Donald Trump made crime a centerpiece of his 2024 presidential campaign. But he has surprised even himself, he said at an Oct. 15 press conference, with the intensity of federal efforts he has directed at cities, in what he says is an effort to fight crime, most controversially by sending military troops into cities such as Portland and Chicago, over the objection of local elected officials.
“I didn’t realize I was going to make this such a big factor,” Trump said. “And now it’s like a passion for me. … I did get elected for crime, but I didn’t get elected for what we’re doing. This is many, many steps above.”
Trump had said for weeks that he would send National Guard troops to Chicago, wrongly claiming on social media that the city is the “MURDER CAPITAL OF THE WORLD.” As we’ve written, the city has a high number of murders among U.S. cities, but not the highest murder rate in the U.S., let alone the world. The homicide rate has been declining this year, mirroring the general trend among U.S. cities.
As for Portland, Trump claimed the city has been overrun by “antifa thugs” who have “repeatedly attacked our officers and laid siege to federal property in an attempt to violently stop the execution of federal law.” And, he said, the city “is burning to the ground,” which is false.
On Sept. 28, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth issued a memo mobilizing 200 Oregon National Guard troops for 60 days. And on Oct. 4, Hegseth federalized 300 Illinois National Guard members and later deployed more than 200 members of the Texas National Guard in Chicago. Mayors in both cities and the state governors have opposed the deployments, accusing the president of exacerbating conflict. Their lawyers have called the administration’s claims of a crisis “manufactured” and “wildly hyperbolic.” Courts have since temporarily delayed deployment of federal troops in both cities.
While Trump’s rhetoric has largely focused on overall crime, the deployments are specifically targeted at protecting federal immigration operations and facilities.
Here, we’ll unravel some of the rhetoric with a Q&A about what’s happening in Portland and Chicago, what the Trump administration is doing and under what authority, and what the courts have had to say about it so far.
Under what authority can the president mobilize National Guard troops in states?
Why does the Trump administration say troops are needed?
What’s the Insurrection Act?
What’s happening in Portland?
What have the courts said in the Portland case?
What’s happening in Chicago?
What have the courts said in the Chicago case?
Under what authority can the president mobilize National Guard troops in states?
Each state, three territories (Puerto Rico, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands) and the District of Columbia have National Guard organizations. With the exception of Washington, D.C., where the guard unit is under federal control, the guard is under each state’s or territory’s control, as the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has explained. However, in certain circumstances, state guard units can be federalized and placed under the president’s control.
Under Title 10 of the U.S. Code, section 12406, the president can federalize any state’s National Guard if the country “is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation,” if there’s “a rebellion or danger of a rebellion” against the federal government’s authority, or if the president “is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”
Such an order “shall be issued through the governors of the States,” the law says.
The administration has cited Title 10, section 12406 in federalizing National Guard troops for deployment to California, Illinois and Oregon, over the objection of the states’ governors. In a June 7 memo prior to deploying troops to Los Angeles in response to protests against federal immigration policy, Trump pointed to the statute’s provisions about countering a rebellion and executing U.S. laws. (See “Q&A on Federalizing the National Guard in Los Angeles.”)
William Banks, a professor at Syracuse University College of Law, and Mark P. Nevitt, an associate professor at Emory University School of Law, wrote in a piece for Just Security that the last time this statute had been invoked prior to June was in 1970, when then President Richard Nixon used the National Guard to deliver mail during a postal strike.
Under the Posse Comitatus Act, federal military forces, including the federalized National Guard, can’t perform civilian law enforcement tasks. In Los Angeles, this meant that the guard troops could protect federal property and personnel but not engage in law enforcement activities. However, the Insurrection Act provides an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, and Trump has said he could invoke the law (see below for more on that).
Banks and Nevitt wrote that “the last time the National Guard was federalized over a governor’s objection was in 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson deployed the Guard to Selma, Alabama to protect civil rights demonstrators.” Johnson invoked the Insurrection Act.
The National Guard can be deployed for federal purposes but remain under state control under Title 32 of the U.S. Code, section 502(f). In Trump’s first term, his administration invoked this section of law to bring National Guard troops from other states to Washington, D.C., in response to protests in the city following the killing of George Floyd. But again, the president already has control of the National Guard in Washington, D.C.
This statute also has been used recently to mobilize guard troops in Memphis, where Republican Gov. Bill Lee agreed to the deployment. Since the troops are under state control, they are not subject to the Posse Comitatus Act’s restriction against engaging in civilian law enforcement. But the city of Memphis says on its website that the guard troops will act in a support role to local police and won’t make arrests.
Why does the Trump administration say troops are needed?
Trump has said National Guard troops should be deployed in Chicago and Portland to help fight crime. But in court filings and official correspondence, the administration has said the guard is needed to protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials and federal property.
“These are unsafe places. We’re going to make them safe,” Trump said of both cities in Oct. 6 remarks. He said people in Chicago “want the guard to come in or they don’t care who comes in, they just want to be safe. … And we’re going to stop this crime. Then we’re going to go to another one. And we’re going to go city by city.” The president has repeatedly made similar remarks about sending National Guard troops to cities to combat crime.
In an Oct. 4 presidential memo federalizing Illinois National Guard troops and in court proceedings in Oregon, the administration and its lawyers have cited Title 10, section 12406 of the U.S. Code, saying the president was authorized to federalize the guard because of an inability to execute the laws of the U.S. with regular forces. The lawyers also cited “a rebellion or danger of a rebellion” in Portland.
Lawyers for Oregon, Portland, Illinois and Chicago have disputed the necessity of guard troops to quell protests or execute U.S. law.
What’s the Insurrection Act?
The president has repeatedly said that he could invoke the Insurrection Act to override the objections of the Illinois and Oregon governors to National Guard troop deployments, if the administration doesn’t prevail in court. As we said, the act provides an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act’s prohibition on using federal military as civilian law enforcement.
Under the Insurrection Act, a state legislature or governor could request that the president send federal military forces to suppress an insurrection, or the president could invoke the act himself “[w]henever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings,” the statute says.
The president also can invoke the act to suppress “any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” in two scenarios: if it “hinders the execution” of state and federal laws and deprives people’s constitutional rights or protections and state authorities “are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity”; or if the insurrection/violence “opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.”
Joseph Nunn, a counsel in the Brennan Center for Justice’s liberty and national security program, wrote in an explainer on the Insurrection Act that, in theory, it “should be used only in a crisis that is truly beyond the capacity of civilian authorities to manage,” but the statute “fails to adequately define or limit when it may be used.” Nunn, who has written about limiting the use of the military for law enforcement purposes, said the statute “needs a major overhaul,” calling it “dangerously overbroad and ripe for abuse.”
On Oct. 6, Trump said he would invoke the act if it was necessary. “If I had to enact it, I’d do that. If people were being killed and courts were holding us up or governors or mayors were holding us up, sure, I do that,” he said, again framing it as an issue of crime in cities. “We have to make sure that our cities are safe.”
A week later, Trump told reporters, “I don’t have to go there yet because I’m winning on appeal,” referring to the Insurrection Act. Citing an ABC News interview that included former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Trump said, “He said 50% of the presidents that served in office have used the Insurrection Act and the Insurrection Act, according to all of them, said it can’t even be challenged.”
In the ABC “This Week” interview on Oct. 12, Christie, who is also a former U.S. attorney, said that if Trump invokes the Insurrection Act, “you can’t stop him if you’re the governor.” But the governor “could always bring a court action and then the courts could decide whether the facts are there to support his [Trump’s] invocation of the Insurrection Act,” Christie said.
Eighteen of 45 presidents, or 40%, have invoked the act for crises such as rebellions, labor disputes and enforcing civil rights federal court orders. The most recent instance was in 1992, when the California governor asked President George H.W. Bush to do so in order to send federal troops to assist with civil unrest that erupted in Los Angeles following the acquittal of white police officers charged for beating Rodney King, a Black motorist. The Brennan Center for Justice has a list of all times the Insurrection Act has been used for 30 crises, dating back to 1794 under George Washington. Troops have not always been deployed. “Sometimes the mere threat of military intervention has been enough to resolve a crisis,” the Brennan Center said.
There’s “little case law” on the act, Nevitt, with Emory University School of Law, told us. Nevitt said in an email that the “leading case is from the War of 1812 (Martin v. Mott), where the Supreme Court suggested that the president has broad discretion in interpreting the act’s statutory language.”
Nevitt said there’s no judicial review in the statute and “courts have been reluctant to second-guess presidential authority in using the military,” but several courts are now addressing such authority in the cases in California, Oregon and Illinois. “A court challenge is likely,” if Trump uses the Insurrection Act, “but it remains to be seen whether a federal judge will find the case justiciable,” Nevitt said.
Nunn wrote that the high court “has suggested that courts may step in if the president acts in bad faith, exceeds ‘a permitted range of honest judgment,’ makes an obvious mistake, or acts in a way manifestly unauthorized by law” and “that courts may still review the lawfulness of the military’s actions once deployed.”
What’s happening in Portland?
Protests in Portland against ICE began in June, when small demonstrations were cropping up in cities across the country following the Trump administration’s increased focus on immigration arrests.
As tension escalated in Los Angeles and the administration sent military troops there, the protests in Portland became larger.
“After June 25, 2025, however, the protests were generally peaceful in nature with only sporadic incidents of violence and disruptive behavior. By late September, these protests typically involved twenty or fewer people,” U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut wrote in an Oct. 4 opinion.
“[T]he protests are nowhere near city-wide,” Portland Police spokesman Mike Brenner told us in an email on Oct. 16.
But on Sept. 27, Trump announced that he was “directing Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, to provide all necessary Troops to protect War ravaged Portland, and any of our ICE Facilities under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists.” The next day, Hegseth issued a memo calling into federal service 200 members of the Oregon National Guard.
State and local officials challenged the move in federal court, leading Immergut — a Trump appointee — to block the administration by granting a temporary restraining order.
Although news reports and police accounts have characterized the protests as largely peaceful and contained to the area around the ICE facility located in the south end of the city, Trump continued to exaggerate the situation in Portland.
At an Oct. 8 roundtable, Trump said, “You look at Portland and you see fires all over the place.”
But according to Portland Fire & Rescue, that’s not the case.
Between June 6 and Sept. 30, there were four calls from the 911 center about potential fires “near the federal building where folks are gathered to share their views,” Rick Graves, spokesman for Portland Fire & Rescue, told us in an email. “Two of these were reports of a flag burning, a third was a smoke grenade device thrown under a vehicle which was perceived to be a car fire, and the last was someone who had seen a TikTok video of what they believed to be an active fire at this location but was not an active fire at this time.”
There was a 15% increase in fires around the city during that time period compared with the same time frame in 2024, Graves said, but that’s the “result of a drier year and more vegetation, bark dust, and dumpster fires. The building fire component (fires that tend to be more noticeable) is down 33% this year over last year for the same time period.”
The president has also claimed that those protesting his administration are “professional anarchists and agitators.”
But Benner told us that the Portland Police Bureau “has not found evidence that protesters are professional agitators or anarchists.” His department has made a total of 50 arrests since protests started in June, including charges of “disorderly conduct, harassment, arson and interfering with a peace officer.”
“Please remember that [the Portland Police Bureau] makes arrests based on criminal behavior, not ideologies,” Benner said.
Since Trump’s attention focused on the city in late September, demonstrators have embraced the use of large, inflatable animal costumes as a means of protest.
What have the courts said in the Portland case?
Although California had challenged Trump’s action in Los Angeles, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that he had met the requirements for exercising his authority under Title 10, section 12406 to federalize troops when regular forces can’t execute federal law. The three-judge panel ruled that the president’s action under that law is subject to review by the courts, but that review “must be highly deferential.”
Immergut, the judge handling the Oregon case, cited heavily from the 9th Circuit opinion, but found that the president had not met his burden in this case.
“[T]he President is certainly entitled ‘a great level of deference,’ in his determination that he ‘is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.’ But ‘a great level of deference’ is not equivalent to ignoring the facts on the ground,” Immergut wrote. “As the Ninth Circuit articulated, courts must ‘review the President’s determination to ensure that it reflects a colorable assessment of the facts and law within a ‘range of honest judgment.’ Here, this Court concludes that the President did not have a ‘colorable basis’ to invoke § 12406(3) to federalize the National Guard because the situation on the ground belied an inability of federal law enforcement officers to execute federal law. The President’s determination was simply untethered to the facts.”
Immergut granted the temporary restraining order sought by the state, blocking the Trump administration from deploying the National Guard.
The Trump administration appealed that decision, and the appeals court has yet to rule.
What’s happening in Chicago?
Trump has railed for years about crime in Chicago. Even in his first term in office, Trump floated the idea of bringing in National Guard troops to stem the city’s violent crime.
Trump ramped up those threats this year, arguing on Aug. 25 that Chicago “is a killing field right now” and that it only made sense to “send in troops.”
Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker have pushed back on the president’s narrative, saying that crime is down significantly over the last year. Chicago’s overall homicide rate declined more than 30% in the first six months of this year as compared with last year, experts told us.
“We’re moving in the right direction because we’re making critical investments that actually work,” Johnson said in an interview with NPR published on Aug. 25.
Amid an immigration crackdown, Trump posted an ominous meme to Truth Social on Sept. 6, reading, “Chicago about to find out why it’s called the Department of WAR.”
Two days later, the Department of Homeland Security announced the launch of Operation Midway Blitz, vowing ICE would “target the criminal illegal aliens who flocked to Chicago and Illinois because they knew Governor Pritzker and his sanctuary policies would protect them and allow them to roam free on American streets.”
Clashes between protesters and federal agents have escalated as immigration enforcement in the city has intensified, with multiple violent incidents and more than a dozen arrests. Many of the protests have been focused in suburban Broadview at an ICE processing facility, where federal agents erected an 8-foot fence to protect it. Demonstrators have attempted to block access to the facility, and federal agents have, at times, responded with tear gas and rubber bullets.
“Arrests [of immigrants by ICE] are taking place all over the Chicago area, but some of the biggest flash points have occurred on the South and West Sides, which are home to many of the city’s largest Black and Latino communities,” the New Yorker reported. “Conflict has occurred in homes, migrant shelters, city streets, courtrooms, a detention center, and even the areas around churches, schools, and hospitals.”
Although Trump’s comments about Chicago are usually about reducing crime in general — particularly murder — the actions to deploy the National Guard are more narrowly targeted to protect federal activities, particularly immigration enforcement.
“The situation in the State of Illinois, particularly in and around the city of Chicago, cannot continue,” a memo issued by Trump on Oct. 4 said. “Federal facilities in Illinois, including those directly supporting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Federal Protective Services (FPS), have come under coordinated assault by violent groups intent on obstructing Federal law enforcement activities. These groups have sought to impede the deportation and removal of criminal aliens through violent demonstrations, intimidation, and sabotage of Federal operations. These violent activities appear to be increasing, and the situation in the State of Illinois, particularly in and around the city of Chicago, cannot continue.”
The memo directed the mobilization of 300 National Guard troops to “any locations at which violent demonstrations prevent the execution of Federal law.”
Pritzker, meanwhile, blames the deployment of federal troops for exacerbating violence in the city.
“The Trump administration is following a playbook, cause chaos, create fear and confusion, make it seem like peaceful protestors are a mob, by firing gas pellets and teargas canisters at them. Why? To create the pretext for invoking the Insurrection Act, so that he can send military troops to our city,” Pritzker said at a press conference on Oct. 6.
“There was never an insurrection or an invasion on the ground that justified the deployment of the military to our American city,” Pritzker said. “Donald Trump’s deranged depiction of Chicago as a hellhole, a war zone, and the worst and most dangerous city in the world, was just complete BS.”
What have the courts said in the Chicago case?
On Oct. 6, the state of Illinois and the city of Chicago filed a complaint in federal court seeking to block National Guard members from Illinois and Texas from deploying in Chicago.
“The American people, regardless of where they reside, should not live under the threat of occupation by the United States military, particularly not simply because their city or state leadership has fallen out of a president’s favor,” the complaint stated.
Trump’s attempts to deploy the National Guard in Chicago are part of the president’s “long-declared ‘War’ on Chicago and Illinois” and “are unlawful and dangerous,” it said.
On Oct. 9, U.S. District Judge April Perry, an appointee of President Joe Biden, issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration “from ordering the federalization and deployment of the National Guard of the United States within Illinois.”
Speaking from the bench, Perry said the Trump directive was unconstitutional and would “only add fuel to the fire that the defendants themselves have started,” according to NBC News.
Perry also criticized the Department of Homeland Security for relying on “unreliable evidence” that cast “significant doubt on DHS’ credibility on what is going on in the streets of Chicago.”
Two days later, on Oct. 11, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals granted part of the Trump administration’s request to halt the lower court’s ruling. The appeals court allowed Trump to federalize the National Guard in Illinois. However, the court also denied the administration’s request to actually be able to deploy the National Guard in the state. That included hundreds of National Guard troops brought up from Texas. “Members of the National Guard do not need to return to their home states unless further ordered by a court to do so,” the order said.
In a subsequent order released Oct. 16, the federal appeals court denied the administration’s effort to lift the block on deployment pending its appeal. The court determined that there was “insufficient evidence of a rebellion or danger of rebellion in Illinois” and that there was “insufficient evidence that protest activity in Illinois has significantly impeded the ability of federal officers to execute federal immigration laws.”
“The spirited, sustained, and occasionally violent actions of demonstrators in protest of the federal government’s immigration policies and actions, without more, does not give rise to a danger of rebellion against the government’s authority,” the court wrote.
In addition, the court noted, “Federal facilities, including the processing facility in Broadview, have remained open despite regular demonstrations against the administration’s immigration policies. And though federal officers have encountered sporadic disruptions, they have been quickly contained by local, state, and federal authorities. At the same time, immigration arrests and deportations have proceeded apace in Illinois over the past year, and the administration has been proclaiming the success of its current efforts to enforce immigration laws in the Chicago area.”
Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, P.O. Box 58100, Philadelphia, PA 19102.