For weeks, the Pentagon has been quietly preparing plans to deploy military troops to Chicago—a move that has ignited fierce debate and drawn sharp rebukes from Illinois officials, city leaders, and civil rights advocates. The plan, part of President Trump’s latest push to crack down on crime, homelessness, and undocumented immigration, echoes similar high-profile interventions in Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles, and has thrust Chicago into the center of a heated national conversation about public safety, federal authority, and the limits of presidential power.
According to the Washington Post, Pentagon officials have discussed mobilizing several thousand National Guard troops as early as September 2025, with the possible addition of active-duty forces. The operation would mirror the Trump administration’s June deployment of 4,000 National Guard members and 700 Marines to Los Angeles following protests against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. That move was strongly condemned by California officials as illegal, and the legal questions have only intensified as the White House signals its intention to repeat the playbook in Chicago and other major cities.
President Trump, for his part, has been anything but subtle about his intentions. Speaking in the Oval Office on August 22, he declared, “Chicago’s a mess. You have an incompetent mayor, grossly incompetent. And we’ll straighten that one out probably next.” In a post on his social media network Truth Social, Trump teased the possibility of sending troops to Baltimore as well, following an invitation from Maryland’s governor for a public safety walk. “I might send in the ‘troops’,” Trump wrote, doubling down on his tough-on-crime rhetoric.
But Illinois leaders have met these threats with a wall of opposition. Governor JB Pritzker, in a statement posted to X on August 23, insisted, “The State of Illinois at this time has received no requests or outreach from the federal government asking if we need assistance, and we have made no requests for federal intervention.” He continued, “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 @IL_Natl_Guard, deploying the National Guard from other states, or sending active duty military within our own borders.” Pritzker accused Trump of attempting to “manufacture a crisis, politicize Americans who serve in uniform, and continue abusing his power to distract from the pain he’s causing families.”
Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson has been equally forceful. On Friday, Johnson called Trump’s threat “uncoordinated, uncalled for, and unsound,” warning that “unlawfully deploying the National Guard to Chicago could inflame tensions between residents and law enforcement.” On MSNBC, Johnson added, “The city of Chicago does not need a military occupation... This is clearly a violation of the Constitution, and we’re going to remain firm and vigilant in our commitment to ensure that our democracy is protected and our humanity is secured.”
City data cited by Johnson shows that Chicago has made significant strides in reducing violent crime over the past year: homicides are down by more than 30%, robberies by 35%, and shootings by nearly 40%. “Unlawfully deploying the National Guard to Chicago has the potential to inflame tensions between residents and law enforcement when we know that trust between police and residents is foundational to building safer communities,” Johnson said in a statement. “We need to continue to invest in what is working.”
Legal experts agree with the city’s assessment. CBS News Chicago legal analyst Irv Miller noted that the president does not have the authority to unilaterally send the National Guard to Illinois; that decision rests with the governor. “Deploying the National Guard in any state is up to the governor, and Pritzker has made it clear he’s not interested,” Miller explained.
Despite the overwhelming opposition from state and city officials, a small conservative group called “Chicago Flips Red” has voiced support for the president’s plan. With just eight core members but a wider network of sympathizers, the group claims to represent Chicagoans who welcome the National Guard’s presence. “It needs to happen. It’s no law and order,” said Zoe Leigh, one of the group’s leaders. Another member, Danielle Carter-Walters, added, “If you’ve got the National Guard right there, are you going to rob somebody right there in front of the National Guard? No, you’re not.”
Still, the majority of local leaders and advocacy groups remain unconvinced. The ACLU of Illinois has argued that public safety involves more than just policing, and that the National Guard is not the answer. “National Guard are not trained in order to be police officers, in order to collaborate and cooperate with communities. They’re trained to do militaristic operations, and so the idea that that’s the substitute is really a poor one,” said ACLU Illinois spokesman Ed Yohnka.
Illinois political leaders at the federal level have also weighed in. Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi and Senator Tammy Duckworth released a joint statement condemning Trump’s threat as illegal and a misuse of power. “President Trump’s illegal attempt to militarize Chicago will do nothing but spark chaos and create spectacle. There is no emergency in Illinois that warrants federalizing our National Guard or deploying active-duty troops into our communities—just as there was no justification in Washington or Los Angeles. Donald Trump’s flagrant abuses of power must end. Our brave servicemen and women are not pawns in his political games,” Krishnamoorthi said. Duckworth added, “If he really cared about ‘health and safety,’ he wouldn’t have cut millions of dollars in gun violence prevention funding just weeks ago. This is just another attempt to distract the American people from the price increases his own policies are causing and the various personal scandals he wants to change the subject from.”
Representative Mike Quigley echoed these concerns, calling the proposal “a gross overreach by a President who wants to cosplay as tough by bullying his own citizens.” Quigley emphasized support for “real solutions to crime and homelessness—programs that provide funding to our police, violence interrupters, and drug intervention.”
Former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, speaking on CNN, suggested that Trump’s threat reflects “animus toward Chicago’s Democratic leadership and desire to crack down on immigration” rather than a genuine interest in public safety. Emanuel pointed out that while certain crimes like carjackings remain a challenge, the city is on the right path with strategies focusing on more police on the beat and getting “kids, gangs, and guns off the street.”
Nationally, the debate has underscored the deep divisions over how to address crime and public safety. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries remarked, “The American people understandably want safer communities. We want to continue to make sure that crime can go down as it’s doing in Chicago, in New York, in Washington, D.C., and other places, and to do that we should support local law enforcement.”
As of August 24, 2025, no official communication about federal troop deployment has been received by Chicago city officials. Both the governor and mayor remain adamant that any unilateral action by the president would be illegal and unwelcome. For now, Chicago stands firm, its leaders united in their resolve to handle public safety on their own terms, without the shadow of military intervention looming over their neighborhoods.
