The Trump National Guard deployment to Portland, Oregon, and Chicago, Illinois, is being scaled back as hundreds of troops begin to withdraw following significant legal challenges and judicial setbacks. This move signifies a de-escalation of a controversial federal intervention that drew substantial criticism from local and state officials, impacting the operations of the Trump National Guard. The Trump National Guard’s role in these cities has been a subject of intense debate.
Trump National Guard Withdrawal Follows Court Rulings and Legal Battles
The withdrawal of the Trump National Guard, confirmed by defense officials around November 16, 2025, involves approximately 200 California National Guard troops who were sent to Portland and a similar contingent of 200 Texas National Guard members deployed to Chicago. These out-of-state troops, part of the Trump National Guard initiative, never actively deployed onto city streets due to ongoing court battles and are now returning to their home states. While these specific units of the Trump National Guard are departing, a reduced presence of the Illinois National Guard, around 300 members, will remain under federal control in Chicago, and approximately 100 Oregon-based National Guard members will stay in Portland. The U.S. Northern Command stated it would be “shifting and/or rightsizing” its presence in these cities, a consequence of the legal challenges against the Trump National Guard.
The Controversial Trump National Guard Deployment and Its Rationale
President Donald Trump had ordered the deployment of these National Guard units as part of his executive power to support domestic immigration enforcement personnel, protect federal assets and personnel, and combat alleged rampant crime and lawlessness in the cities, which are led by Democratic mayors. Trump had described cities like Portland as “war-ravaged” and under siege, suggesting a rebellion against federal authority that warranted military intervention. This use of federalized National Guard forces, specifically the Trump National Guard, for domestic law enforcement purposes marked an unusual escalation, as these troops typically operate under the command of state governors and are mobilized for emergencies like natural disasters. The legality of this Trump National Guard deployment has been under intense scrutiny, raising significant constitutional questions.
Judicial Roadblocks Halt Trump National Guard Operations
The federal deployments, including the operations envisioned for the Trump National Guard, quickly ran into formidable legal opposition. State and city officials, including Oregon Governor Tina Kotek and Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, sued to block the deployments, arguing they were unconstitutional and an overreach of executive power. In Portland, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut issued a series of rulings, ultimately permanently blocking the deployment of the Trump National Guard. She found that the Trump administration had failed to provide credible evidence of a rebellion or an inability of regular forces to enforce federal law, a prerequisite for federalizing the National Guard under Title 10. In Chicago, a federal judge also temporarily blocked the Trump National Guard deployment, a decision upheld by an appeals court, with the case eventually reaching the U.S. Supreme Court, which has yet to rule. These legal challenges effectively prevented the deployed troops from engaging in operations on the streets, leaving the Trump National Guard in a state of limbo on military bases.
Political Backlash and Constitutional Questions Surrounding the Trump National Guard
The Trump administration’s approach to deploying federal troops, particularly the Trump National Guard in American cities like Portland Oregon and Chicago Illinois, faced significant backlash. Critics, including many Democratic leaders, labeled the move as authoritarian and an abuse of power, raising concerns about the militarization of domestic law enforcement and potential violations of laws like the Posse Comitatus Act. The controversy highlighted a growing tension between federal authority and state sovereignty, particularly concerning the dual state-federal nature of the National Guard. The news of the withdrawal is a significant development in this ongoing debate and a victory for local leaders who resisted the federal intervention against the Trump National Guard.
What’s Next for Federal Deployments and the Trump National Guard?
While troops dispatched from out-of-state are being withdrawn from Portland and Chicago, the U.S. Northern Command has indicated a commitment to maintaining an “enduring, and long-term presence” in these and other cities, suggesting that federal involvement in domestic security matters may continue, potentially involving the National Guard under different legal frameworks than the Trump National Guard. The legal battles surrounding the Trump National Guard have underscored the complex constitutional questions surrounding the president’s authority to deploy federalized military forces domestically. The Supreme Court’s eventual ruling on the Chicago case could set further precedents for future federal troop withdrawal and deployments, making this news a trending topic in discussions about civil liberties and executive power, and how future National Guard deployments will be managed. The legacy of the Trump National Guard remains a point of contention.
