BREAKING : 22 Governors are backing Gov. Newsom. Raise your hand if you stand with Gavin Newsom…Read more

In case you missed it, every single Democratic governor agrees: Donald Trump’s attempts to militarize California are an alarming abuse of power.

Democratic Governors Association: “President Trump’s move to deploy California’s National Guard is an alarming abuse of power.

Governors are the Commanders in Chief of their National Guard and the federal government activating them in their own borders without consulting or working with a state’s governor is ineffective and dangerous

Further, threatening to send the U.S. Marines into American neighborhoods undermines the mission of our service members, erodes public trust, and shows the Trump administration does not trust local law enforcement.

“It’s important we respect the executive authority of our country’s governors to manage their National Guards — and we stand with Governor Newsom who has made it clear that violence is unacceptable and that local authorities should be able to do their jobs without the chaos of this federal interference and intimidation.”

This continues the chorus of elected officials across California and the nation speaking out against this clear federal overreaction.

In an extraordinary show of unity among state leaders, 22 Democratic governors have come forward to declare their full support for California Governor Gavin Newsom, as tensions escalate over federal attempts to deploy National Guard troops within state borders. The backlash is in direct response to a controversial push by former President Donald Trump to mobilize California’s National Guard without consultation or cooperation with the state government. This unprecedented effort has been widely criticized as an authoritarian overreach and a dangerous disruption to the constitutional balance between federal and state authority.

The Democratic Governors Association released a strongly worded statement, condemning Trump’s maneuver as an “alarming abuse of power.” The governors assert that the authority to activate and direct National Guard troops resides with the states, not the federal government, except in cases of national emergency or congressional authorization. The statement emphasized that deploying military resources into a state without the express consent of its elected leadership undermines not only the principle of federalism but also the integrity of public safety management during times of crisis.

Gavin Newsom has remained a vocal opponent of federal overreach since the beginning of his tenure as governor. In the face of Trump’s directive, Newsom reiterated his stance that violence is unacceptable and that California’s law enforcement agencies are fully capable of managing security and civil order without federal interference. He emphasized that the state’s National Guard exists to support the people of California — not to serve as an instrument of political theater or intimidation.

The controversy took a darker turn when Trump reportedly threatened to send U.S. Marines into American neighborhoods under the pretense of restoring order. Such a move would not only be a significant escalation but also raise constitutional questions regarding the Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts the use of active-duty military forces for domestic law enforcement. Many governors, legal scholars, and military officials argue that this kind of militarized response undermines both civilian control and the role of the armed forces as defenders of the nation — not enforcers of federal political will.

Critics warn that the deployment of federal troops against the wishes of state leadership would further erode public trust, particularly in communities already facing systemic inequalities and tension with law enforcement. Rather than addressing root causes of unrest, such action would inflame them, turning public protest or community concern into grounds for military confrontation. Governor Newsom and his allies maintain that solutions to these challenges lie in dialogue, policy reform, and community engagement — not in the spectacle of armored vehicles patrolling city streets.

The 22 governors backing Newsom have not only spoken out but have also called for clear federal boundaries that reaffirm the autonomy of state governance. Their concern is not only about California — it is about protecting the constitutional framework that allows each U.S. state to respond to its own needs, guided by local leadership who best understand the conditions on the ground. For many of these governors, the issue transcends partisan politics and touches on a deeper question of whether democracy can withstand an encroaching federal executive that ignores established limits on its authority.

Statements from the governors stressed that undermining a state’s leadership during times of civil unrest does more harm than good. They argue that National Guard troops, when activated by a state governor, operate with local knowledge, clear command structures, and accountability to the community. Federalizing those troops, especially without the governor’s consent, introduces confusion, mixed directives, and potential legal liabilities — all of which compound an already volatile situation.

Several governors pointed to the dangerous precedent this type of federal interference sets. If a president can unilaterally deploy National Guard units within any state, what stops future administrations from using this power to suppress dissent, target political opponents, or enforce unpopular policies at gunpoint? The use of military force must be carefully regulated, particularly when dealing with domestic issues. That is why governors are granted the authority to oversee their own Guard units: to ensure that the use of force is proportionate, responsible, and guided by public interest — not political ambition.

Newsom has been praised for his refusal to bend to pressure and for upholding the constitutional separation of powers. Despite criticism from right-wing commentators and political operatives, he has stood firm in his commitment to governing California according to the will of its people. His decision to push back against federal overreach has resonated with many Californians, especially in communities that have long been wary of militarized policing and federal surveillance.

The broader implications of this conflict are being watched closely by legal experts, civil rights organizations, and national security analysts. The erosion of boundaries between state and federal jurisdictions could have lasting consequences for American democracy. If states are no longer able to control their own National Guard or reject federal interference, then the country risks entering a period where centralized power becomes the norm — a scenario the framers of the Constitution explicitly sought to avoid.

Though the public has not been given all the details of the situation, many believe that the federal government’s silence on its precise intentions reflects a lack of legal or ethical justification. Meanwhile, governors from New York to Oregon to Michigan have joined in public support of Newsom’s position, recognizing that California may be the test case in a broader battle over executive power and the autonomy of the states.

For many Americans, the show of support for Newsom represents a beacon of resistance against creeping authoritarianism. It also reflects a broader consensus that the nation’s military and police should never be used as tools of political intimidation. The governors’ message is clear: America is strongest when its leaders respect the boundaries of their power, uphold the rule of law, and trust communities to govern themselves through democratic means.

In the days ahead, it is likely that this debate will continue to evolve, especially as political pressure builds and 2024 campaign rhetoric intensifies. But for now, Governor Newsom stands backed by more than 20 of his peers, and they are united in defense of constitutional norms and the safety of their citizens. They have drawn a line — not just for California, but for the future of American governance itself.