On June 9, 2025, President Donald Trump told reporters it would be “a great thing” if his border czar, Tom Homan, arrested California Governor Gavin Newsom, a threat made during the federal immigration raids and protests convulsing Los Angeles. No arrest followed. What did follow was a federal lawsuit California won, a court ruling that the administration had “willfully” violated the Posse Comitatus Act, and, a year later, Justice Department investigations into Newsom and his wife that the governor has publicly called political retaliation.
What Trump Actually Said
Asked about the LA protests, Trump said, “I would do it if I were Tom,” adding, “I think it would be a great thing.”1The Hill. Trump Arrest Gavin Newsom Pressed by an ABC News reporter on what crime would justify arresting a sitting governor, Trump replied that Newsom’s “primary crime is running for governor because he’s done such a bad job.”2ABC News. Trump Great Arrest Newsom Stormy Relationship Politics Play
Trump cited no statute or legal authority. Homan clarified soon after that there had been “no discussion” of actually arresting Newsom, though he added that “no one is above the law” and that an arrest could happen if someone “cross[es] that line and commit[s] a crime,” such as impeding law enforcement or destroying property.3ABC News. War of Words Trump Newsom LA Protests Escalates Arrest Two White House officials told NBC News that an arrest was not being “actively planned or considered” and that the optics would not favor Republicans, particularly since the governor did not appear to have broken any laws.4NBC News. California’s Governor Unfazed by Threats of Arrest From Trump Administration
How Newsom Responded
Newsom called the threat an “unmistakable step toward authoritarianism” in a same-day social media post: “The President of the United States just called for the arrest of a sitting Governor. This is a day I hoped I would never see in America.” He accused the White House of wanting “a spectacle” and “the violence” for political gain.2ABC News. Trump Great Arrest Newsom Stormy Relationship Politics Play
On MSNBC, he taunted Homan directly: “He’s a tough guy. Why doesn’t he do that? He knows where to find me… So, Tom, arrest me. Let’s go.”4NBC News. California’s Governor Unfazed by Threats of Arrest From Trump Administration In a televised address the next evening, he said “the rule of law has increasingly given way to the rule of Don” and warned that “California may be first, but it clearly will not end here. Democracy is under assault before our eyes.”5BBC News. Newsom Trump Arrest Threat LA Protests
The Trigger: LA Immigration Raids and Troop Deployment
The arrest remark landed in the middle of a crisis that began three days earlier. On June 6, 2025, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement conducted aggressive raids in Los Angeles, including one at a Fashion District clothing factory where agents used flashbang grenades. Protests spread quickly. By June 8, demonstrators had shut down a section of the 101 freeway and gathered outside the Metropolitan Detention Center downtown.6CalMatters. LA Immigration Protests Photo Essay Most demonstrations were peaceful; some involved clashes with police, vandalism, and car burnings. Roughly 400 people were arrested in the first six days, and LA imposed a nightly curfew on its downtown.7CNN. LA Protests ICE Raids Trump Live Updates
On June 7, Trump federalized the California National Guard without Newsom’s authorization, citing 10 U.S. Code § 12406, which permits the president to call up the Guard when “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”8PBS NewsHour. What U.S. Law Says About Trump’s Deployment of Active-Duty Troops to Los Angeles The initial 2,000 troops grew to 4,000. On June 9, the same day as the arrest comment, 700 Marines were mobilized from Twentynine Palms.9NPR. Trump Mobilizes Marines for Duty in Los Angeles A defense official put the deployment’s cost at $134 million. Newsom called the deployment “illegal” and a “political stunt”; LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell said he did not support it and called the use of military forces for municipal crowd control “unprecedented.”7CNN. LA Protests ICE Raids Trump Live Updates U.S. officials said the Marines were not deployed under the Insurrection Act. Trump explicitly refused to rule out invoking it.10Fox LA. Insurrection Act Trump California Protests
The Lawsuit California Filed and Won
On June 9, 2025, California and Newsom sued in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The case, Newsom v. Trump (No. 3:25-cv-04870), was assigned to Judge Charles R. Breyer.11Court Listener. Newsom v. Trump Docket By June 12, Breyer had issued a temporary restraining order, finding the statutory prerequisites under § 12406 had not been met. The Ninth Circuit granted an administrative stay, allowing federalization to continue pending appeal.12Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. Newsom v. Trump Case Summary
The September 2025 Posse Comitatus Ruling
After a two-day bench trial, on September 2, 2025, Breyer issued a 52-page opinion finding that the administration had “willfully” violated the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 by using federalized troops and Marines for civilian law enforcement in LA.13Cato Institute. Federal Judge: Trump Regime Violated Posse Comitatus Act There had been protests and some violence, he wrote, but “no rebellion,” and local civilian law enforcement could handle the situation.14NBC News. Judge Rules Trump Illegally Deployed National Guard in LA
Breyer rejected the government’s argument that federalizing the Guard under § 12406 exempted the troops from Posse Comitatus, writing that this theory would “create a brand-new exception to the Posse Comitatus Act that nullifies the Act itself.” He dismissed the administration’s “inherent presidential authority” argument under the Take Care Clause as “not grounded in the history of the Act, Supreme Court jurisprudence on executive authority, or common sense,” citing Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer.15Brennan Center for Justice. Court Finds Trump’s Use of Soldiers in Los Angeles Illegal The court found the administration had “coached” federal law enforcement agencies on language to use in requests designed to circumvent the Act.16California Attorney General. Judge Rules Trump Administration’s Use of Military Troops in LA Unlawful Breyer enjoined the use of troops for arrests, searches, seizures, patrols, crowd control, evidence collection, and interrogation, and stayed the order until September 12 for appeal.14NBC News. Judge Rules Trump Illegally Deployed National Guard in LA
The December 2025 Ruling That Ended the Deployment
About 300 Guard troops remained in Los Angeles after the September ruling, with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth extending the deployment through November.14NBC News. Judge Rules Trump Illegally Deployed National Guard in LA On December 10, 2025, Breyer granted Newsom’s motion for a preliminary injunction and ordered the administration to end federalization and return command to the governor by December 15.17CalMatters. Trump National Guard Los Angeles Ruling
Breyer rejected the argument that the threat of future protests justified indefinite federal control, writing that this logic would create “a positive feedback loop that perpetually rationalized federal control of state troops.” He added: “It is profoundly un-American to suggest that people peacefully exercising their fundamental right to protest constitute a risk justifying the federalization of military forces.”17CalMatters. Trump National Guard Los Angeles Ruling On December 31, 2025, the Ninth Circuit vacated its administrative stay and the injunction took full effect. Troops returned to state command, ending the six-month standoff.12Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. Newsom v. Trump Case Summary
The DOJ Investigations That Followed
The arrest itself never happened. Federal criminal exposure around Newsom did emerge, but through a different route.
The Williamson Corruption Case
On November 12, 2025, Dana Williamson, Newsom’s former chief of staff from late 2022 through December 2024, was indicted on 23 federal counts including conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud, tax fraud, and making false statements.18NBC News. Newsom Ex-Chief of Staff Accused of Stealing Campaign Funds Prosecutors alleged she and two co-conspirators funneled $225,000 from a dormant campaign account belonging to former California Attorney General and U.S. Health Secretary Xavier Becerra, routing the money to Sean McCluskie, Becerra’s former chief of staff, through a “no-show” consulting job held by McCluskie’s spouse. Williamson was also charged with claiming over $1.7 million in fraudulent business deductions covering items that allegedly included a $15,000 Chanel handbag, a chartered jet, and a $170,000 birthday trip to Mexico.19CalMatters. Newsom Chief of Staff Indicted
A separate strand involved Activision Blizzard. Federal investigators alleged Williamson received undisclosed income from the company before joining the governor’s office and then, as chief of staff, attempted to influence the state’s sex discrimination lawsuit against Activision by telling a government attorney to “get it settled.” She allegedly lied to FBI agents about sharing inside information with associates.20Los Angeles Times. Indictment of Ex-Newsom Aide Hints at Federal Probe Into State Investigation
On May 14, 2026, Williamson pleaded guilty to three counts: campaign finance fraud, lying to the FBI, and filing a false tax return. She agreed to pay approximately $500,000 to the IRS and help repay the $225,000, and faces an estimated three years in prison, with sentencing expected in fall 2026.21Politico. Dana Williamson Plea Deal Corruption Case Co-conspirators McCluskie and Greg Campbell pleaded guilty earlier and are cooperating; their sentencing is scheduled for August 2026.22Sacramento Bee. Williamson Co-Conspirators Sentencing Neither Newsom nor Becerra has been implicated. Prosecutors noted the conspirators hid the payments because they believed Becerra “would not have permitted” them.18NBC News. Newsom Ex-Chief of Staff Accused of Stealing Campaign Funds
The Probe Into Newsom and His Wife
On June 15, 2026, Newsom publicly accused Trump of directing the Department of Justice to launch a “baseless and politically motivated” investigation into him and his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom. He said federal agents were “knocking on the doors of family friends and former employees” and “demanding records,” and accused the DOJ of “abusing the grand jury process.”23Los Angeles Times. Newsom Trump DOJ Investigation
According to sources familiar with the matter, two separate federal probes are being run by prosecutors in Sacramento. One is tied to the Williamson case. The other focuses on Siebel Newsom’s tax filings and her relationship with The Representation Project, a nonprofit she founded to promote gender equity in media. Between 2011 and 2018, Siebel Newsom earned about $2.3 million from the organization, which also received over $800,000 from companies that lobby the governor, including PG&E, AT&T, and Kaiser Permanente.24Sacramento Bee. DOJ Investigation Newsom Siebel Newsom Nonprofits Investigators are reportedly examining whether nonprofit funds were used for personal expenses.25CNBC. Gavin Newsom Trump DOJ Investigation California
Newsom has tied the timing to his presidential ambitions. “He’s coming after me because I am considering running for president,” he said in a video statement, adding: “You can subpoena my records. You can investigate me. You can harass me. Put my name on any and every enemies list that you have. But leave my wife and family out of your personal vendetta!” His office called the probes a “fishing expedition” launched after the DOJ “hit a dead end” with the Williamson case.26CalMatters. Gavin Newsom Trump Investigation
A source familiar with the investigations disputed the political-motivation claim, telling the New York Times that the probes were initiated by federal law enforcement officials in California based on whistleblower complaints, not by officials in Washington.27New York Times. Newsom Trump DOJ Investigation The DOJ declined to comment, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Sacramento said it “does not confirm or deny the existence of investigations.”23Los Angeles Times. Newsom Trump DOJ Investigation