Sacramento, CA – June 17, 2025 – As California braces for an intense wildfire season, a contentious federal deployment of National Guard troops in Los Angeles has significantly strained the state’s firefighting resources, prompting sharp criticism from state officials and raising concerns about public safety.
Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta have labeled the federalization of California’s National Guard as illegal, arguing it diverts critical personnel from wildfire prevention and response efforts at a time when the state can least afford it.
The controversy stems from President Donald Trump’s decision to deploy 4,000 California National Guard troops and 700 active-duty Marines to Los Angeles, a move intended to address protests and civil unrest linked to immigration enforcement actions.
According to state officials, this deployment has pulled more than half of the personnel from Joint Task Force Rattlesnake, a specialized National Guard unit trained for wildfire suppression, leaving five of the state’s 14 fire crews understaffed.
With peak fire season underway and the Ranch Fire in San Bernardino already burning 4,000 acres, the redirection of these resources has raised alarms about California’s ability to combat wildfires effectively.
“President Trump’s actions are not only illegal but dangerous,” Governor Newsom said in a statement.
“By militarizing Los Angeles, he’s pulling trained firefighters away from their critical work, putting Californians’ lives at risk.”
Newsom’s office emphasized that the deployment has reduced the California National Guard’s firefighting capacity by three-quarters, exacerbating existing challenges posed by federal cuts to the U.S. Forest Service, which have slashed 10% of its overall positions and 25% of roles supporting wildfire response.
The legal battle over the deployment has intensified.
On June 9, Newsom and Bonta filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, alleging that the federalization of the California National Guard violates Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which requires gubernatorial consent for such actions.
A federal district judge, Charles Breyer, initially ruled in California’s favor, declaring the deployment illegal and ordering the return of National Guard control to the state.
However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals swiftly suspended this ruling, allowing the troops to remain in Los Angeles pending further review.
At a hearing on June 17, the appeals court expressed skepticism about the judiciary’s role in overseeing the president’s authority to deploy troops, with Justice Department lawyer Brett Shumate arguing that Trump has sole discretion to determine the necessity of such actions.
Critics, including former military leaders, have condemned the deployment as a dangerous precedent.
An amicus brief filed by retired four-star generals, admirals, and former Army and Navy secretaries warned that using the military to police civilian protests risks undermining constitutional norms and the military’s apolitical stance.
Janessa Goldbeck, a U.S. Marine Corps veteran and senior advisor at VoteVets, stated, “When a president uses the military to police his own people, we are no longer in the realm of democratic governance—we are witnessing the rehearsal of authoritarian rule.”
The Lasting Effects on California
The deployment has also inflamed tensions in Los Angeles, where protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids have grown since the initial deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops on June 8.
According to Newsom’s office, the presence of federal troops has escalated demonstrations, with protester numbers swelling from 250 to over 3,000 following the military’s arrival.
Los Angeles Police Department Chief Jim McDonnell has expressed concerns about the deployment, noting that the role of the National Guard and Marines remains unclear, complicating local law enforcement efforts.
In response to the strain on firefighting resources, Governor Newsom has launched a recruitment drive for CAL FIRE, one of the world’s leading firefighting agencies, through a new website, JoinCALFIRE.com.
The state has also bolstered its aerial firefighting capabilities, with a second C-130 Hercules airtanker now operational, contributing to the largest aerial firefighting fleet globally.
Additionally, California is leveraging advanced technologies, including AI-powered fire detection tools and expanded use of Uncrewed Aerial Systems, to enhance its wildfire response.
The controversy has sparked a broader national debate about the use of military forces in domestic settings.
While the Trump administration defends the deployment as necessary to protect federal property and personnel, Newsom and other state leaders argue it represents an overreach of executive power that threatens state sovereignty and public safety.
As protests continue in Los Angeles and other major cities, including New York, Seattle, and Austin, the outcome of California’s legal challenge could set a critical precedent for the balance of power between federal and state authorities.
With the Ninth Circuit’s decision still pending and a preliminary injunction hearing scheduled for June 20, California remains on edge, caught between escalating protests and a looming wildfire crisis.
“This isn’t about public safety—it’s about stroking a dangerous president’s ego,” Newsom said in a post on X, echoing sentiments shared by many state officials.
As the legal and political battles unfold, Californians are left grappling with the consequences of a divided response to crises both on the streets and in the state’s fire-prone wilderness.
Back to Daily Market News.
Follow Frank Nez on X or Facebook for more community insights.
Announcement: PR Newswire formally announces Frank Nez’s Journalist Verification on Muck Rack, solidifying our position in independent media.
About The Author
