Demonstrators protest outside the immigration processing and detention facility this month in Broadview, Ill. President Donald Trump wants to deploy Texas National Guard members to the Chicago area but has been blocked by federal courts. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

As President Donald Trump prepares to send National Guard troops — from either Oregon, California or possibly Texas — into Portland, Oregon, entrepreneur Sarah Shaoul watches with deep concern.

A three-decade resident of the Portland area, Shaoul leads a coalition of roughly 100 local small businesses, including many dependent on foot traffic. Armed troops could spook customers and, she fears, trigger a crisis where none exists.

“I don’t want this to be a political conversation but, I mean, the fact you bring people from other states who maybe have different politics — I think it shows an administration that’s trying to pit people against other people,” Shaoul said.

Trump’s campaign to send the National Guard into Democratic-leaning cities he describes as crime-ridden has so far reached Los Angeles; Washington, D.C.; Memphis, Tennessee; Chicago and Portland. He has federalized — taken command of — hundreds of active-duty guard members to staff the deployments.

But in the two most recent attempted deployments to Portland and the Chicago area, the Trump administration has turned to out-of-state National Guard troops, the part-time soldiers who often respond to natural disasters.

National guards are usually under the control of state governors, with state funds paying for their work. But sometimes the troops can be called into federal service at federal expense and placed under the president’s control.

In addition to federalizing some members of the Oregon and Illinois National Guard within those states, the president sent 200 Texas National Guard troops to the Chicago area and plans to send California National Guard members to Portland. A Pentagon memo has also raised the possibility of sending some Texas troops to Portland.

Presidents who have federalized National Guard forces in the past, even against a governor’s will, have done so in response to a crisis in the troops’ home state. That happened to enforce school desegregation in Arkansas in 1957 and Alabama in 1963.

But the decision to send one state’s National Guard troops into a different state without the receiving governor’s consent is both extraordinary and unprecedented, experts on national security law told Stateline.

The cross-border deployments evoke concerns stretching back to the country’s infancy, when the Federalist Papers in 1787-1788 grappled with the possibility that states could take military action against one another. While the recent cross-state deployments have all included troops under Trump’s command, Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott has been an enthusiastic supporter of Trump ordering his state’s National Guard to Chicago.

The troop movements raise questions of state sovereignty and how far the president can go in using the militia of one state to exercise power in another. At stake is Trump’s ability to effectively repurpose military forces for domestic use in line with an August executive order that called for the creation of a National Guard “quick reaction force” that could rapidly deploy nationwide.

“It’s really like …  a little bit like invading another country,” said Claire Finkelstein, a professor of law and philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania who studies military ethics and national security law.

The Trump administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to allow it to proceed with the Chicago-area deployment, which is currently blocked in federal court. On Monday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the deployment in Portland to move forward, overruling a district court judge, but additional appeals are expected.

The deployments come as Trump has repeatedly threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act to expand his ability to use the military for law enforcement. Presidents are generally prohibited from deploying the military domestically, but the Insurrection Act, which dates back to 1792, could be used to bypass restrictions and potentially allow National Guard members to make immigration-related arrests.

For now, Trump has federalized National Guard members under a federal law known as Title 10, which allows the president to take command of National Guard members in response to invasion, rebellions against the United States and whenever the president is unable to execute federal laws with “regular forces.”

He has characterized illegal immigration as an invasion and sought to station National Guard members outside of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, facilities and other federal property.

While Chicago and Portland fight Trump’s moves in court, other cities are bracing for the arrival of troops in anticipation that the deployments will continue to expand. Washington state went so far as to enact a new law earlier this year intended to prevent out-of-state National Guard members from deploying in Washington. The new state law doesn’t pertain to federalized troops, however, only to those that might be sent by another governor.

“I’m incredibly concerned but not necessarily surprised by the president’s method of operation, that there seems to be a theme of fear, intimidation, bullying without a clear plan,” Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell said in an interview with Stateline.

Harrell, who is running for reelection to the nonpartisan office in November, said Seattle officials are monitoring what’s happening in other cities. Any deployment of guard members — whether they were from Washington or elsewhere — would be concerning, he said.

“At the end of the day, they would be following orders with some level of military precision, so my concern isn’t so much out-of-state or in-state. I just oppose any kind of deployment.”

Courtroom fights

Whether the out-of-state status of National Guard members matters legally is up for debate. Experts in national security law are split over whether sending federalized troops across state lines poses constitutional and legal problems, even as they broadly agree the move is provocative.

Joseph Nunn, a counsel in the left-leaning Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program, doubts the cross-state deployment of federalized troops is itself a legal issue.

Still, he criticized the decision to send in out-of-state National Guard and, speaking about Chicago, called the underlying deployment unlawful and unjustified. In ordering troops to Illinois, Nunn said, Trump was abusing his presidential power, regardless of the servicemembers’ home state.

“It is unnecessarily inflammatory,” Nunn said of that choice. “It is, I think, insulting to say we’re going to send the National Guard from one state into another.”

Democrats, especially in cities and states targeted by Trump, condemn the deployments as an abuse of presidential power, regardless of where the troops are from. Republicans have largely supported or stayed silent about Trump’s moves, though Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, who chairs the National Governors Association, has criticized the sending of Texas troops to Illinois.

Abbott wrote on social media in early October that he had “fully authorized” Trump to call up 400 Texas National Guard members. Abbott’s office didn’t respond to Stateline’s questions.

“You can either fully enforce protection for federal employees or get out of the way and let Texas Guard do it,” Abbott wrote on X.

In the Chicago area and in Portland, the Trump administration wants the National Guard outside ICE facilities where small protests have taken place in recent weeks. Dozens of people have been arrested in Portland since June, but there’s been no sign of widespread violence. A Stateline analysis of U.S. Census Bureau and federal crime data found that Trump’s National Guard deployments have not, with a single exception, targeted the nation’s most violent cities.

For weeks federal courts have kept National Guard troops off the streets of Portland and the Chicago area as legal challenges play out, but that could be changing. The Trump administration on Friday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to allow it to deploy National Guard troops in the Chicago area. If the court sides with the administration, the decision could clear the way for additional deployments elsewhere.

In the Friday filing to the Supreme Court, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote: “This case presents what has become a disturbing and recurring pattern: Federal officers are attempting to enforce federal immigration law in an urban area containing significant numbers of illegal aliens. The federal agents’ efforts are met with prolonged, coordinated, violent resistance that threatens their lives and safety and systematically interferes with their ability to enforce federal law.”

The U.S. Department of Defense didn’t directly answer questions from Stateline about whether further cross-state deployments are planned, saying only that it doesn’t speculate on future operations.

U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut wrote in an order blocking deployment of the National Guard in Portland that a handful of documented episodes of protesters clashing with federal law enforcement during September were “inexcusable,” but added that “they are nowhere near the type of incidents that cannot be handled by regular law enforcement forces.”

But on Monday, a divided three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Trump had “lawfully exercised his statutory authority” to deploy Oregon National Guard servicemembers to Portland. Lawyers for Oregon and Portland are seeking a review by the full appeals court, a move that would put the case in front of 11 appellate judges.

Shaoul, the Portland business leader, said the presence of troops would itself risk creating “drama” at the expense of taxpayers.

“Tell me how that’s helping anybody to go in and intimidate a bunch of people who are dressed up in friggin’ costumes, playing music,” Shaoul said. “I mean, if nothing else illustrates what a joke this is, that should tell you right there.”

10th Amendment concerns

Top Republicans have long telegraphed their desire to use the National Guard to aid immigration enforcement.

In December, before Trump took office, 26 GOP governors — at the time, every Republican governor except Vermont’s Phil Scott — signed a statement promising to provide their national guards to help.

Since Trump’s inauguration, at least 11 Republican governors have ordered National Guard members to help ICE, typically by providing logistical support. At least four states — Florida, Louisiana, Texas and West Virginia — have entered into federal agreements that allow ICE to delegate some immigration enforcement duties, potentially including arrests, to National Guard members.

Trump’s decision to federalize National Guard members goes further, placing troops under the president’s command. The cross-state deployments represent the next step in testing his authority to command guard members.

Finkelstein, the national security law professor, said sending one state’s National Guard into another state raises serious legal issues under the 10th Amendment. The amendment reserves for the states or the people powers not specifically granted to the federal government — the idea at the core of federalism.

A president and governor may reasonably disagree about whether federalization is necessary to help their state, Finkelstein said, but “even that fig leaf” isn’t available when troops are sent to another state. California gets nothing out of the deployment of its National Guard to Oregon, she said. And unless it’s California’s governor — rather than the president — making the choice to deploy guard members elsewhere, it’s a “very real problem” that undermines state autonomy, she said.

Washington state Rep. Jim Walsh, who chairs the Washington State Republican Party, has been monitoring the attempted deployment in Portland, as well as the possibility of a deployment to Seattle. He said Trump has broad discretion under federal law to federalize National Guard members.

Still, Walsh said federalizing the National Guard gives him pause and is something that a hypothetical president — “leave this one out of the equation” — might overuse. But he argued state and local leadership in cities where the National Guard has been deployed have brought the situation on themselves by allowing a breakdown in law and order.

Asked about cross-state deployments, Walsh largely dismissed any legal concerns.

“I guess they would know the area better,” Walsh said of troops deployed in their home state. “But this is kind of a specious argument. … The president, whoever he or she is, can federalize National Guard units.”

Walsh said he doesn’t see a situation at the moment that would necessitate a Guard deployment within Washington state.

But Seattle isn’t taking any chances.

Harrell, the Seattle mayor, signed two executive orders in October, one that pushes back on the practice of federal agents making immigration arrests while wearing masks, and another that seeks to maintain control over local law enforcement resources if the National Guard is deployed in the city.

“I’m critically concerned about what can occur as a reaction,” Harrell said. “That’s exactly what Trump’s goal is, to raise tension and create chaos and to use blue cities as scapegoats.”

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to correct the year, 1957, that President Dwight D. Eisenhower federalized National Guard troops to enforce desegregation in Arkansas. Stateline reporter Jonathan Shorman can be reached at jshorman@stateline.org.

President Donald Trump speaks as Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Kash Patel, left, and U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi look on during a press conference in the Oval Office of the White House on Oct. 15, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

President Donald Trump and FBI Director Kash Patel claimed victory Wednesday in what they said was a months-long surge of law enforcement in major cities and pledged to continue sending federal authorities to address violent crime in U.S. cities.

The FBI arrested more than 8,700 suspects during an initiative Trump dubbed “Operation Summer Heat” from June to September. 

The exact parameters of the operation, which had not been previously made public, were unclear as Trump and Patel said during an Oval Office appearance that they would continue to prioritize aggressive enforcement, particularly in major cities led by Democrats.

“Honestly, we haven’t really gotten going yet,” Trump said. “If we didn’t have to fight all these radical left governors, we could’ve had Chicago taken care of, as an example.”

Since June, Trump has pursued a controversial and legally questionable effort to send National Guard troops to U.S. cities — Los Angeles; Washington, D.C.; Memphis and Portland, Oregon — to deal with protestors and general street crime while consistently hinting that more deployments would be coming. 

He said Wednesday that residents of Chicago largely approved of aggressive policing tactics and were “walking around with MAGA hats.” Trump won just 28% of the vote in Chicago’s Cook County in the 2024 election, compared to 70% for Democrat Kamala Harris.

“They’re not interested in National Guard, Army, Navy — bring them in, bring in the Marines,” he said. “They just want the crime to stop.” 

The crime push took Trump by surprise, he said, noting it was not a primary part of his campaign.

“I did get elected for crime, but I didn’t get elected for what we’re doing,” he said. “This is many, many steps above.”

He also identified White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller as an architect and chief communicator of the administration’s law enforcement policies, though he made a passing implication that Miller’s far-right views were too extreme for much of the country.

“I love watching him on television,” he said. “I’d love to have him come up and explain his true feelings. Maybe not his truest feelings — that might be going a little bit too far. But Stephen, thank you for doing an incredible job. The people of this country love you.”

Political crime and Caribbean boats

Trump again broached the possibility of defying two typical norms of presidential power: calling for prosecutions to retaliate against officials who’d investigated him and defending the extrajudicial strikes on alleged drug runners in the Caribbean Sea that he said could expand to land.

Standing between Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi, Trump said U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, who, as a U.S. House Democrat before joining the Senate, led congressional investigations into Trump, and former prosecutor Jack Smith, who led criminal prosecutions, should be investigated.

“Deranged Jack Smith is, in my opinion, a criminal,” Trump said. 

“I hope they’re looking at Shifty Schiff,” he added, referring to the California Democrat. “I hope they’re looking at political crime, because there’s never been as much political crime against a political opponent as what I had to go through.”

Trump said the military’s attacks on vessels suspected to be bringing drugs to the United States had effectively halted drug importation from Venezuela. The operation could expand to land targets, he said.

“We are certainly looking at land now, because we’ve got the sea very well under control,” he said.

The Dirksen Federal Courthouse is pictured in Chicago. (Capitol News Illinois photo by Hannah Meisel)

CHICAGO — Illinois and Chicago filed a federal lawsuit Monday to block the Trump administration’s planned deployment of National Guard troops to the state — a move Gov. JB Pritzker called an “invasion.”

Trump pushed forward with the plan to activate hundreds of National Guard soldiers, including some from Texas, despite monthslong opposition from state and local leaders, as well as objections from civic and business groups in the city.

“We must now start calling this what it is: Trump’s Invasion,” Pritzker said in a statement Sunday night. “It started with federal agents, it will soon include deploying federalized members of the Illinois National Guard against our wishes, and it will now involve sending in another state’s military troops.”

Read more: Over Pritzker’s objections, Trump sending 300 National Guardsmen to Chicago, governor says

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem asked President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to deploy troops to Illinois to protect federal immigration officers and facilities. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement processing center in Broadview, a near-west suburb of Chicago, has been the site of several clashes between ICE agents and demonstrators in recent weeks.

But Pritzker, who said Saturday that he refused the Trump administration’s “ultimatum” to activate the National Guard himself, has insisted there is no emergency necessitating guardsmen on the ground. He also warned that White House officials would use any conflict between immigration agents and civilians as a “pretext” for military occupation.

“It will cause only more unrest, including harming social fabric and community relations and increasing the mistrust of police,” the lawsuit said.

The suit, filed in the Northern District of Illinois, names Trump, Noem and Hegseth as defendants.

Texas National Guard also activated

Illinois filed its lawsuit hours after Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott announced he will send 400 guardsmen to cities around the country, including Chicago, and after a federal judge in Oregon blocked National Guard deployments to Portland.

The order is “effective immediately for an initial period of 60 days” and subject to extension, according to the memo, signed by Hegseth. It comes a day after Pritzker confirmed Trump’s intention to federalize 300 members of the Illinois National Guard.

“The American people, regardless of where they reside, should not live under the threat of occupation by the United States military, particularly not simply because their city or state leadership has fallen out of a president’s favor,” the lawsuit reads. “To guard against this, foundational principles of American law limit the president’s authority to involve the military in domestic affairs. Those bedrock principles are in peril.”

---

---

The promised deployment comes as ICE has ramped up activity in Chicago and its suburbs as part of “Operation Midway Blitz,” which has so far resulted in more than 800 arrests according to the Department of Homeland Security.

There have also been two shootings since the clashes began. On Saturday, the governor called the administration’s National Guard activation a “manufactured performance” and not about protecting public safety.

Though the Trump administration insists ICE is targeting undocumented immigrants who have criminal backgrounds, reports have mounted of agents arresting those with no history of illegal activity, detaining children along with their parents and even handcuffing U.S. citizens and children with zip ties. Immigrant and civil rights groups have alleged ICE is arresting people without warrants in violation of a federal consent decree.

The lawsuit also alleges ICE activity in Chicago and its suburbs has already subjected Illinois “to serious and irreparable harm.”

Read more: ‘We are not backing down’: Feds ramp up immigration raids in Chicago area | DHS Secretary Noem defends ICE tactics in second Illinois visit

“It also creates economic harm, depressing business activities and tourism that not only hurt Illinoisians but also hurt Illinois’s tax revenue,” the complaint said.

That argument echoes one made by a group of Chicago business and civic groups over the weekend.

“National Guard troops on our streets, like those reportedly being ordered here by the federal government, have the potential to sow fear and chaos, threatening our businesses’ bottom lines and our reputation,” the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce, Civic Committee of the Commercial Club of Chicago and the Civic Federation said in a joint statement Saturday.

Read the lawsuit here.

Order violates states’ rights

Attorney General Kwame Raoul argues the troop deployment violates Illinois’ rights as sovereign state to carry about its own law enforcement, as well as 1878 Posee Comitatus Act that bans the military from participating in domestic law enforcement.

The lawsuit also claims the Trump administration failed to meet any criteria that could allow the president to federalize the National Guard. The president can federalize the National Guard to stop a foreign invasion, when the president can’t execute the laws of the country or to stop a rebellion.

Raoul and state leaders have argued for weeks that Trump would use protests in Broadview as a “flimsy pretext” to claim a rebellion.

Read more: Pritzker says feds seeking Chicago troop deployment. ‘What I have been warning of is now being realized’

Several protestors have been arrested near the facility in recent weeks on charges of assaulting officers. Federal agents have sprayed tear gas and fired nonlethal ammunition into crowds that have gathered there.

Over the weekend, a U.S. Border Patrol agent shot a woman on the city’s Southwest Side in a confrontation with protesters. Prosecutors eventually charged the woman and another protestor with attempting to “assault, impede, and interfere with the work of federal agents in Chicago.” According to the Chicago Sun-Times, agents fired “defensive shots” when they saw the woman was allegedly “armed with a semi-automatic weapon,” and she was taken to a nearby hospital for treatment before she was charged.

Further, the lawsuit argues the Trump administration has entirely manufactured any public safety crisis in Illinois that would require military intervention. It cites a 2013 social media post by Trump, two years before he announced his candidacy for president, that suggested the military should be deployed to Chicago. It lists several other derogatory comments Trump made about the city, state and their leaders over the years, including as president.

---

---

Read more: As Trump declares ‘we’re going in,’ Pritzker says ‘terror and cruelty is the point’

The lawsuit argues that animosity culminated last week with Trump claiming during a speech to military generals that there was an “invasion from within” and suggesting cities like Chicago should be used as “training grounds” for the military.

How soldiers will be deployed

The lawsuit includes new details about how federal officials communicated with state leaders and gave Pritzker an ultimatum.

DHS sent a memo to the Illinois National Guard on Sept. 28 stating troops “would integrate with federal law enforcement operations, serving in direct support of federal facility protection, access control, and crowd control.”

On Saturday morning, Illinois National Guard Adjutant General Rodney Boyd received a formal email from the Defense Department National Guard Bureau saying Trump asked for at least 300 soldiers, and if Boyd did not activate them within two hours, Hegseth would federalize them. Boyd responded that Pritzker declined to activate the guard. Defense officials sent a new memo late Saturday saying the guard was federalized.

Illinois National Guard leaders received another memo on Sunday informing them soldiers from Texas would be sent to Chicago beginning Monday.

Read more: As Illinois congressional delegation seeks answers, ICE cancels meeting

Abbott, a Republican and ardent Trump supporter, has been a frequent foil of Pritzker, bussing thousands of asylum-seeking migrants from the border to Chicago in 2023 and 2024 and criticizing the Illinois governor for welcoming Texas Democratic legislators who fled their state this summer amid a partisan redistricting fight. He said in a social media post that Pritzker “can either fully enforce protection for federal employees or get out of the way and let the Texas Guard do it.”

Prior to this year, the last time a president federalized a state’s National Guard without a request from a state’s governor was in 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent federal troops to protect civil rights protesters in Alabama without the cooperation of segregationist Gov. George Wallace.

---

Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service that distributes state government coverage to hundreds of news outlets statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation.

This article first appeared on Capitol News Illinois and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

About 200 people showed up to protest outside the Immigration and Customs Enforcement building in Portland on Sunday, Sept. 28. (Photo by Alex Baumhardt/Oregon Capital Chronicle)

Oregon and the city of Portland are suing President Donald Trump to block the federal government from deploying hundreds of Oregon National Guard members in an unprecedented crackdown in Oregon’s largest city.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth notified Gov. Tina Kotek on Sunday morning that he was mobilizing 200 Oregon National Guard members for 60 days under an order to protect U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal property where protests are occurring or likely to occur. 

Hegseth’s memo came the day after President Donald Trump declared in a social media post that he would deploy troops to Portland.

Within hours of Hegseth’s memo, the Oregon Department of Justice filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Portland. Attorney General Dan Rayfield said in a video press briefing Sunday afternoon that his office has been preparing for the prospect since January.

“It’s actually un-American, if you think about it, to use the military against our own citizens,” Rayfield said. “But that’s exactly what’s happening right now across our country, from California to D.C. to Memphis, to Illinois, and now to Portland.” 

Oregon is seeking a temporary restraining order to pause the planned deployment within the next 24 hours, Rayfield said.  

Gov. Tina Kotek said she spoke with Trump on Saturday and made clear that there is no insurrection or threat to public safety in Oregon. 

“Oregon is our home,” Kotek said. “It is not a military target, and we’re going to fight back to make sure that we can keep Oregon safe.” 

Portland has experienced frequent protests outside an ICE facility, and the local U.S. attorney has brought charges against 26 people since early June for crimes including arson and resisting arrest. Most protests have remained peaceful.

On Sunday afternoon, about 200 people gathered at the ICE facility in south Portland to protest ICE, the Department of Homeland Security and Trump. Federal police from the Department of Homeland Security, many wearing gas masks and helmets, surrounded the building as protesters yelled “Shame, shame!” and called for them to get out of Portland. 

Casey Leger, a self-described middle-class grandma from Southeast Portland, has been coming to protest outside the Portland ICE facility weekly since February. Recently, she’s started protesting six days a week.

“I spend a lot of time down here and I see our neighbors being taken away,” she said. “I’ve seen women trying to hold it together for their children because their husbands went in there and didn’t come out. I see it daily.”

Along with speaking with Trump on Saturday, Kotek said she exchanged texts with him on Sunday that ended with her expressing her disagreement and disgruntlement after receiving Hegseth’s memo by email. 

As governor, Kotek is the commander-in-chief of the Oregon National Guard. But Hegseth’s memo indicates that 200 members of the guard will instead receive orders by U.S. Northern Command, a joint federal military command based in Colorado. 

A 19th-century law, the Posse Comitatus Act, generally forbids military members from conducting domestic law enforcement. Oregon lawmakers considered but did not pass a bill this year to reinforce prohibitions on the National Guard being used for domestic law enforcement. 

Trump previously sent National Guard troops and U.S. Marines to Los Angeles to respond to protests against immigration enforcement there and ordered National Guard troops to assist police in Washington, D.C., a district where federal officials have sweeping powers not granted in the 50 states.

In Oregon, despite Trump’s claims Portland is “war ravaged,” there has been no evidence of violence at protests against the administration. 

“The president is either purposefully ignoring the reality on the ground in Portland to score political points, or at best is recklessly relying upon social media gossip,” Rayfield said. “The president’s actions today only serve to further divide us as a nation, as a community under the guise of caring about public safety.”