Illinois finds itself at the center of a heated national debate as Republican leaders, both in the state and across the country, rally behind President Donald Trump’s controversial proposal to deploy the National Guard to Chicago in a bid to combat crime. The move, which has sparked both support and sharp criticism, comes amid a broader push by the Trump administration to use military resources to bolster law enforcement efforts, particularly around immigration and public safety.
On August 25, 2025, the political temperature in Illinois rose as most state GOP leaders voiced support for Trump’s call to send the National Guard into Chicago, a city long governed by Democrats and often spotlighted in national conversations about urban crime. According to Axios, the proposal has been seized upon by downstate Republicans eager to score political points in a city that remains a Democratic stronghold. The timing is significant, as a federal judge is expected to rule soon on whether the president has the authority to override a state governor and deploy the National Guard without state consent—a legal question with far-reaching implications for federal-state relations.
Former GOP gubernatorial candidate Darren Bailey, who has never shied away from inflammatory rhetoric, issued a statement that pulled no punches. “Families are burying their children, businesses are shuttering, and entire neighborhoods live in fear,” Bailey said. He went so far as to declare, “If Brandon Johnson and JB Pritzker try to block the National Guard from coming into Chicago, they should be thrown in jail.” Bailey’s comments, while resonating with some segments of the Republican base, have drawn fire from both within and outside his party.
Sean Morrison, the lone Republican Cook County commissioner, echoed concerns about public safety. “President Trump points out what everyone can see: shootings, carjackings, and violent robberies are still plaguing Chicago communities,” Morrison stated, as reported by Axios. “Even the most loyal Democratic voters know this problem is real.” The message is clear: crime remains a persistent—and politically potent—issue in the city.
Yet not all Republicans are comfortable with the tenor of Bailey’s remarks. Pat Brady, the former Illinois GOP chair, was quick to distance himself and others from what he described as “attention-seeking” tactics. “Republicans north of I-80 do not support Mayor Johnson’s soft-on-crime approach, but Darren Bailey’s demand that the mayor be arrested is more of the same attention-seeking approach to governing that gave him an overwhelming defeat when he ran for governor,” Brady told Axios. He added, “Crime is a serious issue in Chicago and requires a serious discussion, not lobbing idiotic rhetorical grenades from 400 miles away.”
Bailey’s history with Chicago is complicated. While he now calls it a “world-class city,” he made headlines in 2022 for referring to Chicago as a “hellhole”—a comment that still lingers in the city’s political memory. Brady, for his part, warned that Bailey’s threats amount to “land mines for Republicans, who are lining up to try and win back statewide seats in 2026.” He posed a rhetorical question with national resonance: “Can you imagine the image blasted all over the world of a white billionaire Republican president locking up a Black elected official because of a disagreement on a policy issue?” Brady’s advice to Bailey was blunt: “He should stick to farming.”
While the debate rages in Illinois, the Trump administration’s use of the National Guard is part of a much broader strategy. According to Newsweek, up to 1,700 National Guard troops could soon be deployed across 19 states—most of them led by Republican governors—to assist U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) with immigration enforcement. This move is closely aligned with Trump’s stated goal of deporting one million migrants annually, a figure that underscores the administration’s hardline stance on immigration.
The states expected to participate in this deployment include Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming. Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell announced on July 25, 2025, that 1,200 personnel who were already assisting ICE had their duty status changed from Title 10 (federal control) to Title 32 (state control but federally funded), with another 500 authorized for immigration-related duties.
Parnell explained the rationale behind the shift: “Through active planning and collaboration with our ICE partners, the department determined that specific operational needs may require direct interaction with individuals in ICE custody.” The roles assigned to National Guard members are largely administrative and logistical—case management, transportation, and clerical support for the in- and out-processing of illegal aliens at ICE detention facilities—rather than direct law enforcement or arrests.
Several states have already confirmed their involvement. Nebraska Governor Jim Pillen ordered about 20 Army National Guard soldiers to provide administrative and logistical support to ICE. South Carolina has requested 40 National Guard members for similar duties, while South Dakota began deploying seven guardsmen on August 18, 2025. Virginia plans to mobilize approximately 60 soldiers and airmen, who will start training at the end of August and begin their duties by early September. According to the Virginia National Guard, their mission “will not include making arrests” and is strictly limited to support functions.
Other states are still in the planning stages or awaiting formal orders. Arkansas, for example, has not yet received any official directives, while Georgia is in the early stages of responding to a request for support from ICE. Georgia Governor Brian Kemp’s office told Newsweek that the state is “in active communication with the Trump administration on how to best support their work securing our nation’s border and safeguarding its citizens.” Utah Governor Spencer Cox has also emphasized that any National Guard involvement would be limited to support roles, stating, “Our National Guard will not be putting hands on people, will not be arresting people. That is not the role of the National Guard and we would not allow that to happen.”
Texas, a key player in the national immigration debate, has taken a particularly aggressive stance. Governor Greg Abbott’s office stated, “Governor Abbott fully supports using every tool and strategy to aid in the Trump administration’s deportation of illegal immigrants.” Texas has coordinated state agencies to support federal immigration enforcement, deployed Department of Public Safety tactical strike teams, and entered into agreements with the Department of Homeland Security to authorize the Texas National Guard to help enforce immigration law.
As the federal judge’s ruling on the president’s authority to deploy the National Guard looms, the stakes are high—not just for Chicago, but for the entire country. The outcome could set a precedent for the balance of power between states and the federal government, particularly in matters of public safety and immigration. For now, Illinois Republicans remain divided over how far to go in supporting the president’s initiatives, with some urging caution and others doubling down on tough talk. One thing is certain: the debate over the National Guard’s role in domestic law enforcement and immigration is far from settled, and its resolution will reverberate well beyond the borders of Illinois.
