Pentagon Begins Pullback of National Guard From Portland and Chicago as Supreme Court Weighs Trump’s Authority
In the past 24 hours, the Defense Department started sending home hundreds of National Guard troops from Portland and Chicago amid ongoing court orders that bar street deployments and a pending Supreme Court emergency application about presidential power to federalize and use the Guard in U.S. cities. The drawdown recalibrates one of the most contentious domestic-security initiatives of President Donald Trump’s second term and sets up a consequential federalism test at the high court. [1]
- Troop movements: 200 California Guard in Oregon and 200 Texas Guard in Illinois are going home; reduced in‑state Guard remain but off the streets. [2]
- Court posture: District and appellate courts have blocked deployments in Chicago and Portland; DOJ has sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court. [3]
- Legal hinge: Trump relies on 10 U.S.C. §12406 to federalize Guard forces—a statute distinct from the Insurrection Act. [4]
- Military stance: U.S. Northern Command says it is “shifting and/or rightsizing” units while maintaining a long‑term presence. [5]
What changed in the last 24–48 hours
- The Pentagon began withdrawing out‑of‑state Guard units: All 200 California National Guard troops in Oregon and 200 Texas National Guard troops in Illinois are being sent home. Approximately 100 Oregon Guard members and 300 Illinois Guard members will remain in training status; courts bar them from working with DHS on enforcement operations. [6]
- U.S. Northern Command said it is “shifting and/or rightsizing” forces in Portland, Los Angeles, and Chicago, while signaling a “constant, enduring, and long‑term presence.” [7]
- Officials from California and Oregon welcomed the drawdown and renewed calls to send all troops home; Illinois reiterated that deployments remain blocked pending court action. [8]
The legal fight: how we got here
Chicago: federalization allowed, street deployment blocked
On October 9, U.S. District Judge April Perry issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) blocking the Trump administration from deploying federally controlled Guard troops in the Chicago area. A Seventh Circuit panel largely upheld that order on October 16, concluding that “the facts do not justify the president’s actions in Illinois,” and that “political opposition is not rebellion.” The Supreme Court later requested additional briefing; the TRO now remains in effect pending either a Supreme Court ruling or a final judgment in the district court. [9]
The administration argues that each day the TRO remains “imposes grievous and irreparable harm on the Executive,” citing threats to federal personnel and facilities. [10]
Portland: district court injunction and a narrower Guard footprint
In Portland, a federal judge issued a permanent injunction earlier this month prohibiting street deployment, finding the administration had not met the legal standard. Oregon’s governor and attorney general have pressed for all troops to be sent home; the administration is appealing. The current drawdown halves Oregon’s in‑state Guard presence and sends home California Guard units that had been deployed to Oregon. [11]
What authority is at stake? ⚖️
The White House has relied on 10 U.S.C. §12406 to call Guard units into federal service to “execute the laws” or respond to “rebellion” or “invasion.” That statute is separate from, and historically intertwined with, the Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C. §§251–255), which more broadly governs use of military forces to enforce federal authority. Courts are now testing whether §12406 can stand alone to justify federalized Guard deployments into non‑consenting states in the current circumstances. [12]
| Guard status | Command & control | Funding | Law‑enforcement role (Posse Comitatus) | Typical uses |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| State Active Duty | Governor | State | Allowed under state law; PCA does not apply | Disaster response, civil disturbances |
| Title 32 | Governor (federally requested) | Federal | Generally not restricted by PCA because forces remain under state control | Homeland security, counter‑drug, large‑scale emergencies |
| Title 10 (federalized) | President/DoD | Federal | PCA applies unless Congress authorizes exceptions (e.g., Insurrection Act) | Overseas ops; rare domestic law‑enforcement exceptions |
Sources: Congressional and legal overviews of National Guard authorities and the Posse Comitatus Act. [13]
What the key players are saying
U.S. Northern Command
Announced it is “shifting and/or rightsizing” units while maintaining a “constant, enduring, and long‑term presence” in affected cities. [14]
California
Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office called the deployments “illegal” and welcomed troops’ return: “We’re glad they’re finally coming home… long overdue.” [15]
Oregon
Gov. Tina Kotek urged the administration to “send all troops home now” after a Portland injunction; earlier said “there is no insurrection in Oregon.” [16]
Illinois/Chicago
State and city leaders sued successfully to block deployment; the TRO remains while the Supreme Court considers the administration’s application. [17]
Civil liberties groups
The ACLU urged the Supreme Court to keep the block in place, arguing that normalizing military policing of protest threatens core liberties. [18]
Justice Department view
Solicitor General D. John Sauer says the TROs imperil federal personnel and unlawfully constrain the commander‑in‑chief’s authority. [19]
How the Supreme Court could reset executive power
The Supreme Court’s emergency‑docket decision—initially handled by Seventh Circuit Justice Amy Coney Barrett—will signal how much deference presidents receive when invoking §12406 to federalize the Guard in non‑insurrection conditions. A ruling for the administration could broaden rapid federal use of the Guard to “protect federal functions” even in states that object; a ruling for Illinois would reinforce limits absent the Insurrection Act’s stricter predicates. Either way, it will shape how future administrations balance domestic security and state sovereignty. [20]
Context: law, precedent, and the Posse Comitatus line
By text, §12406 allows calling the Guard into federal service when the United States faces “invasion,” “rebellion,” or when the President is “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws.” Courts are now testing whether the asserted threats around immigration enforcement and protests satisfy those predicates. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C. §§251–255) remains the clearer pathway for domestic law enforcement by federal troops, but carries political and legal costs. The Posse Comitatus Act generally bars federal forces from civilian law‑enforcement roles absent such explicit authority. [21]
Analysts have also flagged the “Title 32” hybrid status—state command with federal pay—as a loophole that can sidestep Posse Comitatus limits. While not central to Chicago or Portland (which have centered on Title 10 federalization), Congress may revisit these gray zones in light of recent deployments. [22]
Today’s operational picture
- Portland: California Guard leaving; Oregon Guard reduced to ~100, in training status; injunction bars street deployment. [23]
- Chicago: Texas Guard leaving; ~300 Illinois Guard remain in training; TRO continues to bar work with DHS pending Supreme Court action. [24]
- Elsewhere: DHS is escalating immigration enforcement in Charlotte without Guard support. [25]
Key quotes
“The facts do not justify the president’s actions in Illinois… [and] political opposition is not rebellion.” — Seventh Circuit panel, Oct. 16. [26]
“Shifting and/or rightsizing units… [with] a constant, enduring, and long‑term presence.” — U.S. Northern Command. [27]
What to watch next 🗳️
Supreme Court timing
Watch for an order on the administration’s emergency application. A narrow administrative stay, a merits‑leaning stay, or a denial would each carry different signals of deference. [28]
Scope of presidential power
If the Court blesses §12406 in this context, future presidents could more readily federalize Guard units to “protect federal functions” even absent insurrection‑level conditions. [29]
Congressional follow‑through
Expect renewed efforts to clarify Guard authorities and tighten Insurrection Act/Title 32 loopholes in response to litigation outcomes. [30]
State–federal friction
Governors in non‑consenting states will likely keep suing to deter street deployments; future DHS operations may shift toward non‑Guard alternatives. [31]
Bottom line
The Pentagon’s drawdown acknowledges courtroom realities without abandoning the administration’s broader posture: U.S. Northern Command insists on a long‑term presence while the Justice Department seeks quick relief from the Supreme Court. The coming ruling in Trump v. Illinois could become a modern marker for the limits of presidential power to federalize and use the Guard at home—and a catalyst for Congress to revisit statutory guardrails around domestic military roles. [32]
Comments
0 commentsJoin the discussion below.