President Donald Trump’s recent deployment of National Guard troops to major American cities has ignited a fierce national debate over executive power, the role of the military in civil society, and the future of U.S. elections. As of September 2025, National Guard units have been sent to Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., and Memphis, Tennessee—moves that have drawn both legal scrutiny and political backlash, especially from Democratic leaders and civil liberties advocates.
On September 15, 2025, Trump announced he would send troops and federal law enforcement agents to Memphis, citing rising crime and with the support of Tennessee’s Republican Governor Bill Lee. According to Pennsylvania Capital-Star, this announcement followed earlier deployments in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., and came after the White House shelved plans to send the Guard to Chicago. Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson had strongly objected to the idea, warning of legal challenges and the potential violation of constitutional principles.
The speculation is now swirling that Philadelphia could be next. Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro and Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner, both Democrats, have made it clear they will resist any such federal intervention. "It is my hope that it will not get to that here in Pennsylvania," Shapiro told reporters on September 17. "I can tell you that we are preparing aggressively on that front." Krasner, meanwhile, has gone further, vowing to prosecute federal officials for civil rights violations and urging Philadelphians to document any incidents of overreach.
At the heart of the controversy is the complex legal status of the National Guard. Unlike other branches of the military, the Guard operates under dual sovereignty: it can be commanded by both the president and the governors of the states where units are based. Governors can deploy their National Guard for disaster relief or to support law enforcement, as Shapiro did during Pennsylvania’s severe winter storms in early 2025. But when the president seeks to federalize the Guard—using Title 10 of the U.S. Code—its domestic missions are legally limited to repelling invasion, suppressing rebellion, or enforcing federal law. As Beau Tremitiere, an attorney with Protect Democracy, explained, "One state cannot lawfully invade another. There might be cases when the president could lawfully federalize the guard, even though it’s a bad and dangerous idea. It’s critically different when you’re talking about one state sending forces into another state and actively policing its streets. That’s never OK."
The legal framework is further complicated by the Posse Comitatus Act, a post-Civil War statute forbidding federal troops from enforcing state or local laws. While the Insurrection Act allows the president to temporarily suspend this restriction in cases of rebellion, legal experts warn that the statute is vague and leaves too much discretion to the executive. Lindsay Cohn, a political scientist specializing in civilian-military relations, noted, "There isn’t really a clear legal path to sending troops into other states for state-level law enforcement."
Trump’s use of these powers has already faced judicial rebuke. In June 2025, he federalized California National Guard troops over Governor Gavin Newsom’s objection, deploying them in response to protests over immigration raids. But in early September, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled that this action was illegal, stating that the use of armed troops for traffic blockades and crowd control violated the Posse Comitatus Act. Breyer’s decision warned that the administration’s actions risked "creating a national police force with the president as its chief." The administration, undeterred, is appealing the ruling.
Meanwhile, in Washington, D.C., Trump mobilized the district’s National Guard in August 2025, claiming the city was "overtaken by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals." This assertion was made despite federal Justice Department data showing crime in the city is at a 30-year low. Six Republican governors have since used their Title 32 authority to send their own National Guard troops to the capital, bypassing the restrictions of the Posse Comitatus Act. D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser has criticized these deployments, arguing that the presence of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and out-of-state National Guard troops has eroded community trust. "We know having masked ICE agents in the community has not worked, and National Guards from other states has not been an efficient use of those resources," Bowser said.
Legal experts and political leaders are increasingly alarmed by the possibility that Trump could use military deployments to interfere with upcoming elections. Illinois Governor Pritzker warned in August that Trump "might try to stop or take control of the 2026 elections by deploying troops under claims of election problems." California Governor Newsom noted that the National Guard deployment in Los Angeles is scheduled to continue through November 5, 2025, the date of California’s crucial elections. "Interestingly, we still have federalized National Guard assigned through Election Day. Is that a coincidence? Through Election Day!" Newsom remarked, expressing concern that ICE and Border Patrol agents might appear at polling places.
Trump’s intentions have been echoed by allies in the election denial movement. Conservative lawyer Cleta Mitchell suggested the president "will exercise some emergency powers to protect the federal elections going forward," while former Trump advisor Steve Bannon has called for deploying ICE agents at polling places. The specter of military or federal law enforcement interference in elections is deeply troubling to legal scholars. Elizabeth Goitein of the Brennan Center for Justice remarked, "That is certainly something we have to take very seriously and it is very much a matter of concern."
Federal law makes it a felony for military officers to order troops to be present at polling places or to interfere with voting. Yet, the Trump administration has argued in court that violations of the Posse Comitatus Act cannot be challenged by states or private parties, and that the president has inherent power to protect federal functions. Judge Breyer flatly rejected these arguments, writing, "It is improper to allow the president to supersede laws passed by Congress to grant the President a perpetual, atextual right to defy Congress if he determines it necessary to protect federal property, personnel, or functions."
Despite these legal setbacks, the administration is appealing Breyer’s decision and has signaled its willingness to push the matter to the Supreme Court. The stakes are high: the Court’s 2024 decision in Trump v. U.S. granted the president sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts. As appellate lawyer Richard Bernstein explained, "To be very clear, [say] the president orders troops to go to every polling place in the United States on Election Day. According to the government’s argument, no federal court could enjoin it, the president would be immune and the president could pardon all of the people he ordered to break the criminal law. If that’s not a prescription for how to lose our republic, I don’t know what is."
As the 2026 midterm elections approach, public opinion appears wary of militarized law enforcement, and Democratic governors like Shapiro and Newsom are preparing to resist any federal overreach. The coming months will test not only the boundaries of presidential power but the resilience of American democracy itself.
