Listen to the article
Trump’s Controversial National Guard Deployments Face Legal Challenges
Federal troops deployed to Portland and Chicago under President Donald Trump’s direction have sparked intense legal battles, with courts temporarily blocking the administration’s efforts to send military personnel into cities over local officials’ objections.
Trump, who made crime a centerpiece of his 2024 presidential campaign, acknowledged at an October 15 press conference that he has surprised even himself with the intensity of federal interventions in American cities.
“I didn’t realize I was going to make this such a big factor,” Trump said. “And now it’s like a passion for me… I did get elected for crime, but I didn’t get elected for what we’re doing. This is many, many steps above.”
The administration has federalized National Guard troops in both Portland and Chicago, despite vehement opposition from local mayors and state governors who argue the deployments are unnecessary and potentially inflammatory. Legal challenges have temporarily halted the deployments in both cities.
In Portland, protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that began in June had been largely peaceful according to local officials. Nevertheless, on September 28, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth issued a memo mobilizing 200 Oregon National Guard troops for 60 days after Trump characterized the city as “war ravaged” and claimed it was “under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists.”
Portland authorities paint a different picture. “The protests are nowhere near city-wide,” Portland Police spokesman Mike Brenner told reporters on October 16. Portland Fire & Rescue reported only four calls about potential fires near federal buildings during months of protests, with most being minor incidents like a burning flag or smoke grenade. The department noted that building fires are actually down 33% compared to the previous year.
Similarly, in Chicago, Trump has repeatedly described the city as a “killing field” and erroneously claimed it is the “murder capital of the world.” On October 4, Hegseth federalized 300 Illinois National Guard members and later deployed more than 200 members of the Texas National Guard to Chicago.
While Trump’s rhetoric has focused on overall crime, court documents reveal the deployments are specifically targeted at protecting federal immigration operations and facilities. The administration has cited Title 10, section 12406 of the U.S. Code, which allows the president to federalize National Guard troops if there’s “a rebellion or danger of a rebellion” or if the president “is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”
Illinois Governor JB Pritzker has accused the Trump administration of manufacturing a crisis, noting that Chicago’s homicide rate has actually declined more than 30% in the first half of this year compared to last year.
“The Trump administration is following a playbook: cause chaos, create fear and confusion, make it seem like peaceful protesters are a mob by firing gas pellets and teargas canisters at them,” Pritzker said at an October 6 press conference. “There was never an insurrection or an invasion on the ground that justified the deployment of the military to our American city.”
Legal challenges have been partially successful in both cities. In Portland, U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, granted a temporary restraining order, finding that the president did not have a “colorable basis” to federalize the National Guard because “the situation on the ground belied an inability of federal law enforcement officers to execute federal law.”
In Chicago, U.S. District Judge April Perry issued a similar order on October 9, criticizing the Department of Homeland Security for relying on “unreliable evidence” that cast “significant doubt on DHS’s credibility on what is going on in the streets of Chicago.” The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals later allowed Trump to federalize the Guard but maintained the block on actual deployment, determining there was “insufficient evidence of a rebellion or danger of rebellion in Illinois.”
Trump has repeatedly threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act if necessary, which would provide an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act’s prohibition on using federal military as civilian law enforcement. The Insurrection Act has been used by 18 presidents throughout American history, most recently in 1992 when President George H.W. Bush sent federal troops to Los Angeles following civil unrest after the Rodney King verdict.
As legal battles continue, the deployments highlight tensions between federal authority and local control, raising significant questions about the proper use of military forces in American cities during times of civil unrest.
Verify This Yourself
Use these professional tools to fact-check and investigate claims independently
Reverse Image Search
Check if this image has been used elsewhere or in different contexts
Ask Our AI About This Claim
Get instant answers with web-powered AI analysis
Related Fact-Checks
See what other fact-checkers have said about similar claims
Want More Verification Tools?
Access our full suite of professional disinformation monitoring and investigation tools
10 Comments
This is a tricky situation with valid arguments on both sides. The administration may feel federal intervention is needed, but the vehement local opposition suggests they may have overstepped. Hopefully the legal process can provide clarity and guidance on the appropriate federal role in these kinds of scenarios.
This is a complex issue with no easy answers. I can understand the administration’s desire to address unrest, but the legal battles show there are real concerns about federal overreach. Hopefully the courts can provide guidance on the appropriate balance between federal and local authority in these situations.
This is a complex issue without easy answers. While public safety is critical, the legal challenges suggest the administration may have overstepped. I’m curious to see how this plays out and whether a more collaborative approach between federal and local authorities could be found.
This is a complex issue with valid arguments on both sides. On one hand, the administration may feel federal intervention is needed to address unrest. But local officials argue the deployments are unnecessary and could make tensions worse. Curious to hear more perspectives on the right balance here.
Interesting to see the legal challenges surrounding Trump’s national guard deployments in Portland and Chicago. While public safety is important, there seem to be concerns about federal overreach and the potential for escalation. I’m curious to see how this plays out.
The legal challenges to these national guard deployments are interesting to follow. While public safety is critical, the administration’s actions seem to be creating more problems than they solve. I’m curious to see how the courts rule and whether a more cooperative approach between federal and local leaders could be found.
The legal challenges to these national guard deployments highlight the nuances involved. While public safety is important, the vehement local opposition suggests the administration may have overstepped. I’m curious to see how the courts rule and whether a more collaborative approach can be found.
Interesting to see the legal battles over these national guard deployments. It’s clear there are valid concerns on both sides – the administration’s desire for order, and local leaders’ worries about federal overreach. Hopefully the courts can provide some much-needed clarity on the appropriate federal role.
The legal battles over these national guard deployments highlight the delicate balance between federal and state/local authority. It’s good to see the courts stepping in to scrutinize the administration’s actions. Transparent and accountable governance is crucial, especially around sensitive issues like this.
I can understand the administration’s desire to address crime and unrest, but the vehement opposition from local leaders is concerning. These deployments seem to be creating more problems than they solve. Hopefully the legal process can provide some clarity on the appropriate federal role here.