President Donald J. Trump is declaring victory after a federal appeals court granted his administration the authority to continue deploying the California National Guard in Los Angeles—despite opposition from Democratic officials and a lower court ruling that attempted to block it.

“The Appeals Court ruled last night that I can use the National Guard to keep our cities, in this case Los Angeles, safe,” President Trump posted to Truth Social. “If I didn’t send the Military into Los Angeles, that city would be burning to the ground right now. We saved L.A. Thank you for the Decision!!!”

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals granted an emergency motion filed by the Trump administration, staying a controversial ruling issued earlier in the day by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, according to The Washington Post.

Breyer had accused Trump of overstepping his authority under the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment when he federalized elements of the California National Guard to assist Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and protect federal property during ongoing unrest in Los Angeles.

In his ruling, Breyer argued Trump acted “both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” He ordered the Guard returned to the control of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a long-time Trump critic. However, he delayed enforcement of his order until noon Friday—giving the administration time to appeal, which it did promptly.

That appeal was not only filed, but it found immediate traction. The appeals court granted a stay and set a hearing date for Tuesday, signaling the seriousness of the federal government’s national security concerns.

California had filed suit against Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and the Department of Defense, attempting to curtail the role of both the National Guard and U.S. Marines in Los Angeles, seeking to limit them solely to the protection of federal assets. The lawsuit also challenged the president’s constitutional authority to deploy military forces within a state without gubernatorial consent.

But critics of the lawsuit—and of the judge’s interpretation—say the law and precedent are clearly on Trump’s side.

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, never one to pass on an opportunity for political theater, seized the moment to lecture the public on a part of the Constitution that doesn’t actually exist.

“I hope the president would read Article 10 of the Constitution, and I urge all of you to do that, as well,” Pelosi said Thursday during a press conference, surrounded by nodding Democratic lawmakers. “Because section 12046 of Article 10 says that the National Guard cannot be called up by the president without the consent of the governor.”

There’s just one problem: there is no Article 10. The Constitution has only seven articles—and none of them say what Pelosi claims.

Legal experts believe Pelosi may have confused Article 10 with Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which clearly outlines the president’s authority to federalize the National Guard without a governor’s approval.

In fact, one of the Democratic Party’s own icons, President Lyndon B. Johnson, famously invoked Title 10 to override state authorities and federalize Alabama’s National Guard during the civil rights era—a move many on the left still praise.

As Matt Margolis pointed out at PJ Media:

“The statute explicitly states that the president may call the Guard into federal service and that orders ‘shall be issued through the governors,’ which is an administrative process, and not a requirement of consent.”

“Federal law has long acknowledged the president’s right to federalize the National Guard, and the Supreme Court has affirmed the president’s right to federalize the National Guard without gubernatorial consent multiple times.”

Pelosi didn’t stop there. She doubled down on falsehoods by claiming she had begged Trump to deploy the National Guard prior to January 6, 2021—yet former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund publicly contradicted her on X, stating he had been prevented from calling in the D.C. Guard when violence erupted.

Once again, the facts don't align with the Democrat narrative—and this time, the courts appear to be siding with President Trump’s constitutional authority to maintain order when radical mismanagement threatens the safety of American citizens.