President Donald Trump’s recent threat to send more than just the National Guard into American cities has reignited a fierce national debate over the limits of presidential power, the role of the military in domestic affairs, and the deep political rifts running through the United States. Speaking to U.S. service members aboard the USS George Washington at the Yokosuka Naval Base in Japan on October 28, 2025, Trump made his intentions clear: “We have cities in trouble. We can’t have cities that have trouble. We’re sending in the National Guard and we need more than the National Guard. We’ll send more than the National Guard, because we’re going to have safe cities. We’re not going to have people killed in our cities. And whether people like that or not, that’s what we’re doing.” According to Nexstar Media, this declaration came as Trump’s administration continued its campaign to crack down on crime and enforce immigration law in several major urban centers.
Over the past five months, Trump has ordered the deployment or attempted deployment of National Guard troops to five cities, all led by Democratic mayors: Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Portland, Oregon, Chicago, and Memphis, Tennessee. The administration has justified these moves by citing rising crime rates and the need to protect federal officials, particularly those involved in immigration enforcement. As reported by SCOTUSblog, Trump’s August 11 memorandum on mobilizing the District of Columbia National Guard described Washington, D.C. as “under siege from violent crime,” calling it “a point of national disgrace that Washington, D.C., has a violent crime rate that is higher than some of the most dangerous places in the world.”
The president’s efforts have not gone uncontested. Legal and political resistance has been especially strong in cities and states governed by Democrats. In Portland, for example, the deployment of federal agents and National Guard troops has been a flashpoint. Trump has argued that federal property and personnel are at risk from “out-of-control protesters,” while Oregon state officials contend that the president is exaggerating the threat and that the aggressive tactics of federal agents have only made matters worse. According to Bloomberg, Oregon’s lawsuit against the Trump administration’s plan to send the National Guard to Portland is now heading to trial in a lower court, following a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on October 29, 2025, to reconsider its earlier ruling. This move has temporarily blocked the deployment while legal proceedings continue.
At the heart of these disputes is the question of presidential authority to federalize and deploy the National Guard domestically. The Constitution, as explained by SCOTUSblog, gives Congress—not the president—the power to call military troops into domestic federal service. However, Congress has delegated this authority to the president in certain circumstances through statutes like the Militia Act of 1792 and, more recently, 10 U.S.C. § 12406. This law allows the president to “call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary” to stop an invasion, quell a rebellion, or execute federal laws.
Trump’s administration has leaned heavily on this statute, arguing that the protests and violence in cities like Los Angeles, Portland, and Chicago meet the legal threshold for such deployments. The Justice Department, in its defense of Trump’s actions, has cited the 1827 Supreme Court case Martin v. Mott, which held that “the authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen belongs exclusively to the President, and that his decision is conclusive upon all other persons.” U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued before the Supreme Court that the president’s judgment on whether an emergency exists should not be second-guessed by the courts.
Yet, not all courts have accepted this broad interpretation. For instance, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, in a case concerning Chicago, stated that Martin v. Mott “must be understood in its context,” emphasizing that judicial review of presidential deployment decisions is appropriate, especially when the circumstances do not clearly meet the statutory criteria of rebellion or inability to enforce the law. Judicial skepticism has also emerged in Los Angeles and Portland, where district judges initially blocked deployments after determining that local law enforcement was capable of managing the situation without federal intervention. However, the 9th Circuit temporarily paused those orders, signaling a degree of deference to the president’s assessment.
Complicating matters further is the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which limits the activities of the U.S. military in domestic law enforcement. This law was enacted in response to concerns about federal overreach during the Civil War and Reconstruction. According to SCOTUSblog, a U.S. district judge in California ruled in early September 2025 that the Trump administration had violated the Posse Comitatus Act in Los Angeles by using federalized National Guard troops for crowd control and military presence. Judge Charles Breyer wrote, “The evidence at trial established that Defendants systematically used armed soldiers (whose identity was often obscured by protective armor) and military vehicles to set up protective perimeters and traffic blockades, engage in crowd control, and otherwise demonstrate a military presence in and around Los Angeles.” That ruling, however, was stayed by the 9th Circuit pending further review.
Looming over all these disputes is the specter of the Insurrection Act, a statute that grants the president even broader authority to deploy not just the National Guard but also regular armed forces domestically. The Insurrection Act, unlike other statutes, is not constrained by the Posse Comitatus Act and allows the president to act when “unlawful obstructions or rebellion” make it impracticable to enforce federal laws through ordinary judicial means. Legal experts cited by SCOTUSblog have described the Insurrection Act as “based on highly permissive standards for action and provides neither a role for Congress nor a basis for serious judicial review.” Historically, the Insurrection Act has been invoked 30 times, most notably by Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson during the civil rights era, and last by President George H.W. Bush in 1992 during the Los Angeles riots.
President Trump has openly discussed the possibility of using the Insurrection Act if his current legal strategies fail. “I’m allowed, as, you know, as president. Like 50% of the presidents have used the Insurrection Act, they can use that, and everybody agrees you’re allowed to use that,” Trump told reporters on October 19, 2025, when asked about potentially deploying troops to San Francisco. “We’re trying to do it in a nicer manner. But we can always use the Insurrection Act if we want.”
As the legal battles play out, the Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision on the Trump administration’s planned deployment in Chicago is widely anticipated. While the justices rarely elaborate on interim orders, their ruling could clarify how much deference courts should give to a president’s judgment in invoking statutes like Section 12406—and, more broadly, how the balance of power between federal and state governments will be maintained in times of domestic unrest.
The outcome of these cases will not only determine the immediate fate of Trump’s deployments but could also set lasting precedents for the limits of executive authority and the role of the military in American civic life. As cities brace for what comes next, the nation watches closely, keenly aware that the stakes are nothing short of the principles at the heart of American democracy.
