In an escalating confrontation over federal authority and local governance, President Donald Trump’s recent deployments of the National Guard to several major U.S. cities have ignited fierce criticism, legal battles, and a heated national debate. The controversy reached a new peak this week as Democratic Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass condemned Trump’s approach, calling it “creating lawfare within” urban centers, while a federal judge in Oregon recused himself from a closely watched lawsuit challenging similar actions in Portland.
Earlier this week, President Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth addressed hundreds of senior officials at Quantico, Virginia, laying out their vision for the military’s future role in domestic affairs. According to TNND, Trump made headlines with a provocative suggestion: “I told Pete, we should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military National Guard, but military, because we’re going into Chicago very soon.” This comment signaled a willingness to expand the National Guard’s involvement in urban security initiatives, a move that has alarmed many local leaders and civil liberties advocates.
The Trump administration’s strategy has already been put into action in several cities. National Guard units have been dispatched to Memphis, Washington, D.C., Portland, Oregon, and Los Angeles, with the stated goal of cracking down on crime and securing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities. In June 2025, Los Angeles saw the arrival of National Guard troops during a series of immigration raids, sparking immediate backlash from city officials and community activists.
Mayor Bass, a vocal opponent of the deployments, took her concerns public in a CNN interview following Trump’s Quantico remarks. She warned, “The statements that were made to the military yesterday, acknowledging that we are going to experiment with our cities and use our cities as training grounds for warfare, what that is saying is that the president of the United States wants to turn the U.S. military against the American people.” She continued, “You are talking about creating warfare within cities, and again, I will point out, there’s something these cities have in common.” Bass’s comments reflect a growing unease among urban leaders, many of whom fear that the use of military force in civilian settings could erode civil liberties and deepen divisions.
The legal ramifications of these deployments have been swift. Three months after the National Guard was sent to Los Angeles, a federal judge ruled the action unlawful. In a statement after the ruling, Bass declared, “The White House tried to invade the second largest city in the country. That was illegal. Los Angeles will not buckle and we will not break. We will not be divided and we will not be defeated.” Her defiant words underscore the city’s determination to resist what it views as federal overreach.
The battle over federal intervention is not confined to California. In Portland, Oregon, the controversy took a dramatic turn on October 2, 2025, when U.S. District Judge Michael Simon recused himself from a high-profile case challenging Trump’s National Guard deployment in the city. The recusal came just hours after the Justice Department raised concerns about Simon’s marriage to Democratic Representative Suzanne Bonamici, a vocal critic of the deployment. Bonamici, who represents a district stretching from Portland’s western suburbs to the coast, has been outspoken in her opposition, stating on Bluesky, “It’s absurd that Trump is spending an expected $3.8 million to deploy the National Guard to Portland, especially during a government shutdown and when families are struggling to pay for health care, housing, and groceries.”
The Justice Department argued that Simon’s relationship with Bonamici could create an appearance of partiality, even if no actual bias existed. “To be sure, Defendants recognize that Judge Simon and Representative Bonamici speak for themselves, not for each other. Nonetheless, the unique factual, legal and political role that Judge Simon’s spouse has played in the central events of this lawsuit may create the appearance of partiality,” the department’s motion stated. In response, Simon wrote, “Although the Court does not believe that recusal is required under either federal law or the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, because it is necessary that the focus of this lawsuit remain on the critically important constitutional and statutory issues presented by the parties, the undersigned U.S. District Judge hereby recuses himself.”
Simon’s recusal came a day before a scheduled hearing on Oregon’s request to temporarily block the deployment. The case was then randomly reassigned to U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, raising fresh questions about the impartiality and outcome of the proceedings. According to reporting from multiple outlets, Oregon and the city of Portland had sued the Trump administration over the deployment of 200 members of Oregon’s National Guard, authorized by the Defense Department days after Trump announced plans to send troops to protect the city and an ICE facility there.
This legal struggle follows a pattern seen in other cities where Trump has sent the National Guard, including Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles. The president’s supporters argue that these deployments are necessary to restore order and protect federal property, particularly amid rising crime rates and unrest in some urban areas. They point to the federal government’s responsibility to ensure national security and enforce immigration laws, especially when local authorities are perceived as unwilling or unable to do so.
However, critics from across the political spectrum have voiced concerns about the precedent being set. Many Democrats, as well as some independents and moderate Republicans, worry that using the military in domestic law enforcement blurs the line between civil and military authority. They argue that such actions risk undermining the autonomy of local governments and could lead to violations of constitutional rights. The legal battles unfolding in Los Angeles and Portland are seen as test cases for the broader question of how far a president can go in deploying federal forces within U.S. borders.
Meanwhile, the optics of the situation have become a political flashpoint. With the 2026 midterm elections on the horizon, both sides are seeking to leverage the controversy to mobilize their bases. Supporters of Trump’s approach frame it as a necessary response to lawlessness and ineffective local leadership, while opponents warn of creeping authoritarianism and the dangers of militarizing American cities.
As legal proceedings continue and the political stakes rise, the debate over the National Guard’s role in domestic affairs shows no signs of abating. The outcome of these cases could have far-reaching implications for the balance of power between federal and local authorities, and for the future of civil-military relations in the United States. For now, cities like Los Angeles and Portland remain at the center of a national storm, grappling with the consequences of decisions made far beyond their borders.
With courts, politicians, and the public all weighing in, the nation watches closely to see how this high-stakes showdown will shape the American landscape in the years to come.
