After National Guard troops were deployed to Los Angeles during the 2025 immigration protests, California has created a new restriction on certain out-of-state military deployments. But the law does not eliminate federal authority over the Guard.
LOS ANGELES — If you remember National Guard troops on Los Angeles streets during the immigration protests of 2025, California’s newest military-deployment law raises a straightforward question:
Could something like that happen again?
The answer depends on something most people never have a reason to think about: whether National Guard troops are operating under state or federal authority.
Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 1354 on September 19, creating a new restriction on military personnel from another state, territory or the District of Columbia entering California to perform military or law-enforcement functions without the California governor’s permission.
But the law does not prevent the federal government from federalizing National Guard troops under Title 10.
That distinction is the key to understanding what California actually changed.
The short version
What California changed: The state now requires the governor’s permission for covered military personnel from another state, territory or Washington, D.C., to enter California for military or law-enforcement functions.
What California did not change: The federal government’s ability to place National Guard personnel into federal service under Title 10.
Why is this relevant to LA: The 2025 deployment that brought federalized California National Guard personnel to Los Angeles occurred under Title 10 authority.
So SB 1354 creates a new state-level barrier against one type of deployment. It does not erase federal authority over another.
For the full statutory explanation, readers can review the Governor’s announcement of the law signed September 19.
In June 2025, immigration enforcement operations in the Los Angeles region were followed by protests and clashes involving demonstrators and federal immigration personnel.
President Donald Trump responded by calling California National Guard personnel into federal service under Title 10. On June 9, California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Gov. Newsom sued over the federalization, saying the administration had ordered the Guard into federal service without the governor’s authorization.
The deployment subsequently expanded, with thousands of California National Guard personnel placed under federal control and active-duty Marines also sent to the Los Angeles area.
The important point for understanding today’s law is this:
The National Guard troops were not operating simply as a California force under the governor’s command.
They had been federalized.
That difference is key because once Guard personnel are placed into federal service under Title 10, the chain of command changes.
The California Senate Public Safety Committee’s analysis of SB 1354 explains the distinction between the two legal frameworks. Under Title 10, National Guard personnel enter federal active-duty service under presidential authority. Under Title 32, Guard personnel remain under state control, while the federal government provides pay and benefits.
California’s new law specifically preserves an exception for military personnel who have been lawfully called into active federal service under Title 10 and are acting under the authority of the president or secretary of Defense.
That is why the headline “California blocks the federal government from sending the National Guard to Los Angeles” would be misleading.
It does not.
So what does SB 1354 actually change?
The new law addresses a different situation.
Imagine another state sends its National Guard personnel into California for a military or law-enforcement mission while those troops remain under that state’s authority.
Under SB 1354, those personnel generally cannot enter California for those covered functions without permission from California’s governor.
The Governor’s September 19 announcement says the law applies to military personnel from another state, territory or the District of Columbia entering California to perform military duty or law-enforcement functions without the governor’s permission. It also explicitly preserves the Title 10 exception.
The law also does not prohibit every circumstance in which military personnel from another state might enter California.
The legislation addresses exceptions involving certain existing interstate agreements and training or educational activities.
In other words, the new rule is not simply:
“No other state’s National Guard can enter California.”
It is more specific:
“Covered out-of-state military deployments into California require California’s permission, subject to the law’s exceptions.”
What happens if the federal government invokes Title 10?
This is where the 2025 Los Angeles experience becomes important.
SB 1354 does not remove the federal government’s Title 10 authority.
That means a future dispute involving federalization of National Guard personnel would raise a different legal question from the one addressed by SB 1354.
In 2025, the federal government invoked Title 10 to federalize California National Guard troops for the Los Angeles deployment.
California challenged that action in court.
A federal district court later ruled that the administration’s use of federalized California National Guard troops and Marines for civilian law enforcement in Los Angeles violated the Posse Comitatus Act, a federal law that generally limits the use of the armed forces to execute domestic laws. The ruling separately addressed the military’s use in civilian law enforcement; it should not be confused with the question of whether Title 10 can ever be used to federalize the Guard.
The legal fight continued into December 2025, when a federal district court issued an order ending the continued federalization and deployment of the remaining California Guard troops in and around Los Angeles.
That distinction matters.
Federalization authority and domestic law-enforcement authority are not automatically the same legal question.
What could the new law mean in a future Los Angeles confrontation?
Consider three different situations.
If another state’s governor sends National Guard troops into California
SB 1354 is directly relevant.
California’s governor would have a statutory role in approving the covered deployment.
If another state’s Guard comes under Title 32 authority
This is the central situation the new law addresses.
The troops remain under their state’s command even though the federal government can provide funding. California’s new law places restrictions on their entry for covered military or law-enforcement functions.
If the president federalizes Guard personnel under Title 10
SB 1354 does not itself prevent that.
The question would instead turn on the federal authority being invoked, the mission, the circumstances and applicable federal law.
That is essentially why the 2025 Los Angeles experience remains relevant.
Why this matters to Los Angeles’ immigrant communities
The connection to Los Angeles is not simply political.
The 2025 deployment followed federal immigration-enforcement operations that triggered protests throughout the region. National Guard troops became part of the public landscape during a period when immigration enforcement was already producing protests and major disagreements over the federal government’s role.
For people trying to understand what California’s new law means, the practical lesson is simple:
Seeing National Guard troops does not by itself tell you who controls them.
The next question is:
Under what authority were they deployed?
That distinction can determine whether California’s new law applies.
Parriva’s coverage of changing ICE arrest rules in Los Angeles provides additional context for understanding the federal immigration-enforcement environment surrounding the 2025 protests.
SB 1354 belongs to that larger story about where state authority ends, where federal authority begins and what happens when the two collide.
What the new law does and does not do
FACT: Gov. Newsom signed SB 1354 on September 19, 2026.
FACT: The law restricts covered military personnel from another state, territory or the District of Columbia from entering California for military or law-enforcement functions without the governor’s permission.
FACT: The law preserves an exception for personnel lawfully called into federal service under Title 10.
FACT: The 2025 Los Angeles deployment involved federalization of California National Guard personnel under Title 10.
FACT: A federal district court later found that the administration’s use of federalized Guard troops and Marines for civilian law enforcement in Los Angeles violated the Posse Comitatus Act.
What the evidence cannot tell us
The law cannot tell us exactly what would happen during a future confrontation.
That would depend on the circumstances and the authority invoked.
Among the questions that would matter:
- Who ordered the deployment?
- Which troops are being deployed?
- Are they under Title 10 or Title 32?
- Who has command?
- What mission were they given?
- Are they being used for military functions, law enforcement or another purpose?
- What federal laws and court orders apply at the time?
Those details would determine how SB 1354 interacts with a future deployment.
California has changed the rules for certain out-of-state National Guard deployments.
The law gives the California governor greater control over covered military personnel coming from another state for military or law-enforcement functions.
But it does not eliminate federal Title 10 authority.
That is why the experience Los Angeles had in 2025 remains important.
The lesson is not simply that National Guard troops were deployed.
It is that the legal status of those troops and who commanded them mattered.
For Angelenos who watched the Guard arrive during the immigration protests, that is the part of California’s new law worth remembering:
California can now block certain out-of-state military deployments. But Title 10 remains a separate federal question.
