President Trump’s decision to deploy the National Guard to Los Angeles, Portland and Chicago is being challenged in federal court. The Supreme Court could rule on Chicago’s mission at any time.
Trump’s National Guard deployment faces backlash
President Donald Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to U.S. cities has raised questions about the military’s role in civilian life.
President Donald Trump has threatened to send “more than just the National Guard” to “troubled” U.S. cities, potentially escalating the deployment of troops where mayors and governors oppose them in a dispute that has reached the Supreme Court.
“We’re sending in the National Guard, but if we need more than the National Guard, we’ll send in more than the National Guard, because we can have safe cities,” President Trump said on October 28 at the U.S. Naval Base Yokosuka, Japan, during a week-long tour of Asia. “We’re not going to kill people in our city. Whether people like it or not, that’s what we’re doing.”
President Trump did not say what the expansion meant or which cities it was targeting.
President Trump has dispatched the National Guard to Los Angeles, Chicago, Portland, Memphis and other cities to quell protests against stricter immigration enforcement. But mayors and governors outside of Memphis opposed the deployment and challenged it in federal court, with mixed results.
If courts block the deployment of the National Guard, President Trump has repeatedly threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807, which allows active-duty military to be sent to fight crime and fight protesters.
President Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on October 6, “If I have to, I will do it.” “So far, we haven’t had to. But we have the Insurrection Act for a reason. If we have to enact it, I will do it.”
A federal judge in Chicago temporarily blocked the deployment there while the dispute was pending, and President Trump asked the Supreme Court to lift the restrictions. A judge may rule on the temporary injunction at any time.
The Justice Department relied heavily on two written statements in its request to the Supreme Court to justify the need for the National Guard to protect federal employees and property.
Statements from Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent Russell Hott and Border Patrol agent Daniel Parra describe the situation on the ground as dire and dangerous.
However, U.S. District Judge April Perry found the administration’s factual sources unreliable, a ruling the Court of Appeals upheld.
Perry said in his decision that Hotto and Parra “demonstrate a possible lack of candor” and “call into question their ability to accurately assess the facts.”
