Fact-Check Summary
The social media post is factually correct regarding the core legal outcome: the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals did rule on June 20, 2025, in favor of President Trump, allowing him to continue federal control of the California National Guard during protests in Los Angeles. However, the claim that the judges deemed Governor Gavin Newsom “incompetent and ill prepared” is unsubstantiated; the court did not comment on Newsom’s competence. The assertion that the presidential power to deploy the National Guard is now broadly established nationwide is partially misleading—the court’s ruling was narrow, specific to the Los Angeles circumstances, and emphasized that judicial review remains a safeguard. Subjective statements calling the decision “great for our country” are expressions of opinion, not fact.
Belief Alignment Analysis
Evaluated through democratic values, the ruling’s affirmation of judicial review aligns with support for constitutional checks and balances and rejects the notion of unchecked executive power. However, the post’s derogatory language toward Governor Newsom, and its suggestion that the presidency holds virtually unlimited authority to override local governance, run counter to the democratic principle that America belongs to all people and not to one figure or party. The post’s rhetoric fosters division and promotes the supremacy of federal force over principled federal-state cooperation, which can threaten inclusive democratic norms.
Opinion
While a unanimous appellate court decision on a contentious legal issue deserves recognition, care should be taken in how its implications are portrayed. Praising the court for upholding presidential action in a time of crisis is justifiable; however, overstating the precedent or politicizing the ruling through personal attacks undermines thoughtful and inclusive democratic discourse. Defending law and order must not come at the expense of democratic checks, state rights, or respect for differing viewpoints. Responsible leadership and communication involve fact-based celebration rather than partisan triumphalism.
TLDR
The court did rule in Trump’s favor on deploying the National Guard in LA, but did not call Governor Newsom incompetent nor grant the president unlimited nationwide power. The ruling was narrow, context-specific, and keeps presidential actions subject to court oversight. The celebratory, divisive tone of the post does not contribute to inclusive, principled discourse and omits ongoing legal and constitutional complexities.
Claim: The Ninth Circuit handed President Trump a sweeping victory on core presidential power to call in the National Guard, implicitly calling Governor Newsom incompetent, and setting broad precedent for nationwide deployments.
Fact: The Ninth Circuit unanimously ruled in Trump’s favor on the National Guard in Los Angeles, but made no statement about Newsom’s competence, issued a case-specific decision, and upheld the importance of judicial review. The presidential power to deploy the Guard is not absolute or unlimited based on this ruling.
Opinion: Celebrating legal victories is normal, but mischaracterizing the ruling and using divisive language undermines respectful public conversation and erodes trust in fair, inclusive democratic processes. We must promote principled dialogue and resist putting power above foundational American values.