's all just for show.

[brush]

7. The convict doubled down even worst by calling up Marines, active duty troops...

which are not to be deploy on US soil.

We are now in a dictatorship as the convict disobeys the law and the Constitution.

[Kaleva]

18. The Insurrection Act of 1807 applies here

An Act that was used by Ike and JFK

[LearnedHand]

52. What insurrection?

[Kaleva]

59. Here

“Later in the 20th century, it was used to enforce federally mandated desegregation,[12] with Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy invoking the Act in opposition to the affected states' political leaders to enforce court-ordered desegregation.“


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act_of_1807

[LearnedHand]

61. I'm aware of the Act, but there was no insurrection

So the Act is not applicable. This is what I meant.

[Kaleva]

62. They used the Act to do what they did so it is applicable

That is how they were able to use federal troops against the civilians who opposed desegregation.

[surfered]

8. A friend was an officer in the Army in Vietnam. He was ordered to go into Cambodia, armed with a camera and

accompanied by a group of ARVN (Vietnamese) soldiers. He refused the order as it was illegal. Until Nixon ordered the incursion, it was outside the authorized area of operations.

Nothing happened to him, but it probably hurt his career. He didn’t pursue one as he became disillusioned with the war and was honorably discharged as a Captain..

[HarryM]

9. If they are smart (Which I believe they are)

They will charge people under state laws. This way Donny cannot pardon them.

[reACTIONary]

10. Charge who? For what?

[Fiendish Thingy]

11. Clearly, you are mistaken

Last edited Tue Jun 10, 2025, 10:06 AM - Edit history (2)

Or do you seriously think Newsom is ignorant of the law?

While he has protested the deployment of the NG, Newsom has said nothing about the section of the law you quoted- Trump federalized the CA NG, so the law you quoted does not appear to apply in this case.

Other laws may have been broken, most likely federal laws, but that remains to be seen.

Update-
So, since the OP was posted, Newsom has filed suit, alleging the law quoted in the OP was violated. Trump/Miller in the meantime have claimed the guard was deployed under a different law/authority.

At this point, although much has been alleged and asserted, nothing has been adjudicated in a court of law .

The following assertion was also made in the OP:

Basically that means they aren’t properly activated, and , if anything happens, they may be held personally responsible- as their normal governmental immunity is now in question.

That has not yet been adjudicated either, and so must be considered an opinion , and not a fact.

If Newsom’s suit prevails under the law quoted, and the guard stands down, that would be fantastic, but as we have come to expect, things are rarely that simple in the Trump era.

In the meantime, let’s do each other (and the truth) a favor, and make clear distinctions between facts and opinions.

[Celerity]

13. Thank you, although if past is prologue on DU, this misinfo OP will rack up 100+ recs.

[Fiendish Thingy]

15. A lie travels around the world...

Before the truth can get its pants on.

[Celerity]

27. as predicted, 122 recs and counting

[Kaleva]

17. +1

[ancianita]

19. Why "clearly." The OP clearly infers Newsom's likely position; so what if it doesn't mention Newsom. You're

clearly creating a strawman argument over a fluid legal situation right now -- that the OP assumes that Newsom doesn't know the law, and that this isn't the law Newsom would/could apply because ""maybe we don't know if" .
If you're not a lawyer, the question is why. It's just not helpful.

Newsom's still working out the constitutional language that represents other states' rights under the US Constitution. It's language that in this current context, might get appealed to the SCOTUS. IMO, it would be easier for the nine to rule against the defendant felon than for the nine to even consider applying their immunity ruling re the felon's "'core duties" to this case by the State of California -- because they would literally overwrite the meaning of states' rights.

The overall spiritof the OP still helps get people thinking, which, in this fluid situation, is a good thing.

[Fiendish Thingy]

22. It's not a strawman argument

The OP made an assertion (a specific law was violated, thus rendering the deployment invalid) without substantive evidence to support the assertion.

My evidence refuting the OP’s claim is that Newsom (and the AG, and other legal experts) have not made this claim. Clearly, despite the “fluid situation”, they have the legal expertise to determine if the law has been violated or since the guard has been federalized, does not apply.

I fully expect Newsom will file suit against this deployment, but I do not expect it will involve the law quoted in the OP, except perhaps obliquely.

[W_HAMILTON]

40. It is you that are clearly mistaken.

Because the specific law mentioned in the OP is exactly what is referenced in CA's lawsuit, per Newsom's website:

The lawsuit also explains that:

...

10 U.S.C. § 12406 requires that the Governor consent to federalization of the National Guard, which Governor Newsom was not given the opportunity to do prior to their deployment.

The President’s unlawful order infringes on Governor Newsom’s role as Commander-in-Chief of the California National Guard and violates the state’s sovereign right to control and have available its National Guard in the absence of a lawful invocation of federal power.

Taken from: https://www.gov.ca.gov/2025/06/09/governor-newsom-suing-president-trump-and-department-of-defense-for-illegal-takeover-of-calguard-unit/

[Fiendish Thingy]

41. Indeed, that is the law quoted in Newsom's suit

At the time the OP was posted, the suit hadn't yet been filed.

I didn’t see any mention by Newsom of the OP’s claim that NG troops could be held personally responsible for their actions.

The question of the validity of the federalization and deployment is now with the courts, and has yet to be resolved.

[intrepidity]

43. You're saying a suit needed to be filed to .... what?

Prove that the law existed or was violated?

Seems you might amend your post #11.

[Fiendish Thingy]

46. The suit *alleges* that particular law was violated

A judge/jury will decide if it has or not.

I never disputed that the law existed, I disputed the OP’s assertion that because, in their opinion , the law had been violated, that automatically meant that the troops would be held personally liable for their actions.

That has not been factually established at this point.

[Bluesaph]

47. I'm confused

It seems like you’re splitting hairs. The OP obviously reasoned similarly to Newsom and his lawyers. You were and are wrong. Trump violated the clearly stated part of the law that requires a state governor to sign off. I think you should amend your comments because you are now the one spreading wrong info.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

51. The governor doesnt sign off

Under a Title 10 call up the Governor has no say. They cannot deny a Federal call up. The initial order for the call up is supposed to be relayed to the National Guard via the Governor. After that, all further orders are direct from the Feds as Title 10 puts the National Guard directly under Federal control.

[Bluesaph]

58. Was that done? Did they follow the procedure?

Isn’t that the basis for Newsom’s lawsuit?

[Scalded Nun]

12. So if not properly activated, they are held personally accountable? Would they then be held on

state charges, since they are not acting in a federal capacity. No presidential pardons for them? Especially when they start shooting.

[LexVegas]

16. False. nt

[flashman13]

20. Gavin seems to be growing a pair. He can throw down the gauntlet and have the CA Guard commander

order the guardsmen to return home. He could go one step further and have the Guard detain Trump's unmarked ICE terrorists.

If you are going to go - go big Gavin.

[Mblaze]

21. Trump

Is a living example of the old saw, "It's easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission".

[intrepidity]

44. Or something like that.

He *never ever* asks for forgiveness, nor even apologizes nor ever admits fault or wrongdoing.

But I know what you meant.

[ancianita]

25. "My evidence refuting the OP's claim is that Newsom (and the AG, and other legal experts) have not made this claim.)..."

You put Newsom in the OP's mouth -- the OP did. not. say. "that Newsom ... have not made this claim" .

The OP simply stated what actually is a fact:

The Governor's office states the call into Federal service of members of the State's National Guard was not issued through the State's Governor -- as required by federal law -- nor was it transmitted to, nor approved or ordered by.

"Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States" -10 U.S.C. 12406

...

and you then decided that what you inferred was what the OP implied, when it didn't.


Overall, you have made up a problem with the OP that doesn't exist. The situation right now is still too fluid for you to call out people's facts as opinions, nevermind that they're "clearly mistaken" and making that clearly mistaken understanding the basis for your criticism. In the meantime, I support the point of this OP in the current fluid context of states rights, and am glad it made its way to the Main Page.

I'm done here. Have a good day.

[Fiendish Thingy]

42. I didn't "call out people's facts as opinions"

I called out their opinions that they claimed were facts.

Claiming NG troops will be personally responsible is an opinion, not an established fact.

[Blue Ozarks]

26. Grabber

Is a lawless ***hole.
A common thug.
A Putin lap dog.
A wannabe dictator,
he’s cruel and vindictive enough,
but he’s not smart enough to pull it off.

Moral Shame will follow this Republican Congress and SCOTUS into the history books, for posterity.

[Polybius]

28. Before the Civil War, that was correct

After, law was passed so a President can take over the NG. LBJ did it.

[TBF]

29. NYTimes had an article on it yesterday -

I'm a subscriber, so not sure if this link will have paywall:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/08/us/lbj-national-guard-alabama-1965.html

LBJ sent the guard to Alabama during the Selma march.

[Polybius]

30. I have a paywall remover link

Thank you for the link, that was a great read!

[intrepidity]

45. The question is

Did the governor of Alabama request it or otherwise involved in that decision?

That's the question here.

ETA: nevermind, just learned the answer. Yes, it was done against the wishes of the racist governor.

[TBF]

54. In that case it looks like LBJ was trying to protect marchers -

which of course Donald Trump would never do.

[LauraInLA]

31. This is not accurate! It's dangerous misinformation. Please edit/remove.

[Karasu]

32. Are you not aware that Trump federalized this shit specifically so he could do this? Because it sure sounds like it.

Of course, he cited some nebulous "emergency" that he hasn't defined and never will--so it's under false pretenses, as with everything he does--and he put no fucking thought into it whatsoever (the troops don't even have water or a place to sleep), but he still "activated" them, just not in the way that they are traditionally supposed to be.

[Moostache]

34. Prosecute them all.

Start at the top, but continue down the entire chain of command until you reach people who followed the law and not the orders of a Trump sycophant or stooge.

[moonshinegnomie]

35. arrest them under state law

if they are not validly called out then any actions they take are illegal. start arresting the officers involved on state charges that taco don has no say over.

[Firestorm49]

36. All nice but who's doing anything about it?

These articles enrage us but most go nowhere. Where’s OUR leadership?

[Fullduplexxx]

37. Does California need to build it's own military

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

57. They already have one basically

California State Guard. I believe its the largest State Defense Force in the US and I think they have some basic weapons training.

[progressoid]

38. Wikipedia is your friend...

List of invocations of the Insurrection Act

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_invocations_of_the_Insurrection_Act

[Katinfl]

39. Guest on Nicolle Wallace said the same thing.

He was in leadership in the National Guard and he said something to the effect that the guardsmen are in a bad position if something should go wrong. They guardsmen are not in a good position i because they are not there lawfully.

[William769]

49. And will the remedy be remedied?

[JohnnyRingo]

53. How does the fed have authority to send NG troops to Iraq?

That's a relatively new practice, but I wonder what circumstances allow for that.
Did all 50 governors approve, or is there another legal loophole in case of war?

President Jackass may be claiming we're at war with every country that has brown skinned people here.
Sounds like thin legal ICE. ...so to speak.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

56. Title 10

Title 10 gives the Federal government power to call up state National Guards into federal service. Governors cannot block Title 10 call ups. National Guard members have a dual chain of command, their state Governor and the President. When a Title 10 call up is ordered their chain of command is headed by President and for all intents and purposes, they are Federal troops at that point. When the call up is over, they revert back to state control.

[bdamomma]

55. K&R

nt