A member of the National Guard stands alongside a military vehicle parked in front of Union Station, near the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 18, 2025. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Monday directing state National Guard units to be ready to assist local, state and federal law enforcement, a potential step toward a dramatic expansion of Trump’s use of military personnel for domestic policing.

The order calls for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to ensure troops in the National Guard of every state “are resourced, trained, organized, and available to assist Federal, State, and local law enforcement in quelling civil disturbances and ensuring the public safety” and directs the secretary to establish “a standing National Guard quick reaction force” for “nationwide deployment.”

Hegseth will also work with adjutant generals to decide a number of each state’s Guard “to be reasonably available for rapid mobilization for such purposes,” the order said.

State National Guard units are generally controlled by the state’s governor, except in emergencies. 

In comments in the Oval Office on Monday, Trump said the Guard deployment could rapidly “solve” crime in some major cities, but left doubt about his desire to overrule governors who do not want Guard troops in their cities.

Trump mobilized the District of Columbia National Guard, which he is able to do because the district is not a state, to assist local law enforcement this month. Guard troops from West Virginia, Louisiana, Ohio, Mississippi, Tennessee and South Carolina also have sent troops to the nation’s capital.

Free DC, a group that advocates for district self-governance, issued a lengthy statement calling the move dictatorial. 

“Trump is laying the groundwork to quell all public dissent to his agenda. If he is successful, it would spell the end of American democracy,” the group said. “We refuse to allow that to happen.”

Chicago next?

Following the deployment to Washington, D.C., Trump said “Chicago should be next.”

Democratic governors, such as Illinois’ J.B. Pritzker, should request National Guard assistance, Trump said. But if they would not, Trump said he may not send troops.

Asked if he would send troops into cities over governors’ objections, Trump complained that governors could be ungrateful for federal deployment.

“We may wait,” he continued. “We may or may not. We may just go in and do it, which is probably what we should do. The problem is it’s not nice when you go in and do it, and somebody else is standing there saying, as we give great results, say, ‘Well, we don’t want the military.’”

Pritzker slammed Trump on social media and said he would not accept Trump sending troops to his state’s largest city.

“I’ve said it once, and I’ll say it again and again: We don’t have kings or wannabe dictators in America, and I don’t intend to bend the knee to one,” he posted with a link to Trump’s comments.

The 1878 Posse Comitatus Act generally prohibits federal military forces from engaging in domestic law enforcement. 

‘I’m not a dictator’

Trump dismissed criticism that deploying the military for law enforcement purposes is antidemocratic, saying that most people agree with extreme measures to crack down on urban crime.

“They say, ‘We don’t need ‘em. Freedom, freedom. He’s a dictator, he’s a dictator,’” Trump said of his critics. “A lot of people are saying, ‘Maybe we like a dictator.’ I don’t like a dictator. I’m not a dictator. I’m a man with great common sense and a smart person. And when I see what’s happening to our cities, and then you send in troops, instead of being praised, they’re saying, ‘You’re trying to take over the republic.’ These people are sick.”

Trump earlier this summer called up the California National Guard to quell protests over immigration enforcement in Los Angeles, setting the stage for his actions in the district. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, has challenged the president’s authority in a case that is still in court.

Trump over the weekend also fought with Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, also a Democrat, on social media and threatened to send in troops to Baltimore.

A voter shows identification to an election judge. (Photo by Jeff Swensen/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A Massachusetts federal judge on Friday blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order requiring states to mandate voters in federal elections provide documents proving their citizenship, ruling the measure would cause a significant burden to states and potentially harm voters.

U.S. District Judge Denise J. Casper issued a preliminary injunction stopping the order from going into effect while the case is pending.

“There is no dispute (nor could there be) that U.S. citizenship is required to vote in federal elections and the federal voter registration forms require attestation of citizenship,” Casper wrote in her order.

“The issue here is whether the President can require documentary proof of citizenship where the authority for election requirements is in the hands of Congress, its statutes … do not require it, and the statutorily created (Election Assistance Commission) is required to go through a notice and comment period and consult with the States before implementing any changes to the federal forms for voter registration,” Casper, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, continued.

Democratic attorneys general in 19 states brought the suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts after the president signed the order in March.

The order directed the federal Election Assistance Commission, which distributes grants to states, within 30 days to start requiring people registering to vote to provide proof of citizenship, such as a passport or state-issued identification that indicates citizenship.

Harm to voters

In her decision to grant the preliminary injunction, Casper said the states had shown that without a pause on the executive order, “citizens will be disenfranchised.”

“The States have also credibly attested that the challenged requirements could create chaos and confusion that could result in voters losing trust in the election process,” she said.

The executive order posed risks of irreparable harm to states “for at least three reasons,” Casper wrote.

She noted the cost and resources to implement the executive order, the federal funding states are at risk of losing if they do not comply with the order and discouraging voter participation.

Chilling voter participation is “the antithesis of Congress’s purpose in enacting the (The Uniform Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act) and the (National Voter Registration Act),” she wrote.

The order also would prohibit the counting of absentee or mail-in ballots that are received after Election Day. States set their own rules for ballot counting and many allow those that arrive after Election Day but postmarked before.

The states that brought the challenge to the executive order are: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin.

Crackdown on immigrants

The executive order that Trump signed in March was a culmination of his rhetoric on the campaign trail about people without U.S. citizenship voting in federal elections and his vow to crackdown on immigration and carry out mass deportations.

Republicans have sought to use the rare examples of people without citizenship voting in federal elections, and local governments that allow immigrants to vote in local elections, to tighten restrictions on voter registration.

U.S. House Republicans in April passed a bill to codify the executive order.

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, conducted an analysis of election conduct from 2003 to 2023 and found 29 instances of noncitizens voting, just more than one per year.