Introduction
A CBS News article discussing a federal appeals court decision sparked attention for claiming that former President Trump lawfully used the National Guard in Los Angeles under a rarely invoked federal statute. With National Guard troops mobilized amid protests against immigration enforcement, readers questioned whether the protests truly met the legal threshold of a “rebellion” sufficient to override California’s authority. The article also raised concerns over presidential powers and federalism. We investigated the factual accuracy behind the claims.
Historical Context
Under U.S. law, the National Guard generally operates under the command of each state’s governor. However, the president has the authority to “federalize” these forces under Title 10 of the U.S. Code, particularly during national emergencies, insurrections, or when federal law cannot be enforced locally. Historically, this power has been used sparingly — notably during the Civil Rights era, such as when President Lyndon B. Johnson deployed the Guard without state consent during the Selma-to-Montgomery march in 1965. The debate surrounding Trump’s 2025 order echoes broader legal tensions between federal authority and states’ rights.
Claim #1: The protests in Los Angeles constituted a “rebellion,” justifying the President’s invocation of Title 10
This claim is highly disputed and lacks sufficient evidence to be classified as a full-scale rebellion under the legal framework of Title 10. The statute allows the president to call forth National Guard troops if there is a “rebellion” or danger thereof, preventing enforcement of federal law.
Federal officials cited interference with immigration agents and threats to federal property as justification. However, normal protest activity, even if disruptive, has not historically been classified legally as a rebellion. According to guidance from the Department of Defense and legal interpretations by the Congressional Research Service, rebellion implies a violent uprising against the government — a much higher threshold than demonstrations or civil unrest.
In this case, no substantial evidence indicated that protestors were engaged in an organized revolt with intent to overthrow the government. Use of the term “rebellion” in the Justice Department’s arguments appears to be rhetorical and lacks a factual basis that meets past precedents, such as those used during the Civil War or Civil Rights Movement.
Claim #2: Title 10 requires the President to consult with governors before federalizing the National Guard
This claim is inaccurate. There is confusion around whether the President is obligated to seek a governor’s input before activating the Guard under Title 10. Title 10 states that orders should go “through the governors,” but the statute does not give state governors veto power over the activation or federalization process.
Legal experts, including analysis from the Brennan Center for Justice and the Congressional Research Service, affirm that while it’s customary and politically prudent for presidents to coordinate with governors, the law does not require consent. The 9th Circuit’s ruling supports this interpretation by clarifying that the phrase “through the governors” is procedural, not substantive. Therefore, the President did not violate Title 10 by not obtaining Governor Newsom’s approval.
Claim #3: Federal courts cannot review a President’s decision to federalize the National Guard
This claim is misleading. While courts traditionally exercise a high level of deference to presidential military decisions, they retain the authority to review whether the president acted within the scope of the law. In this case, although the Justice Department asserted that courts should not second-guess the commander-in-chief’s decisions about rebellion and deployment, the 9th Circuit explicitly rejected the idea that the executive branch is beyond judicial scrutiny.
Legal precedent establishes that courts can and do assess whether federal statutes have been lawfully applied. In Doe v. Rumsfeld and Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, the courts affirmed that presidential power is not absolute, especially when it potentially bypasses statutory limitations.
Claim #4: It had been 60 years since a president federalized the National Guard without a state’s request
This claim is accurate, based on historical records. The last widely recognized example occurred during the Civil Rights Movement when President Lyndon B. Johnson deployed federal troops to enforce civil rights laws in Alabama without approval from the state. Records from the Brennan Center for Justice and National Guard Bureau confirm that such presidential intervention without a governor’s request is exceptionally rare, lending weight to characterizing Trump’s move as extraordinary.
However, it’s worth noting that even though rare, this action remains constitutional under Title 10 when carefully justified.
Conclusion
The CBS News article correctly reports on the legal proceedings and accurately summarizes the 9th Circuit’s reasoning. Where the article introduces ambiguity is in describing the protests as a “rebellion” under Title 10 — a framing primarily used by the Trump administration but not legally established by an independent finding of fact. While the President had statutory grounds for deploying the National Guard, calling the protest a “rebellion” exaggerates the nature of the demonstrations and lacks supporting evidence. Additionally, the article provides balanced representation from both federal and state authorities but could have done more to clarify that courts retain oversight in these circumstances. Overall, the reporting is generally accurate yet omits critical context about what legally constitutes a rebellion under U.S. law.
Take Action Now
Want to fact-check more articles like this? Add clarity to your scroll with real-time insights and full transparency.
Download the DBUNK App and help protect your feed from false or misleading content.
