CHICAGO – Hundreds of National Guard troops, including approximately 200 from Texas, have arrived in the Chicago area to support federal immigration operations, marking a significant escalation in the Trump administration’s controversial immigration crackdown and sparking a fierce legal and political battle with Illinois officials.
Over 200 Texas National Guard soldiers arrived at an Army Reserve center in Elwood, Illinois, about 50 miles southwest of Chicago, on Tuesday. They are part of an initial 60-day deployment aimed at protecting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations and federal property. An additional 300 Illinois National Guard troops are also preparing for deployment.
However, the deployment has been met with staunch opposition from Illinois Governor JB Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, who have filed a lawsuit arguing the move is unconstitutional and an overreach of federal authority. They have characterized the deployment as an “invasion” and “political theater,” aimed at militarizing American cities. Governor Pritzker has accused the Trump administration of intentionally trying to foment violence to justify further militarization, stating, “Illinois is not a photo opportunity or warzone; it’s a sovereign state where our people deserve rights, respect, and answers.”
The lawsuit, filed Monday, seeks to block President Trump from deploying troops from other states into Illinois against the host state’s wishes. It contends that the American people should not live under the threat of military occupation simply because their local leadership has fallen out of favor with the president. The legal challenge also highlights concerns about the Posse Comitatus Act and the historical separation between military and civilian law enforcement.
A federal judge in Chicago, U.S. District Judge April Perry, declined to issue an immediate injunction to halt the deployment, suggesting the federal government “might strongly consider” pausing the troops’ movement until after a hearing scheduled for Thursday. This decision contrasts with rulings in other cities, where federal judges have temporarily blocked similar deployments. In Portland, Oregon, a federal judge blocked the Trump administration from sending National Guard troops, and a similar legal challenge was mounted by California and Oregon.
President Trump has publicly defended the deployments, branding Chicago as a “war zone” and accusing Mayor Johnson and Governor Pritzker of “failing to protect” federal immigration agents. He has also suggested that the Democratic leaders should be jailed for their response, an assertion that Mayor Johnson has vehemently rejected, stating, “This is not the first time Trump has tried to have a Black man unjustly arrested. I’m not going anywhere.”
Mayor Johnson has also taken executive action, signing an order to bar federal immigration agents from using city-owned property, such as parking lots and vacant lots, as staging areas for enforcement operations. This move aims to limit the operational scope of ICE within the city.
The arrival of the National Guard troops in Chicago follows an increase in ICE operations in the area over the past month, which have led to protests and, in some instances, violent clashes. Federal agents have reportedly used aggressive tactics, including deploying tear gas and pepper spray against protesters outside an ICE detention facility in Broadview, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago. Some incidents have resulted in arrests and injuries, and a woman was injured in an event that officials characterized as a civilian “ambush” of federal authorities, though her legal representation has contested the government’s account.
This deployment is part of a broader pattern by the Trump administration to send federalized National Guard members into Democratic-led cities, including Los Angeles and Washington D.C., often over the objections of state and local officials. The administration argues these actions are necessary to quell violence, crack down on crime, and support deportation initiatives. However, critics argue these deployments are intended to generate media attention and instill fear, rather than address the root causes of crime or immigration challenges.
While the National Guard troops are tasked with protecting federal personnel and property, they are generally not authorized to engage in direct law enforcement activities under federal law, a distinction that has been central to the legal arguments against the deployment. The outcome of the upcoming court hearing on Thursday will be closely watched, as it could set a precedent for similar federal actions in other cities and significantly impact state-federal relations on immigration enforcement.
