Trump Orders Federal Investigation into California Governor Newsom on Suspicion of Treason and Inciting Public Unrest
August 19, 2025
In a dramatic escalation of tensions between the federal government and the state of California, President Donald Trump has ordered a federal investigation into California Governor Gavin Newsom, citing suspicions of treason and inciting the public against the U.S. government. The move comes amid a highly publicized feud between the two leaders, sparked by ongoing disputes over immigration enforcement and the federalization of the California National Guard during protests in Los Angeles earlier this year. This unprecedented action has raised questions about the boundaries of presidential authority, state sovereignty, and the politicization of federal investigations.
Background: A Deepening Rift
The conflict between Trump and Newsom has been brewing for years, with the two clashing over issues ranging from immigration policy to environmental regulations. However, the latest chapter in their feud began in June 2025, when protests erupted in Los Angeles in response to aggressive immigration raids conducted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The Trump administration, citing concerns over public safety and federal property, invoked Title 10 of the U.S. Code to federalize the California National Guard and deploy troops to quell the unrest, a move Newsom vehemently opposed as unlawful.
Newsom, supported by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, arguing that the federalization of the state’s National Guard violated the Posse Comitatus Act and the Tenth Amendment, which reserves certain powers to the states. The lawsuit, Newsom v. Trump, is set to go to trial on August 11, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, presided over by Judge Charles R. Breyer.
Tensions reached a boiling point when Trump suggested on June 9, 2025, that his border czar, Tom Homan, should arrest Newsom for his handling of the protests. Newsom responded on social media, calling the threat “an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism” and accusing Trump of “acts of a dictator.” The president’s latest order for a federal investigation into Newsom marks a significant escalation, raising concerns about the use of federal power to target political opponents.
The Investigation: Allegations of Treason and Incitement
According to sources close to the administration, Trump’s order directs the Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate whether Newsom’s actions during the Los Angeles protests constitute treason or incitement of public unrest against the federal government. The allegations center on Newsom’s public criticism of the Trump administration’s immigration policies and his refusal to cooperate with federal authorities during the protests. Trump has reportedly accused Newsom of undermining federal authority by encouraging resistance to ICE operations and failing to maintain order in Los Angeles.
The legal basis for the investigation remains unclear. Treason, as defined in Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, requires evidence of levying war against the United States or adhering to its enemies and giving them aid and comfort. Legal experts have expressed skepticism about the applicability of treason charges in this context, noting that the threshold for such a charge is extraordinarily high and typically involves acts of betrayal during wartime. Incitement, on the other hand, would require evidence that Newsom directly encouraged violence or lawlessness against the federal government, a claim that California officials have dismissed as baseless.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta called the investigation “a politically motivated witch hunt” and vowed to defend Newsom vigorously. “There is no evidence of treason or incitement—only a governor standing up for the rights of his state and its people,” Bonta said in a statement. “This is an abuse of power, plain and simple.”
The Los Angeles Protests and National Guard Deployment
The controversy stems from events in early June 2025, when ICE conducted large-scale workplace raids in Los Angeles as part of Trump’s broader immigration enforcement strategy. The raids sparked widespread protests, which local authorities described as largely peaceful but occasionally disruptive. On June 7, Trump invoked 10 U.S.C. § 12406 to federalize part of the California National Guard, deploying troops to protect federal property and personnel. Newsom argued that the move was unnecessary, as state and local law enforcement had the situation under control, and accused Trump of manufacturing a crisis for political gain.
The federalization of the National Guard without Newsom’s consent led to Newsom v. Trump, a lawsuit challenging the legality of Trump’s actions. On June 12, Judge Breyer granted a temporary restraining order in favor of California, ruling that Trump’s actions exceeded his statutory authority and violated the Tenth Amendment. However, the ruling was stayed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, allowing the federal deployment to continue pending further litigation.
The deployment also included 700 Marines from Twentynine Palms, California, further escalating tensions. Newsom described the move as a “deranged fantasy” and accused Trump of inflaming tensions in Los Angeles for political purposes. Public opinion on the deployment remains divided, with national polls showing 34–48% approval and 41–47% disapproval, with stark partisan and regional differences.
Public and Political Reactions
The announcement of the federal investigation has drawn sharp reactions from across the political spectrum. Democrats have rallied behind Newsom, framing the investigation as an attack on state sovereignty and democratic principles. “This is not about law and order—it’s about silencing dissent,” said California Senator Alex Padilla, who was forcibly removed from a Department of Homeland Security press conference in Los Angeles earlier this year.
Republicans, meanwhile, have largely supported Trump’s actions. House Speaker Mike Johnson defended the president, stating, “The federal government has a duty to step in when state leaders fail to maintain order.” Johnson also suggested that Newsom’s defiance of federal authority warranted scrutiny.
Public sentiment, as reflected in recent polls, remains polarized. A Reuters/Ipsos poll from June 2025 found that 48% of Americans supported the National Guard deployment, while 41% opposed it. In California, opposition was stronger, with 58% of residents disapproving, according to a Washington Post–Schar School poll. Posts on X have also highlighted the controversy, with some users alleging that Newsom’s actions, including his handling of state funds, merit investigation, though these claims remain unsubstantiated.
Legal and Constitutional Implications
The investigation raises significant questions about the scope of presidential power and the use of federal investigations to target political adversaries. The Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the use of the military for civilian law enforcement except in specific circumstances, is central to the ongoing Newsom v. Trump case. Newsom’s legal team argues that Trump’s federalization of the National Guard violated this law, while the Trump administration contends that the deployment was justified under the Insurrection Act, though it has not formally invoked it.
Legal scholars warn that the investigation could set a dangerous precedent. “Using accusations of treason or incitement to target a sitting governor is a tactic straight out of an authoritarian playbook,” said constitutional law professor Emily Carter. “It risks undermining the balance of power between federal and state governments.”
What’s Next?
The federal investigation into Newsom is expected to proceed alongside the Newsom v. Trump trial, which begins on August 11, 2025, in San Francisco. The trial will examine the legality of the National Guard deployment and could have far-reaching implications for the balance of power between federal and state authorities. A ruling in Newsom’s favor could limit the president’s ability to federalize state militias, while a ruling for Trump could expand executive authority in times of unrest.
In the meantime, Newsom has vowed to fight the investigation, calling it “a desperate attempt to distract from the real issues facing our country.” The governor has garnered support from other Democratic leaders, who see the probe as part of a broader pattern of political retribution by the Trump administration.
As the legal battles unfold, the nation watches closely, with the outcome likely to shape the future of federal-state relations and the limits of presidential power. For now, the feud between Trump and Newsom remains a flashpoint in an increasingly divided political landscape, with accusations of treason and authoritarianism fueling a high-stakes showdown.
