Chicago stands at the center of a heated national debate after reports surfaced of President Donald Trump’s plan to deploy thousands of National Guard troops to the city, a move that has drawn swift and nearly unanimous condemnation from Illinois leaders. Over the past week, as the Pentagon’s planning for such an operation became public, officials at every level of Illinois government have pushed back, calling the proposal an overreach, a manufactured crisis, and a threat to the city’s progress in reducing crime.
Governor JB Pritzker, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, and Mayor Brandon Johnson are set to hold a news conference Monday afternoon in downtown Chicago to address the controversy. According to ABC News, the trio intends to make it clear that neither the state nor the city has requested federal intervention, and that they view the president’s plan as an unnecessary and politically motivated escalation. "Donald Trump is attempting to manufacture a crisis, politicize Americans who serve in uniform, and continue abusing his power to distract from the pain he is causing working families," Pritzker said in a statement over the weekend, as reported by The Washington Post.
The roots of this confrontation go back several weeks. The Pentagon, according to officials familiar with the matter cited by The Washington Post, has been quietly planning a military deployment to Chicago, potentially mobilizing a few thousand National Guard troops as early as next month. The move would mirror Trump’s recent actions in Washington, D.C., where nearly 2,000 National Guard members were sent to address what the administration described as a surge in violence—despite city officials reporting a decline in crime.
President Trump has not minced words about his intentions. On Friday, he told reporters, "Chicago is a mess. You have an incompetent mayor, grossly incompetent, and we will straighten that one out next." He also claimed, "The people in Chicago ... are screaming for us to come ... so I think Chicago will be our next and then we'll help with New York." Trump’s comments came as he touted his law-and-order approach and pointed to what he called out-of-control crime in Democratic-led cities.
Yet, Chicago’s leaders argue the president’s narrative is at odds with reality. According to Chicago Police Department data and statements from Mayor Brandon Johnson, crime in the city has been on the decline. The number of homicides has dropped about 50% since 2021—from roughly 500 to around 250 so far in 2025—and reported shootings have decreased by 57% over the past four years. Johnson said that deploying troops would "undermine the city’s progress in reducing crime." He added, "Sending in the National Guard would only serve to destabilize our city and undermine our public safety efforts." The mayor further suggested that if Trump truly wanted to help, he could start by "releasing the funds for anti-violence programs that have been critical to our work to drive down crime and violence."
Governor Pritzker, for his part, has repeatedly insisted that there is no emergency in Illinois that would justify federalizing the state’s National Guard or deploying active-duty military. "The safety of the people of Illinois is always my top priority. There is no emergency that warrants the President of the United States federalizing the Illinois National Guard, deploying the National Guard from other states, or sending active duty military within our own borders," he wrote in a post on X (formerly Twitter). Pritzker accused Trump of attempting to "distract from the pain he's causing families" and vowed, "We’ll continue to follow the law, stand up for the sovereignty of our state, and protect Illinoisans."
The legal authority for such a deployment is murky. The 1878 Posse Comitatus Act generally prohibits the use of federal military forces for civilian law enforcement unless expressly authorized by law, a point Attorney General Raoul emphasized in his criticism of Trump’s threat. "It’s disingenuous and performative. If there were sincere concerns about crime, there wouldn’t be disinvestment in community violence funding and funding for victims of crime," Raoul told the Sun-Times. He also noted that federal troops are typically only deployed in a state due to a major disruption or disaster, and that it is usually a collaborative decision between the president and the governor.
Despite these legal and political hurdles, the White House has so far declined to clarify its intentions. A Pentagon spokesperson told reporters, "We won’t speculate on further operations. The Department is a planning organization and is continuously working with other agency partners on plans to protect federal assets and personnel." The spokesperson did not address whether a final decision had been made or what the scope of any deployment would be.
Support for the president’s plan has come from some conservative groups, such as "Chicago Flips Red," whose spokesperson Zoe Leigh said, "It's too much crime, so it needs to be some type of law and order, and if this administration cannot get it done, the Johnson administration can't get it done... then yeah, we need the National Guard." Still, such voices remain in the minority among city and state leaders.
Lieutenant Governor Juliana Stratton also weighed in, saying the reports "prove what we all know: he is willing to go to any lengths possible to create chaos if it means more political power—no matter who gets hurt." Stratton pointed to what she described as "tremendous progress" in criminal legal reform under the Pritzker-Stratton administration and reiterated that crime in Chicago is declining. "There’s absolutely no rationale for this decision, other than to distract from the pain Trump is inflicting on working families with his dangerous agenda," she said.
Former Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel dismissed the plan as "political theater," questioning whether troops would be sent to high-profile areas like Michigan Avenue or neighborhoods that have struggled with crime. Emanuel’s skepticism reflects a broader sentiment among local leaders who see the proposed deployment as more about optics than genuine public safety.
For now, the path forward remains uncertain. Mayor Johnson has vowed legal action should the deployment occur, though it is unclear whether the courts would block such a move. In California, a lawsuit challenging the deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles remains unresolved weeks after the fact. Both the legal and political battles over federal intervention in Chicago are likely to continue in the weeks ahead.
As the city braces for what could be a defining confrontation between local and federal authorities, one thing is clear: Chicago’s leaders are determined to defend their city’s autonomy and the progress they say has been made—no matter how high the stakes rise.
