California’s Governor Gavin Newsom thought he could slam the brakes on President Donald Trump’s decisive action, but a federal court had other plans.
Western Journal reported that Newsom filed an emergency motion to challenge Trump’s deployment of the California National Guard and U.S. Marines to quell violence in Los Angeles and surrounding areas, only to see the court decline immediate intervention and schedule a hearing for Thursday.
Violence has been tearing through Los Angeles and nearby regions since the weekend, creating an urgent need for order.
It’s no surprise that Trump stepped in with federal forces to restore calm. Sometimes, tough calls are the only calls that work.
Newsom, often floated as a future Democratic star, rushed to federal court with his emergency motion to stop Trump’s military deployment. His argument? He framed it as an overreach of federal power.
“Turning the military against American citizens,” Newsom posted on the social media platform X, clearly aiming to paint Trump as some kind of authoritarian.
But let’s be real—when chaos reigns in the streets, protecting citizens often means deploying the very forces trained for such crises. Actions, as they say, speak louder than tweets.
The court, however, didn’t bite on Newsom’s urgent plea for an immediate halt. On Tuesday, the judge refused to step in right away, showing a refreshing bit of restraint. It’s almost as if the judiciary remembers that due process isn’t just a suggestion.
Instead of siding with Newsom’s rush to judgment, the court approved the Trump administration’s request for more time to craft a response. A hearing was set for Thursday, giving both sides a chance to lay out their cases. That’s how the system should work—deliberately, not impulsively.
A representative for Newsom tried to spin the delay as no big deal, telling The Hill, “The court did not deny or rule on the Governor’s request for a temporary restraining order.”
But let’s not kid ourselves—failing to get immediate action is a stumble, no matter how you slice it. The progressive agenda doesn’t always get a fast pass.
The representative added that a ruling on a temporary restraining order is expected soon after Thursday’s hearing once additional briefs are filed. Still, the wait must sting for Newsom, who hoped for a quick win against Trump. Patience, it seems, is a virtue even governors must learn.
This legal skirmish is just the latest chapter in a broader showdown between Trump and California’s leadership, including Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass. The conflict over how to handle the riots has both sides digging in their heels. Neither appears ready to yield an inch.
From a conservative lens, it’s hard not to see Newsom’s move as more about political posturing than practical solutions.
When violence erupts, leadership means acting, not filing motions to block those who do. Turns out, governing isn’t just about press conferences.
Trump’s decision to deploy forces reflects a belief that safety trumps state-level objections, especially when lives and property are at stake. Critics may cry federal overreach, but supporters argue it’s a federal responsibility. The debate rages on, as it should in a free society.
Thursday’s hearing will be the next big moment in this unfolding drama, as the court weighs whether to grant Newsom’s request for a restraining order. Until then, the streets of Los Angeles remain under federal watch, a reality that grates on state officials.