Listen to the article
National Guard Troops Withdrawing from Portland and Chicago Amid Legal Challenges
Hundreds of National Guard troops deployed to Chicago and Portland, Oregon, are being sent home as the Trump administration faces mounting legal challenges over domestic military deployments, according to a defense official speaking on condition of anonymity.
The redeployment marks a significant shift in President Trump’s immigration enforcement campaign that had targeted Democratic-led cities. U.S. Northern Command confirmed in a statement Sunday that it is “shifting and/or rightsizing” units in Portland, Los Angeles, and Chicago, though it maintained there would be a “constant, enduring, and long-term presence in each city.”
All 200 California National Guard troops currently stationed in Portland will return home, while Oregon’s National Guard presence will be reduced from 200 to 100 soldiers. Additionally, approximately 200 Texas National Guard troops in Chicago are being withdrawn, with about 200 soldiers remaining on standby at Fort Bliss, an Army base straddling Texas and New Mexico.
The Illinois National Guard will maintain about 300 troops in the Chicago area for training purposes, but they are currently prohibited from conducting operations with the Department of Homeland Security due to legal restrictions.
The defense official indicated that the upcoming holiday season may have influenced the decision to reduce deployments.
California Governor Gavin Newsom’s office welcomed the news, with spokesperson Diana Crofts-Pelayo stating, “Trump never should have illegally deployed our troops in the first place. We’re glad they’re finally coming home! It’s long overdue!”
Oregon Governor Tina Kotek called for the complete withdrawal of the remaining 100 troops in her state. “Members of the Oregon National Guard, who are our friends and neighbors, have been away from their families and jobs for 50 days on an unnecessary deployment,” Kotek said in a written statement. “With the holidays approaching, every single member deserves to go home.”
Meanwhile, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker criticized the administration’s communication with state leaders. His spokesman Matt Hill said in a statement, “This confirms what we have always known: This is about normalizing military forces in American cities,” adding that the administration was still threatening to federalize more troops.
Democratic-led cities have actively challenged these deployments through legal action. Chicago filed a lawsuit that is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. In Portland, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut issued a permanent injunction this month blocking Trump from deploying troops in the city, ruling that the president had failed to establish legal grounds for such action. The administration filed an emergency motion Sunday seeking to pause this ruling while it appeals.
The National Guard deployments have been among the most controversial initiatives of Trump’s second term, reflecting an expanded use of military resources for domestic purposes. Earlier this year, troops—including active-duty Marines—were deployed to Los Angeles during immigration protests. The National Guard was also sent to Washington, D.C., in what Trump described as a necessary response to crime problems.
While National Guard members don’t serve in law enforcement roles, they have been tasked with protecting federal facilities, particularly those operated by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. About 100 troops will remain on deployment in Los Angeles, according to the defense official.
As these legal battles continue, the administration has simultaneously intensified immigration enforcement operations in other locations, including Charlotte, North Carolina, as part of its broader campaign led by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
9 Comments
It’s a positive sign that the administration is acknowledging the legal challenges and adjusting their approach. Maintaining public safety while upholding civil liberties is a delicate balance, and this move suggests a recognition of that.
It’s encouraging to see the administration respond to legal concerns and scale back the military presence. Maintaining the delicate balance between public safety and civil liberties is crucial, and this seems like a step in that direction.
Interesting development. It seems the administration is facing legal challenges over domestic military deployments, leading to a reduction in National Guard presence in these cities. I wonder what the long-term implications will be for law enforcement and public safety.
I’m glad to see the administration responding to legal concerns over the domestic military deployments. Maintaining a delicate balance between public safety and civil liberties is crucial during these times.
It’s good to see the administration acknowledging the legal challenges and adjusting their approach. Overreliance on military force for domestic issues can be problematic, so this seems like a step in the right direction.
This move seems to indicate a recognition of the limitations on the use of federal troops for domestic law enforcement. I wonder what alternative strategies the administration will pursue to address the issues in these cities.
This development highlights the importance of adhering to the rule of law and respecting the limits on the use of federal forces for domestic matters. I’m curious to see how the administration will address the underlying issues in these cities going forward.
This is a significant shift in the administration’s approach. I’m curious to see how the situation evolves and whether the reduced troop presence will have an impact on the local situations in Portland and Chicago.
This seems like a pragmatic response to the legal concerns raised. It will be interesting to see how the administration pivots its strategy to address the underlying problems in these cities without relying solely on a heavy military presence.