Legal Battles Over Trump's National Guard Deployments to U.S. Cities
President Donald Trump's directives regarding National Guard deployments to U.S. cities encountered multiple legal challenges across various jurisdictions. These deployments, initiated for purposes including public safety, protest response, and safeguarding federal property, resulted in a series of court rulings that both restricted and, in some cases, permitted the federal use of Guard forces, highlighting the complex interplay between federal and state authority. The administration's actions also led to discussions surrounding the Insurrection Act and significant financial expenditures.
Overview of Deployments and Legal Context
During his administration, President Trump authorized National Guard involvement in domestic matters in several cities. These actions often prompted lawsuits from state and local officials, particularly in Democratic-led cities. Legal evaluations focused on the necessity and legality of military involvement in civilian affairs, frequently citing constitutional principles and the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally restricts federal military personnel from acting as police.
The administration often cited 10 U.S.C. 12406, a 19th-century law with limited precedent, involving terms like "rebellion" and "invasion," to justify these deployments.
White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson defended the administration's actions, stating President Trump acted within his authority and that if local leaders addressed crime, communities would be safer.
President Trump also indicated a willingness to deploy troops to additional cities and discussed the potential use of the Insurrection Act.
State-Level Legal Actions and Outcomes
Tennessee
In Tennessee, state Democratic lawmakers and officials initiated a lawsuit contesting Governor Bill Lee's directive to deploy the state's National Guard in Memphis. Plaintiffs argued Memphis did not meet the state constitution's criteria of 'rebellion or invasion' for Guard deployment.
Davidson County Chancellor Patricia Head Moskal issued a temporary block on the deployment, stating the Governor's authority as commander-in-chief of the Army and Militia is not without limits. The deployment pause had not yet taken effect, allowing time for the state to appeal.
California (Los Angeles)
In June, President Trump federalized the California National Guard, deploying over 4,000 troops to Los Angeles amidst protests, despite objections from Governor Gavin Newsom. The number of deployed troops later decreased to approximately 100. The administration sought multiple extensions for the federalization.
Days after a D.C. Appeals Court ruling, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a federal judge's ruling to terminate the deployment in Los Angeles. This decision effectively prevented the administration from utilizing the remaining National Guard troops. All troops subsequently vacated their stations, relocating to a military facility for training exercises. Control of the troops was later fully returned to California state authority after the administration filed a court document indicating it no longer sought a pause on that part of the order.
Oregon (Portland)
President Trump's administration also sought to deploy National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield prioritized blocking troops before their arrival. In early October, Oregon successfully obtained a temporary restraining order against deployment in Portland.
When the administration subsequently attempted to deploy federalized California National Guard troops to Oregon, a second temporary restraining order was issued. A federal judge in Oregon later issued a permanent injunction against the deployment of National Guard troops within the state. The Department of Defense subsequently ordered the return of National Guard troops from Portland to their home states following these federal court actions.
Illinois (Chicago)
The Trump administration sought to deploy National Guard troops to Chicago, contending it was necessary to address violence against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul faced a similar situation, leading to a temporary restraining order against troops there.
Two lower courts ruled against the administration's assertion that protests in Chicago constituted a "rebellion or danger of rebellion," which would grant the President authority to intervene. The administration appealed these rulings, with the Illinois case reaching the Supreme Court.
In the final weeks of 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court denied an application by the Trump administration, refusing to reinstate the President's ability to deploy National Guard troops into Illinois without the state governor's consent.
The Court's majority opinion stated that the Government had "failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois" and did not adequately explain why the situation warranted an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act.
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented from the unsigned majority opinion. The Department of Defense subsequently ordered the return of National Guard troops from Chicago.
Washington D.C. Deployments
President Trump initiated the deployment of hundreds of troops to Washington, D.C., in early August without the consent of the city's mayor, following his declaration of a "crime emergency." These personnel, numbering over 2,100 from D.C. and several states, were assigned tasks including patrols and civic beautification.
U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb issued a temporary order halting the deployment, declaring the use of troops "unlawful" and finding that the District's exercise of sovereign powers was irreparably harmed.
This order was paused for appeal. However, a Federal Appeals Court for Washington, D.C., subsequently ruled that National Guard troops could remain deployed in the city while a panel of judges further examined the legality of the deployment. This decision overturned Judge Cobb's lower court order.
The appeals court's ruling cited Washington, D.C.'s unique federal status as providing the President with significant authority over troop deployment within the city. The judges also indicated that the Trump administration was likely to prevail in the overarching legal case, potentially allowing the deployment to continue until at least February 2026. An additional number of troops were added after an attack resulted in one fatality and one injury among West Virginia National Guard personnel.
Broader Legal and Operational Concerns
While upholding the D.C. deployment, federal appeals court judges expressed significant reservations about the lawfulness of deployments in other cities. Specifically, they questioned the constitutionality of deploying out-of-state National Guard units to another state without the consent of that state's governor, characterizing such a move as:
"...constitutionally troubling to our federal system of government."
Legal experts, including Chris Mirasola, a national security law professor, indicated that judicial authority has limits in restricting presidential military use, suggesting public sentiment also acts as a check on power. Benjamin R. Farley, an attorney for the National Immigration Law Center, characterized the Tennessee ruling as a legal precedent against executive overreach.
The Insurrection Act
Former President Trump publicly discussed invoking the Insurrection Act, including in relation to protests in Minnesota. The Insurrection Act, enacted in 1807, grants the president authority to deploy armed forces to states to restore law and order, allowing military personnel to perform law enforcement functions, such as making arrests and conducting searches, which bypasses the restrictions of the Posse Comitatus Act.
The Act has been invoked approximately 30 times, most recently during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. Conditions for invocation include: at a state's request in response to an "insurrection," without state consent if federal law enforcement is "impracticable," or to suppress an insurrection that "hinders the execution of federal laws." Before invocation, the president is required to order the involved parties to disperse.
Legal scholars suggest that using the Act to address general crime or enforce immigration laws would depart from its historical applications and would likely encounter legal challenges, indicating that the Act is not a "blank check."
Financial Implications
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that President Trump's domestic deployments of the National Guard could cost over $1.1 billion if sustained at certain levels. These projections were released in response to a request from 11 U.S. senators led by Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, who sought an independent investigation into deployment expenses.
The CBO estimated ongoing deployments would require an additional $93 million per month, with the D.C. operation, involving over 2,690 Guard members, projected to cost upwards of $660 million if it continued through December. Previous mobilizations cost approximately $496 million.
Gabe Murphy, a policy analyst from Taxpayers for Common Sense, noted that using federalized Guard members for crime reduction is not cost-effective, as they are generally not authorized to perform law enforcement duties such as arrests or searches.
Lindsay Koshgarian, program director of the National Priorities Project, expressed concern that these expenses could divert funding from other critical military priorities. A precedent for this occurred in 2021 when funds for military training and readiness were redirected to cover the deployment of 25,000 Guard forces to D.C. after the January 6 Capitol attack, requiring Congress to approve $521 million for reimbursement.