Governor Newsom signs bill to protect California’s sovereignty and guard against unauthorized military deployments
The new law prohibits military personnel from another state, territory, or the District of Columbia from entering California to perform military duty or law-enforcement functions without the permission of the Governor. The bill preserves an exception for forces lawfully called into active federal service under Title 10 and acting under the authority of the President or Secretary of Defense.
“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.”
While this law does not apply to federal active-duty personnel operating under federal Title 10 authority, with the Governor’s signature of this bill, it closes a legal loophole where other states could have deployed their military under Title 32 — even at the President’s suggestion.
Under Title 10, the National Guard is federalized and operates under federal command. The President is commander in chief, and the Guard becomes part of the federal armed forces. Under Title 32, Guard members remain under the command and control of their state governor, while the federal government can provide funding for the mission. Because they remain under state authority, state law can provide for certain domestic law-enforcement and public-safety functions that would be restricted for federal military forces.
The California experience
The question of military command and state authority became a national issue following the federalization and deployment of California National Guard (CalGuard) personnel to Los Angeles in June 2025.
Governor Newsom challenged that federal action in court, arguing that the President had exceeded his authority. Federal records later showed the deployment had cost taxpayers an estimated $111.2 million, while diverting CalGuard personnel from critical missions including wildfire response and counterdrug operations.
California challenged that action in court, arguing that the federal government had exceeded its constitutional authority – and won.
A test of state authority
Other states have faced questions about the authority of their governors to send National Guard personnel across state lines.
In South Carolina, a legal challenge now before the state Supreme Court concerns the Governor’s authority to deploy South Carolina National Guard personnel to Washington, D.C. The case raises questions about the scope of a governor’s authority to deploy a state military force outside the state when state law does not expressly address such a deployment.
The South Carolina case illustrates one side of the interstate-deployment question: when can a governor send that state’s military forces somewhere else? California’s answer is now clear – not here.
Recent deployments raise mission and accountability questions
Recent National Guard deployments to Washington, D.C., have demonstrated why clear mission and command authority matter when state military forces cross state lines. In July 2026, several governors sent Guard personnel to D.C. to support America 250 celebrations, but some out-of-state personnel were pulled away from those events and transitioned to support a broader federal anti-crime operation – without the Governor’s consent.
Legal Disclaimer:
EIN Presswire provides this news content "as is" without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.
