Legal and political tensions are reaching a fever pitch in the Midwest as federal courts and state officials clash over President Donald Trump’s attempts to deploy National Guard troops to cities like Chicago and Portland. The latest chapter unfolded on October 9, 2025, when U.S. District Judge April Perry issued a temporary restraining order, halting the deployment of National Guard troops in the Chicago area. Judge Perry stated bluntly that there was “no credible evidence that there is danger of rebellion in the state of Illinois” or that the president was unable to enforce federal law there. Echoing her colleague in Oregon, Perry criticized the Trump administration’s “perception of events” in Chicago as “simply unreliable.”
Just days earlier, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut had reached a similar conclusion in Portland, Oregon. Immergut ruled that President Trump’s move to federalize the National Guard under 10 USC 12406 was not justified, noting that protests at the city’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) building had dwindled to “20 or fewer people” and were “generally peaceful, with only sporadic incidents of violence and disruptive behavior.” She concluded that the situation was “categorically different from the violent incidents” previously cited by the government in other cities.
President Trump, however, has shown no sign of backing down. He has invoked 10 USC 12406, a statute allowing the president to call up the National Guard in response to rebellion or an inability to enforce federal law with regular forces. Trump insists that both conditions exist in Portland and Chicago, citing ongoing protests against his immigration crackdown and alleged attacks on federal personnel. According to Capital Tonight, Trump praised Texas Governor Greg Abbott for sending 400 Texas National Guard troops to Illinois, saying, “We have a very powerful National Guard. I want to thank the governor of Texas, who has been, as usual, great. Gov. Abbott, he gave us 400 troops without even a question.”
The legal debate, though, is far from settled. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments on October 9, 2025, and appeared inclined to allow the Portland deployment, despite the district court’s ruling. Judge Ryan Nelson, a Trump appointee, questioned whether requiring ongoing violence would unduly constrain presidential authority. He mused, “I’m not even sure President [Abraham] Lincoln would’ve been able to bring in forces when he did” if such a standard had been applied during the Civil War. Judge Bridget Bade, another Trump appointee, also pressed the point, asking why events from earlier in the summer—when Portland’s ICE facility was closed for nearly a month—should be considered irrelevant to the president’s decision.
Immergut, however, disagreed, arguing that the diversion of federal resources, such as bringing in Federal Protective Service (FPS) officers from other states, is a routine aspect of law enforcement and not enough to justify federalizing the National Guard. She warned that the government’s logic “would allow the President to call in the National Guard whenever one law enforcement office receives support from another office.”
Meanwhile, in Illinois, the deployment of National Guard troops from both Illinois and Texas—totaling 500 and stationed at a U.S. Army Reserve Center in Elwood—was activated for 60 days to protect ICE agents. But Judge Perry’s restraining order has put those plans on hold for at least two weeks, with another hearing scheduled for October 22, 2025, to determine if the order should be extended. Governor Abbott’s intervention has not gone unnoticed by local officials. Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker was told by Abbott, “You can either fully enforce protection for federal employees or get out of the way and let Texas Guard do it.”
Abbott’s actions have drawn both praise and criticism. President Trump lauded Abbott’s swift support, while critics, like U.S. Representative Greg Casar of Austin, accused the Texas governor of political grandstanding. “Gov. Greg Abbott should be paying attention to helping Texans. But for some reason, he’s been obsessed with the city of Chicago,” Casar remarked. Abbott’s spokesperson fired back, saying, “If the liberal governments in Illinois and Chicago were protecting people and property and upholding law & order we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Public safety should be the first priority for any elected official.”
The controversy is further complicated by Abbott’s previous policy of busing over 100,000 migrants—many of them asylum seekers—from Texas to Democratic-led cities like Chicago and New York. Of those, more than 30,000 ended up in Chicago alone. Now, Abbott is sending Texas troops to the Windy City to “round them up,” according to critics.
The legal debate hinges on the relationship between the Insurrection Act and the Posse Comitatus Act. Chris Macaulay, an adjunct assistant professor at Kingsborough Community College, explained, “The question then becomes is this a legal use of the National Guard in line with the Insurrection Act that kind of implies he can, and the Posse Comitatus Act, which kind of implies he can’t.” The Insurrection Act (10 USC 252) gives the president broad authority to deploy federal military forces when “unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings.” The statute’s language is so broad, the American Law Institute notes, that it arguably applies to a wide range of situations, including mostly peaceful protests with sporadic violence.
President Trump has made clear that he is willing to invoke the Insurrection Act if necessary, saying on October 6, 2025, “If people were being killed and courts were holding us up or governors or mayors were holding us up, sure, I’d do that.” Notably, deadly violence is not actually required for the president to invoke the Act; the decision rests largely on his own determination that ordinary law enforcement is insufficient.
The deployments have exposed deep partisan divides. Supporters argue that the National Guard’s mission is to protect federal employees and maintain public safety, especially in cities the president deems dangerous. Republican trial lawyer Anthony Holm commented, “I suspect every National Guardsman, every soldier, every patriot in America signs up to help keep America safe.”
On the other side, Democrats argue that the deployments are unnecessary and politically motivated. Representative Casar insisted, “The folks that signed up for the National Guard signed up to protect Texans, to serve Texans, to protect us from disaster. And for those not to go be part of a political stunt, for Donald Trump in the state of Illinois.” Critics also point to concerns that ICE is making arrests in Chicago without proper warrants and with a “procedure of arrest first and ask questions later,” as Macaulay put it.
As the legal wrangling continues, the courts are left to decide just how far the president’s authority extends—and whether the extraordinary requirements of statutes like 10 USC 12406 and the Insurrection Act will serve as meaningful checks on executive power. The next hearing in Illinois, scheduled for October 22, could set a precedent for how such deployments are handled across the country. For now, the standoff between federal authority and local governance remains unresolved, with both sides bracing for the next round in court.
