The New Republic—a reliably left-wing outlet that’s never met a border enforcement action it couldn’t demonize—has now declared President Trump’s lawful use of the National Guard to protect federal immigration operations a “war on blue cities.”
Their October 27 article, published after the Ninth Circuit stayed a lower court’s restraining order, frames routine federal law enforcement as an unprecedented assault on democracy. But the facts tell a very different story: Democratic governors in sanctuary strongholds are weaponizing the courts to shield violent protesters and illegal immigrants from deportation, even as their cities unravel.
This isn’t a constitutional crisis.
It’s a coordinated act of nullification.
The Trigger: Violent Obstruction in Los Angeles
On June 14, 2025, ICE launched targeted raids across Los Angeles County to apprehend roughly 400 high-priority criminal aliens—individuals convicted of aggravated assault, child sexual abuse, and narcotics trafficking. Within 48 hours, organized mobs, coordinated via encrypted apps and taxpayer-funded “rapid response” networks, descended on federal facilities.
The escalation, by date:
- June 15: Protesters used 6-yard dumpsters as battering rams to breach the secured garage of the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building.
- June 16: Black bloc agitators hurled concrete, fireworks, and Molotov cocktails at ICE vans. One agent suffered a fractured orbital socket.
- June 17: LAPD—under orders from Mayor Karen Bass—refused to disperse crowds blocking exits, citing “community trust.” ICE aborted three operations.
By June 18, not one of 72 active warrants had been executed. That’s when President Trump invoked Section 12406(3) of the Militia Act of 1903, federalizing 2,000 California National Guard troops (later reduced to 1,000) to secure perimeters and assist federal agents.
The Legal Showdown: Newsom v. Trump
Governor Gavin Newsom filed suit on June 20 in the Northern District of California, alleging Tenth Amendment violations and abuse of authority.
Judge Charles Breyer—a Clinton appointee and brother of Justice Stephen Breyer—issued a TRO on June 25, ordering Trump to “return control of the California National Guard to the Governor forthwith.”
His rationale? The protests didn’t constitute a “rebellion,” and ICE could simply “reschedule” raids. Breyer dismissed documented violence as “isolated incidents,” insisting local law enforcement was capable of maintaining order.
The Ninth Circuit disagreed.
On October 22, a three-judge panel—Trump appointees Daniel Bress and Patrick Bumatay, joined by Morgan Christen—stayed the TRO, citing Martin v. Mott (1827). That Supreme Court precedent held that when Congress authorizes presidential discretion in determining whether federal law “cannot be executed,” the president’s judgment is “conclusive upon all courts.”
The panel’s blunt assessment:
“The record shows systematic obstruction of federal operations by coordinated mobs using physical force. The president’s determination that regular forces were insufficient is not subject to judicial second-guessing.”
Newsom’s en banc review request was denied 9–2, with dissents by Marsha Berzon and William Fletcher—both Clinton appointees. Berzon’s dissent invoked British quartering abuses and claimed the statute’s 120-year dormancy (save Nixon’s 1970 postal strike) rendered it “archaic.”
Parallel Cases: Illinois and Oregon
| State | Governor | Deployment | Court Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Illinois | J.B. Pritzker | 800 Guard to secure Chicago ICE facility | District & 7th Cir. ruled for state (Aug 2025); SCOTUS review likely |
| Oregon | Tina Kotek | 400 Guard to Portland during antifa-led blockade | TRO granted, later dissolved after DOJ showed rioters used lasers to blind agents |
The Illinois case is the cleanest vehicle for Supreme Court review. The Seventh Circuit—Judges Diane Sykes, Amy St. Eve, and David Hamilton—split 2–1 against the administration.
Hamilton’s majority held that “protests, even violent ones, do not constitute ‘rebellion’ absent intent to overthrow government.” DOJ has filed its petition for certiorari, with briefs due in November.
The Sanctuary Hypocrisy: Who’s Really Militarizing?
The New Republic decries “military involvement in civilian life.” Yet:
- California has deployed the Guard 17 times since 2018 for wildfire response, COVID checkpoints, and homeless sweeps—no one cried tyranny then.
- Los Angeles maintains a $3.2 billion police budget and a DHS-funded fusion center, yet refuses to honor ICE detainers under SB 54.
- San Francisco quietly dodged Guard deployment after Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, and David Sacks lobbied the White House—proof that elite convenience trumps progressive “principle.”
The Bigger Picture: Nullification 2.0
This isn’t about protests—it’s about federal supremacy.
The Supremacy Clause (Article VI) leaves no sanctuary loopholes. When states actively obstruct federal law—by refusing ICE cooperation or ordering local police to stand down—they trigger the exact condition Section 12406 was designed to solve.
Historical parallels:
- 1832: Andrew Jackson threatened troops against South Carolina’s tariff nullification.
- 1957: Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas Guard to enforce desegregation.
- 1970: Nixon invoked Section 12406 to end a postal strike halting 90% of U.S. mail.
Today’s nullifiers wear progressive labels—but it’s the same rebellion in new colors.
What’s Next
- Supreme Court: Expect certiorari on the Illinois case by January 2026. A 6–3 ruling reaffirming Martin v. Mott would solidify presidential discretion.
- Legislation: House Republicans’ SECURE Act of 2025 would:
- Lower the federalization threshold to “material obstruction” of federal duties.
- Require governors to certify ICE cooperation within 48 hours or forfeit law enforcement grants.
- Public Opinion: 68% of independents support Guard deployment when federal agents face violence (Rasmussen, Oct. 2025).
Conclusion
The New Republic wants you to believe Trump is “unleashing” the military on peaceful protesters. The truth? He’s restraining chaos fostered by governors who’ve turned their cities into law-free zones.
This isn’t a war on blue cities—it’s a rescue mission.
If Gavin Newsom wants to cosplay as a Founding Father resisting tyranny, he should start by reading the Constitution he swore to uphold. Until then, President Trump has a country to run—and borders to secure.
America First isn’t a slogan. It’s a mandate.
Discover more from RIPTIDE
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
