Newsom Signs SB 1354 Restricting Out-of-State Guard Deployments; Federal Authority Remains

California draws a line around state-controlled Guard deployments

LOS ANGELES — Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 1354 on Saturday, establishing a state prohibition on military personnel from another state, territory or the District of Columbia entering California for military duty or law-enforcement functions without the California governor's permission.

The restriction is aimed at forces that remain under another governor's command, including National Guard personnel operating under Title 32 while receiving federal funding. Newsom's office describes the measure as closing a gap that could otherwise allow another governor to send state-controlled troops into California at a president's suggestion.

The signing creates a legal rule, not proof that another state has attempted an unauthorized deployment. No current out-of-state force or enforcement action under SB 1354 was identified in the announcement.

The law does not block a Title 10 federal deployment

The most important limitation is explicit: SB 1354 does not apply when Guard members or other military personnel have been lawfully called into active federal service under Title 10 and are acting under the authority of the president or secretary of defense.

Under Title 10, National Guard personnel become part of the federal armed forces and operate under federal command. Under Title 32, they remain under their home state's command even when the federal government funds the mission. SB 1354 addresses the second category rather than eliminating presidential deployment authority.

That distinction means the statute would not, by itself, have prevented the federal Title 10 activation used during the 2025 Los Angeles deployment. Describing the bill as a ban on every federal or presidential deployment would be inaccurate.

Mutual aid and military training remain outside the prohibition

The signed measure preserves existing interstate military compacts, including mutual-aid arrangements used during emergencies. Legislative hearing testimony also stated that the bill would not prohibit outside military personnel from attending schools or conducting training at California installations such as Camp Pendleton or Fort Irwin.

Those exceptions matter during wildfires, earthquakes and other disasters, when California may request personnel or equipment from neighboring states. The law requires political permission for covered missions; it does not close the border to every uniformed service member from outside California.

The final bill is also narrower than an earlier proposal that included criminal punishment. The San Francisco Chronicle reports that lawmakers amended it into a prohibition administered through the governor, leaving questions about the precise remedy if another state disregards the restriction.

The 2025 Los Angeles deployment is the political and legal backdrop

Newsom and bill author Senator Bob Archuleta framed SB 1354 as a response to recent domestic deployments and disputes over who controls National Guard forces operating across state lines. Their description of the law as a defense of state sovereignty is the administration's legal and political position.

In June 2025, President Donald Trump federalized California Guard personnel and sent more than 4,000 Guard members and 700 Marines to Los Angeles over Newsom's objection, according to the Chronicle. Because that activation relied on Title 10, it is legally distinct from the state-controlled deployments covered by the new statute.

The earlier episode produced federal litigation over military participation in civilian law enforcement. SB 1354 does not resolve every constitutional question arising from future deployments, and a court could be asked to decide how the state restriction interacts with federal law if a disputed mission occurs.

What changes—and what remains uncertain

California now has an enacted rule requiring gubernatorial permission for the covered category of out-of-state military entry. The immediate practical effect depends on whether another governor proposes such a mission and whether the deployment remains under state or federal command.

The law does not place California's Guard beyond presidential control, cancel interstate emergency cooperation or establish that any service member has violated state law. No lawsuit challenging SB 1354 was announced with the signing.

The key facts in any future dispute will be the activation authority, chain of command, stated mission, governor's consent and any applicable interstate compact. What’s the Scoop With Broach will separate those documents from political claims if the statute is tested.

About the image

The accompanying image is an authentic January 2016 California National Guard photograph taken by Brandon Honig during a unit hand-off ceremony at Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos in Orange County.

The photograph was released through DVIDS as part of the photographer's official U.S. Army duties and is public domain in the United States. It is a contextual file image and does not depict an interstate deployment, a law-enforcement operation, Newsom, Archuleta or Saturday's signing.