Cruz Rebukes Newsom Over Federal Troop Nazi Comparison

When political rhetoric crosses into historical distortion, pushback is inevitable.

That’s exactly what unfolded when California Governor Gavin Newsom compared the presence of federalized National Guard troops in his state to imagery associated with Nazi Germany prompting a sharp rebuke from Senator Ted Cruz. The Cruz Newsom federal troops clash has quickly become a flashpoint in the broader fight over federal authority, immigration enforcement, and historical precedent.

Governor Gavin Newsom criticized President Donald Trump’s decision to invoke 10 U.S.C. § 12406 in June 2025, federalizing approximately 4,000 members of the California National Guard over the governor’s objections. An additional 700 active-duty Marines were reportedly deployed domestically.

Newsom described the move as unprecedented, referencing “masked men” and “secret police,” and invoking imagery reminiscent of authoritarian regimes in Germany.

He argued:

• The federalization of the National Guard was something “we’ve never seen.”

• Deploying Marines domestically represented a dangerous militarization of city streets.

• Federal involvement undermined state authority.

The comments immediately sparked backlash, particularly from conservatives who viewed the Nazi comparison as inflammatory and historically inaccurate.

Senator Ted Cruz responded forcefully on his “Verdict” podcast and on social media, accusing Newsom of being “historically illiterate.”

Cruz pointed to a well-documented example: in 1957, President Dwight D. Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard and deployed the 101st Airborne Division to enforce school desegregation in Little Rock. Executive Order 10730 authorized federal troops to protect the Little Rock Nine after Democratic Governor Orval Faubus resisted federal court orders.

The Cruz Newsom federal troops dispute centers on this core question: Is federalizing the National Guard unprecedented or part of established constitutional authority?

Historically, federalization of state National Guard units has occurred dozens of times. National Guard forces were federalized during:

• The Civil Rights era.

• The 1992 Los Angeles riots.

• Both World Wars.

• Post-9/11 domestic security operations.

Under Title 10 authority, the president has clear constitutional power to federalize the Guard when enforcing federal law or protecting civil order.

The current dispute reportedly stems from tensions over immigration enforcement. Federal law grants the executive branch authority over immigration policy, and Supreme Court precedent has consistently affirmed federal supremacy in this area.

In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled in Arizona v. United States that immigration enforcement is primarily a federal responsibility. That precedent is often cited when conflicts arise between state and federal authorities.

Supporters of the deployment argue that when states refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, the federal government retains both the authority and responsibility to act.

Critics counter that large-scale domestic troop presence risks escalating tensions and undermining local control.

After Cruz labeled him “historically illiterate,” Newsom responded by referencing his lifelong dyslexia, framing the remark as a personal attack. Cruz clarified that his criticism referred to knowledge of history, not reading ability.

The Cruz Newsom federal troops exchange reflects a broader political divide:

• One side argues federal enforcement is necessary to uphold national law.

• The other warns of overreach and potential erosion of civil liberties.

• Both sides invoke American history to justify their positions.

Public opinion on domestic troop deployments has historically been mixed. A 2020 national poll found that roughly 58% of Americans supported using National Guard troops during periods of civil unrest, though support varied significantly by party affiliation.

At its core, the Cruz Newsom federal troops debate is about constitutional structure.

The Founders created a federal system balancing state sovereignty with national supremacy. Article VI of the Constitution establishes federal law as the “supreme Law of the Land.” The president’s authority to deploy troops domestically though controversial has deep roots in American legal history.

Invoking Nazi imagery in debates over lawful federal authority is likely to inflame rather than clarify. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the specific deployment, historical analogies carry weight and responsibility.

As tensions rise between state leaders and Washington, Americans are left to weigh competing visions of governance: assertive federal enforcement versus expansive state autonomy.

The history books, however, are clear on one point federalizing the National Guard is not new.

Share this article and subscribe to our newsletter for more updates.