California Fire Teams Operate at 40% Capacity Due to Reassignment

California's wildfire season arrived with a vengeance in June 2025, scorching hillsides and threatening homes. As flames spread, a different crisis unfolded: the state's elite firefighting crews, part of the California National Guard, found themselves reassigned. Ordered to Los Angeles under President Trump's federal authority, these troops left critical firelines understaffed. Governor Gavin Newsom, backed by new Associated Press reporting, revealed that even top military commanders now urge the return of 200 Guard members to firefighting duties. The clash exposes a deeper struggle over who controls the state's resources.

The issue extends beyond logistics, directly impacting lives. With red flag warnings signaling more fires, the California National Guard's Task Force Rattlesnake operates at a mere 40% capacity. Eight of 14 firefighting teams remain in Los Angeles, tied up in what Newsom calls an unlawful federal deployment. The move, sparked by protests over immigration raids, has drained personnel from wildfire suppression and even fentanyl interdiction, slashing drug-seizure teams by 32%. Communities from rural hills to urban centers feel the ripple effects.

Wildfires don't wait for political disputes. In the past five years, California's blazes caused over $40 billion in damages, leveling neighborhoods and displacing thousands. Task Force Rattlesnake, with over 300 trained Guard members, has been a linchpin in containing these disasters. Their absence now, as early-season fires rage, heightens risks for vulnerable towns. Fire-science experts emphasize that specialized crews like these are irreplaceable during peak season, from July to October, when flames can spread in hours.

Beyond wildfires, the federal grip on the Guard undermines public safety. The 32% cut to fentanyl-interdiction units comes at a time when overdose deaths remain a crisis. These teams, working along borders and highways, seize deadly drugs before they reach communities. Diverting them to urban protests, which local police were already managing, prioritizes political optics over tangible safety. Advocates for public health and rural residents alike argue that these missteps endanger the very people federal leaders claim to protect.

California has faced wildfires' wrath for decades, but the past few years marked a turning point. Since 2017, the state's Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action Plan set ambitious goals, treating one million acres annually by 2025. Governor Newsom's administration poured over $2.5 billion into prevention since 2020, expanding CAL FIRE's workforce by 1,800 full-time and 600 seasonal firefighters each year. A second C-130 Hercules airtanker, announced in June 2025, bolsters the world's largest aerial firefighting fleet. These steps reflect a commitment to safeguarding communities against a hotter, drier climate.

Federal actions undermine these gains. The Trump administration's cuts to the U.S. Forest Service, slashing 10% of total positions and 25% of non-direct wildfire roles, weaken national support for fire-prone states. Historically, presidents supported states during crises, like Eisenhower in 1957 or Johnson in 1965, but rarely without governors' consent. The current federalization, the first of its kind since the Watts riots, sets a troubling precedent. Legal scholars warn it could erode state sovereignty, allowing future presidents to override local priorities for political gain.

Newsom's response blends legal and practical defiance. Alongside Attorney General Rob Bonta, he filed a federal lawsuit on June 10, arguing the deployment violates the Posse Comitatus principle, which limits military use in civilian affairs. Though a district court briefly sided with California, the Ninth Circuit's pause keeps troops federalized. Beyond the courtroom, Newsom's emergency proclamation in March fast-tracked forest management, while CAL FIRE plans to hire thousands more firefighters over the next four years. These moves aim to fill gaps left by federal overreach.

Advocates for civil liberties and state autonomy recognize this issue extends beyond California's borders. The deployment risks normalizing military presence in civilian spaces, chilling free speech and escalating tensions. Studies show that militarized responses to protests often deepen mistrust, particularly in minority communities. Returning the Guard to state control would prioritize life-saving missions over federal posturing, ensuring firefighters and drug-interdiction teams protect Californians where they're needed most.

California's fight is a stand for clarity and community. Restoring the National Guard to state control would unleash Task Force Rattlesnake's full strength, protect rural towns from encroaching flames, and rebuild drug-seizure teams battling the fentanyl crisis. It would also signal that public safety trumps political theater. Policymakers could explore compromises, like a joint federal-state command for future crises, ensuring rapid response without sacrificing state authority.

The broader challenge demands federal partnership, not dominance. Rebuilding the U.S. Forest Service, funding wildfire mitigation, and clarifying the Insurrection Act's limits would strengthen national resilience. California's proactive steps, from airtankers to expanded fire crews, show what's possible when leaders prioritize people over power. The state's communities deserve no less.

As flames flicker and protests simmer, the path forward rests on a simple truth: protecting lives requires unity, not division. California's resolve to reclaim its resources is a testament to that principle, urging leaders at every level to put safety first. The wildfires won't wait, and neither can the state.