Tempers are running high across the United States as President Donald Trump’s ongoing deployment of National Guard troops to major cities has triggered a fierce debate over federal authority, states’ rights, and the proper use of military force within American communities. The controversy, which has unfolded rapidly throughout October 2025, has pitted Democratic and Republican governors against each other and drawn sharp lines between state and federal leadership.
On October 9, Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear made headlines by denouncing what he described as President Trump’s “un-American,” unlawful, and dangerous use of National Guard troops in cities such as Portland, Chicago, and Memphis. According to the Kentucky Lantern, Beshear joined a coalition of Democratic governors and attorneys general from 23 states and the District of Columbia in filing an amicus brief supporting Oregon’s legal challenge to the Portland deployment. “You don’t just get to order the National Guard into some place because you think the crime is too high or to pick a fight with a blue mayor or a blue governor,” Beshear said during a press conference. “It’s unlawful and it’s wrong. And I’m going to do everything I can to stand up to it.”
Beshear’s criticisms didn’t stop there. He expressed disappointment with the bipartisan National Governors Association for remaining silent on the troop deployments, insisting, “If this organization is meant to stand up for governors, it needs to.” The silence, he argued, undermines the association’s purpose and fails to protect the autonomy of state leaders. Democratic Governors Gavin Newsom of California and JB Pritzker of Illinois echoed Beshear’s frustration, threatening to leave the National Governors Association unless it formally opposed what Newsom called an “unprecedented assault” on states’ rights.
This legal and political pushback comes in the wake of a summer marked by high-profile deployments. Over the summer of 2025, President Trump ordered National Guard troops and U.S. Marines to Los Angeles in response to large-scale immigration protests. In September, a federal judge ruled that this deployment violated federal law prohibiting the use of military personnel in domestic law enforcement roles. Despite the ruling, Trump pressed forward, sending National Guard troops to other cities, including Chicago, Memphis, and Portland, arguing that the moves were necessary to combat rising crime and civil unrest.
Not all state leaders have opposed Trump’s actions. Tennessee’s Republican Governor Bill Lee welcomed the deployment of National Guard troops to his state, highlighting the deep partisan divide over the issue. Meanwhile, elected officials in Illinois and Oregon have continued to challenge the legality of the deployments, both in public statements and through the courts.
Amidst this national debate, Texas Governor Greg Abbott has emerged as one of Trump’s staunchest allies. In an October 13 interview with Fox News Digital, Abbott laid out the foundation of his strong working relationship with the president: “We both believe in the rule of law. We both believe in public safety. We both believed in securing the borders.” Abbott emphasized that he and Trump are “operating very closely aligned in ensuring that our country’s going to be safe.”
Abbott’s support has not been merely rhetorical. About 200 Texas National Guard troops were deployed to the Chicago area in October 2025 to assist Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations, according to Fox News Digital. The deployment came in response to ongoing anti-ICE demonstrations in Chicago and its suburbs, where protests have sometimes turned violent. Outside an ICE facility in Broadview, Illinois, crowds described by the Department of Homeland Security as “violent rioters” blocked federal vehicles and, in one incident, federal agents were trapped by a blockade of ten vehicles. Nearly a dozen arrests were made, yet DHS officials claimed they received little support from Democratic leaders in Illinois or from local law enforcement.
Abbott authorized Trump to deploy a total of 400 Texas National Guard troops under Title 10 authority to trouble spots nationwide, though only about half have been deployed to Illinois so far, as a federal court reviews the legality of the move. Defending the deployment, Abbott argued that the Texas National Guard is particularly well-equipped for such situations, having spent the previous four years responding to civil unrest along the Texas border and within the state itself. “What the National Guard is trained and skilled at doing is dealing with civil unrest like that,” Abbott said. “They dealt with civil unrest along the Texas border for the past four years while Joe Biden was president. They’ve dealt with civil unrest even in locations in the state of Texas, when I thought it was important to call them out and make sure that we did not have any unrest in our state.”
Abbott also sought to clarify the mission of the Texas National Guard in Illinois and elsewhere. “The National Guard from Texas, they’re not there to police the city of Chicago or any other place. They are there to ensure the safety and security of the ability of federal officials to fulfill their constitutional duty to enforce the laws of the United States.” He added, “What Texas is trying to do is the same thing the United States is trying to do. And that is very simply, carrying out the functions of the federal government. One of them is immigration enforcement, and another is public safety.”
Despite the legal challenges and political outcry, Abbott’s stance remains resolute. He told Fox News Digital, “No one can accurately predict exactly what’s going to happen in the future. What I can predict is how Texas will respond. And that is, whenever the country is in time of need, Texans will step up and help out any way we possibly can.”
The situation has left the National Governors Association in a difficult position, caught between competing demands from its Democratic and Republican members. While Democratic leaders call for a robust defense of states’ rights and local autonomy, some Republican governors argue that federal intervention is necessary to restore order and support law enforcement. The association’s continued silence has become a flashpoint, with its future unity in question.
Underlying the legal and political wrangling are deeper questions about the balance of power in American federalism. Beshear, speaking for many Democratic leaders, warned of the dangers of normalizing military presence in civilian life. “It’s one of the hallmarks of our country that we don’t have military running around on our streets. You don’t get off an airplane and see military standing there with a machine gun. This is not who we are. We don’t militarize our communities. It’s one of the tenets of our very founding.”
As the legal battles move forward and the political rhetoric intensifies, the nation watches closely. The outcome may not only determine the immediate fate of the National Guard deployments, but could also reshape the boundaries between federal and state power for years to come.
