Fri Jun 20 03:26:43 UTC 2025: Okay, here’s a summary of the text and a news article based on it, written from the perspective of “The Hindu,” an Indian newspaper, under its section “The View From India Looking at World Affairs”:
**Summary:**
A U.S. appeals court has overturned a lower court ruling, allowing President Donald Trump to maintain federal control of the National Guard deployed to Los Angeles following protests sparked by immigration raids. The decision reverses a judge’s finding that Trump acted illegally by deploying the troops without California Governor Gavin Newsom’s consent. The ruling has potentially far-reaching implications regarding presidential power to deploy soldiers within the United States, especially in Democratic-run states where the President has prioritized deportations. The case highlights the ongoing conflict between the federal government and the state of California over immigration enforcement and the limits of executive authority.
**News Article:**
**Trump Retains Control of National Guard in California, Sparking Debate on Federal Power**
*LOS ANGELES, JUNE 20, 2025, 08:56 am IST* – A U.S. appeals court has granted President Donald Trump the authority to maintain federal control over National Guard troops deployed to Los Angeles, following protests against recent immigration raids. The decision overturns an earlier ruling that deemed the President’s action illegal due to California Governor Gavin Newsom’s opposition.
The ruling has ignited a fresh debate over the extent of presidential power within the United States, particularly concerning the deployment of troops in states with opposing political views. This marks the first time since 1965 that a President has federalized a state’s National Guard without the Governor’s approval.
The court stated that President Trump “lawfully exercised his statutory authority” in federalizing control of the Guard and that Newsom had no power to veto the president’s order. This legal battle could have far-reaching consequences for future deployments, as President Trump has made clear his intention to prioritize deportations from Democratic-led cities.
Governor Newsom, a Democrat, had argued that the troop deployment was an overreach of federal authority, inflaming tensions and misusing resources. However, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, including two judges appointed by Mr. Trump, suggested that Presidents have considerable discretion under federal law and that courts should be hesitant to intervene.
The case was initially filed by Newsom, who secured an early victory when a lower court judge ruled that Trump had exceeded his legal authority, which only allows presidents to take control of National Guard during times of “rebellion or danger of a rebellion.”
The Trump administration countered that courts cannot second-guess the President’s decisions and secured a temporary halt from the appeals court. The decision means control of the California National Guard will stay in federal hands as the lawsuit continues to unfold. The ruling is being closely watched both within the United States and internationally, particularly in India, where questions of federal-state relations and the limits of executive power are matters of ongoing debate and constitutional interpretation.
First Piper 