Home>Articles>Newsom Signs Bill Barring Out-of-State National Guard Deployments into CA

Los Ángeles Riots June 2025. (Photo: YouTube screenshot)

Newsom Signs Bill Barring Out-of-State National Guard Deployments into CA

Because we don’t want military help with our riots?

By Katy Grimes, September 19, 2026 8:48 am

California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a bill Saturday to ban other states from deploying National Guard troops to California without permission.

From the governor’s press release:

“Strengthening control over out-of-state military forces on California soil, Governor Gavin Newsom today signed a bill that would prohibit other state militaries from entering California without the Governor’s explicit permission.

At a time when the Trump administration is increasingly treating states as targets rather than partners, Senate Bill 1354 by Senator Bob Archuleta (D-Pico Rivera) makes clear that California will not surrender its constitutional role, its values, or the rights of the nearly 40 million people who call this state home.”

What is supposed to look like action against the Trump administration, Senate Bill 1354 by Senator Bob Archuleta (D-Pico Rivera), draws a clear line around state-to-state military deployments and preserves California’s sovereignty over military forces operating within its borders, and is a direct response to President Donald Trump’s use of military troops sent in to assist with law and order during Los Angeles riots in June 2025.

What?

In June 2025, after violent Los Angeles riots broke out, ostensibly as a response to ICE arrests of criminal illegal aliens,” the President authorized deployment of 4,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles, to protect federal buildings, as well as immigration agents during the Los Angeles riots – a decision which Gov. Newsom fought. A three Judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit disagreed with the governor and issued an unanimous order in a stunning victory for President Donald J. Trump.

The 9th Circuit decision explains that the President’s order federalizing members of the California National Guard was authorized.

“The undisputed facts demonstrate that before the deployment of the National Guard, protesters ‘pinned down’ several federal officers and threw ‘concrete chunks, bottles of liquid, and other objects’ at the officers. Protesters also damaged federal buildings and caused the closure of at least one federal building. And a federal van was attacked by protesters who smashed in the van’s windows,” the court wrote. “The federal government’s interest in preventing incidents like these is significant.”

This is footage of the Los Angeles riots:

In response, Sen. Archuletta introduced SB 1354 in February 2026. The bill prohibits military personnel of another state, territory, or district from entering, or causing something to enter, California to perform military duty or law enforcement functions without the permission of the Governor. The bill exempts personnel acting under federal Title 10 authority and allows the Governor to delegate approval authority to the Adjutant General.

Because we don’t want military help with our riots?

“SB 1354 protects California’s sovereignty by ensuring that military personnel from other states only enter California for appropriate missions and training,” said Senator Archuleta. “Other states’ military forces should never be used to enforce federal law in California without receiving proper authority. Thank you Governor Newsom for signing this valuable safeguard which will protect the rights and safety of all Californians.”

Governor Newsom has framed the measure as protecting state sovereignty and the Governor’s role as commander-in-chief of California’s militia, and justified the bill over 2025–2026 disputes over National Guard use in Los Angeles and other cities, cases in which missions shifted after troops arrived, and the fact that several other states already have similar entry-permission statutes.

It is still unclear why the bill was necessary as it was written to avoid conflict with federal military and instead targets other states’ state-controlled deployments, because those troops remain under their home-state governor’s command even when the federal government funds the mission.

Gov. Newsom is saying that even if a President orders National Guard troops to assist California with riots, the governor gets to decide of other states troops can be sent into California, even at the President’s order, without California’s consent.

SB 1354 adds California Military and Veterans Code § 570. It bars military personnel of another state, territory, or the District of Columbia from entering California—or causing something to enter—to perform military duty or law-enforcement functions for another state without the California Governor’s permission. 

The prohibition does not apply to:

  • Personnel called into active federal service under Title 10 of the U.S. Code and acting under the President or Secretary of Defense.
  • Military compacts entered before January 1, 2027 (e.g., existing Emergency Management Assistance Compact arrangements).
  • Educational courses or training exercises in California involving out-of-state military personnel.

Title 10 federalization places those forces under federal command as part of the U.S. armed forces. The bill therefore does not purport to regulate or obstruct federal active-duty operations. 

Where it intersects federal frameworks

Under Title 32, National Guard members remain under their home-state governor’s command and control even when federally funded. Because they are not federalized, Posse Comitatus* restrictions that apply to Title 10 forces do not automatically apply in the same way, and they can perform certain domestic functions under state authority. California’s law asserts that another state’s governor cannot send those forces into California for military or law-enforcement missions without California’s consent. That is a state-sovereignty claim over who may exercise military or police power on California soil when the sending force is still under state (not federal) command. Existing mutual-aid compact language already generally requires a request from the receiving state; this statute makes the permission requirement explicit and statewide. 

In short, while SB 1354 draws a line around state-to-state military and law-enforcement entries while leaving federal Title 10 forces outside its reach. It intersects the dual-status National Guard system (Title 32 vs. Title 10) by treating Title 32 forces from other states as subject to California’s permission when they would operate on California soil under another state’s authority, ordered by the President.

Whether this bill survives a future Supremacy Clause challenge remains to be seen.

Bottom line: this is another poke in Trump’s eye by the secure governor who desperately wants to be President.

*The Posse Comitatus Act (1878) limits use of federal military forces in domestic law enforcement. 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Spread the news:

 RELATED ARTICLES

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *