The Trump administration has quietly withdrawn federalized National Guard troops from the cities of Los Angeles, Chicago, and Portland, , according to reports. The move follows a series of legal challenges that curtailed President Trump’s plans to deploy the Guard in response to protests and concerns over rising crime rates.
Approximately 5,000 troops had been stationed in California, with a further 500 in Illinois and 200 in Oregon, deployed at the direction of the President. The Pentagon confirmed that these troops had “completed demobilizing activities” by .
The deployments, which cost an estimated half a billion dollars according to the Congressional Budget Office, were initially framed by the administration as a necessary measure to quell unrest and support immigration enforcement. However, the legal basis for federalizing National Guard units and deploying them within state lines without the explicit consent of state governors was repeatedly contested in court.
A key setback came on when the U.S. Supreme Court blocked Trump’s attempt to deploy National Guard troops in Illinois. The ruling underscored the principle that deploying troops on American soil is permissible only in “exceptional circumstances.” Similar legal challenges were mounted by authorities in California and Oregon, arguing that the federal government was overstepping its constitutional authority.
The withdrawal of troops from these cities does not signify a complete end to the National Guard’s presence in support of federal operations. Troops remain stationed in Washington, D.C., Memphis, and New Orleans, operating under separate agreements with the Trump administration. This distinction highlights the nuanced nature of the deployments and the ongoing debate over the appropriate role of the National Guard in domestic law enforcement.
President Trump, in a statement released on his social media platform, attributed the reduction in crime in the three cities to the presence of the National Guard, stating that the cities were “GONE if it weren’t for the Federal Government stepping in.” He indicated that the withdrawal was “for now,” suggesting a potential future redeployment should circumstances warrant it.
The decision to withdraw the troops has drawn mixed reactions. Democratic officials, who had consistently opposed the deployments, welcomed the move as a victory for states’ rights and a rejection of what they characterized as an authoritarian overreach. California Governor Gavin Newsom, in a statement, described the federalization of the National Guard as illegal.
The deployments were initially authorized in response to protests that followed the administration’s policies on immigration and broader concerns about civil unrest during a period of heightened political polarization. The administration argued that local authorities were unable to effectively manage the situation and that federal intervention was necessary to protect federal property and ensure public safety.
However, critics argued that the deployments were politically motivated and intended to intimidate protesters and suppress dissent. Civil rights groups raised concerns about the potential for abuse of power and the militarization of law enforcement. The legal battles that ensued centered on the interpretation of the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits the use of the U.S. Military for domestic law enforcement purposes.
The withdrawal of the National Guard from Chicago, Los Angeles, and Portland marks a significant shift in the administration’s approach to domestic security. While the President maintains the option of redeploying troops in the future, the legal obstacles and political opposition encountered during the initial deployments suggest that any future attempts to federalize the National Guard will likely face similar challenges.
The financial cost of the deployments – nearly half a billion dollars – has also drawn scrutiny, raising questions about the effectiveness of the strategy and the allocation of federal resources. The Congressional Budget Office’s assessment of the costs underscores the significant financial burden associated with deploying National Guard troops for extended periods.
The situation highlights the complex interplay between federal and state authority in the United States, particularly in matters of law enforcement and national security. The legal challenges and political debates surrounding the National Guard deployments underscore the ongoing tensions between the desire for a strong federal response to perceived threats and the protection of states’ rights and civil liberties.
The removal of the troops from these cities concludes a chapter marked by legal battles and political controversy, leaving a lasting impact on the debate over the role of the military in domestic affairs. The future of federal-state cooperation on security matters remains uncertain, but the recent events have undoubtedly raised the stakes and underscored the importance of clear legal boundaries and respectful dialogue.
