Trump Administration Faces Legal Battle Over National Guard Deployment in Chicago
The Trump administration is currently navigating a legal challenge in Illinois concerning the deployment of the Texas National Guard to Chicago. This move has sparked protests from Democratic Governor JB Pritzker and state officials who argue that the deployment is unnecessary, unconstitutional, and politically motivated. Meanwhile, the White House defends the president’s right to send federal troops to address crime and illegal immigration in the city. Earlier, a federal judge blocked a similar attempt to send troops to Portland, Oregon, and the administration is now appealing that decision in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
As the situation unfolds, several Republican state attorneys general are stepping in to support the federal government’s case for the National Guard deployment in Democratic-led jurisdictions. On Wednesday, Iowa Attorney General Brenna Byrd filed amicus briefs in the Illinois lawsuit, asserting that the Trump administration has constitutional authority to send troops to Chicago. Seventeen other Republican attorneys general, including Alabama’s Steve Marshall, joined Byrd in the brief, which also received support from officials in states such as Montana, Florida, and Texas.
In their argument, the attorneys general allege that the Biden administration has implemented “illegal open border policies,” leading to an influx of undocumented immigrants, including criminals and potential terrorists. They claim that the National Guard’s presence in cities like Chicago is crucial for the safety of ICE agents facing protests against the administration’s deportation efforts. The brief emphasizes that “President Trump is sending a small number of National Guard troops to our defense,” and insists that this action is responsible and legal.
Additionally, they argue that anti-ICE protests across the nation represent a coordinated effort by “Antifa-aligned groups” to destabilize the federal government. A recent incident involving two detainees dying at an ICE office in Dallas is cited as further evidence for the need for increased protection for ICE operations.
The legal document goes on to assert that federalizing the National Guard is in the public interest, allowing ICE to fulfill its mission of identifying and deporting illegal immigrants. The brief concludes with a request to deny Illinois’ efforts to block the deployment of the Texas National Guard.
Along with signing the court brief, Attorney General Marshall also provided President Trump with a historical reference related to President John F. Kennedy’s actions in Alabama during a critical time. This is being used to justify the current mobilization of the National Guard against the will of state governors. Marshall shared this on his Truth Social account.
While Republican officials push for the mobilization, a group of former military leaders has raised concerns through their own court brief. They caution against expanding presidential authority to deploy federal troops domestically, stating that such expansions could threaten the military’s core missions and create safety risks. These leaders highlight how deploying untrained personnel in domestic situations could be dangerous.
Interestingly, not all Republicans are on board with the administration’s strategy. Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt expressed his concerns about the federal government’s actions, arguing that such a move undermines state rights. He pointed out that if Illinois were to send troops to Oklahoma during the Biden administration, there would likely be significant backlash.
Stitt went as far as criticizing Texas Governor Greg Abbott for his decision to send troops from Texas to Illinois, calling it unexpected. He emphasized his belief in federalism and stated that pitting governors against one another is not constructive.
Lawyers representing the city of Chicago and Illinois maintain that the National Guard’s potential deployment disregards the authority of Mayor Brandon Johnson and Governor Pritzker. They argue that federal overreach in traditionally state-managed roles threatens the constitutional balance designed to protect freedoms and local governance.
