President Donald Trump continues to maintain control over California’s National Guard, reinforcing the federal government’s authority over state military forces in select circumstances. The decision has sparked renewed debate over state sovereignty and federal oversight, especially in light of recent tensions surrounding immigration enforcement and detention facility access.
The development follows months of friction between California’s Democratic leadership and Trump’s administration over immigration crackdowns, the deployment of federal agents, and oversight of detention centers housing undocumented immigrants. Trump’s move to assert and retain federal authority over California’s National Guard has been viewed by critics as part of a broader effort to centralize power over state-level enforcement mechanisms.
This decision comes on the heels of new guidance from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) requiring lawmakers to give 72 hours’ notice before visiting immigrant detention centers—a change that has already drawn widespread criticism from civil rights groups and Democratic lawmakers. Previously, members of Congress could enter such facilities unannounced for the purpose of oversight, as guaranteed by the 2024 Federal Appropriations Act.
Several lawmakers in recent weeks have reported being blocked or even physically removed when attempting surprise inspections at ICE-run detention facilities. These encounters have heightened calls for transparency and accountability in DHS operations, particularly as conditions inside many of these centers remain under scrutiny.
Despite the appropriations law’s explicit language stating that lawmakers do not need to provide advance notice, the new DHS policy shifts the agency’s position. ICE is now instructed to “make every effort to comply with the law,” but it also notes that “exigent circumstances” — including operational or security issues — may delay or prevent entry. Additionally, DHS has drawn a distinction between ICE detention centers and field offices, claiming that the latter are not subject to the same visitation rights.
The retention of control over the California National Guard grants the federal government leverage in deploying forces in ways that could bypass state objections, particularly in operations tied to immigration enforcement and border security. While National Guard units typically operate under the command of state governors, they can be federalized by presidential order under Title 10 of the U.S. Code during national emergencies or specific operations.
California officials have not issued a formal response to the Trump administration’s decision. However, legal analysts predict potential challenges in court if the National Guard is used in ways that conflict with state policies, especially in matters related to sanctuary laws or state-level immigration protections.
Trump, who has remained vocal on issues of border security and immigration policy, has defended the measure as necessary to “maintain law and order” and “protect American sovereignty.”
Democratic lawmakers, meanwhile, view the move as a troubling escalation. “This is a power grab disguised as public safety,” said one House Democrat, who asked not to be named for security reasons. “The federal government is effectively strong-arming the states.”
Civil liberties organizations have expressed concern that the combination of tighter control over the National Guard and restricted access to detention facilities could lead to unchecked abuses of power. “When oversight is suppressed and enforcement is militarized, democracy suffers,” said a spokesperson from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
While DHS maintains that the updated visitation policy is a matter of logistics and safety, critics argue it hinders the very oversight mechanisms designed to prevent mistreatment and abuse within detention systems.
As Trump continues to shape national policy from a position of influence, the tug-of-war between federal authority and state autonomy shows no sign of easing — especially in states like California that are frequently at odds with his immigration agenda.
The White House and DHS have not responded to requests for comment.
