Illegal National Guard Deployments to Los Angeles and Attempted Deployment to Chicago

What Happened

On June 7, 2025, President Trump ordered the federalization of the California National Guard and deployed approximately 4,000 troops to Los Angeles in response to protests against immigration raids. An additional 700 Marines were mobilized to support the operation. This marked the first time since the 1960s that the federal government had activated National Guard troops without a governor's consent.

Governor Gavin Newsom opposed the deployment from the outset, calling it "illegal" and demanding the troops be returned to state control. The deployment covered Los Angeles as well as nearby Compton and Paramount, placing communities that had been protesting ICE immigration raids under what amounted to military occupation.

The Los Angeles Deployment

The deployment escalated rapidly. On June 7, approximately 2,100 troops were mobilized. By June 9, the total exceeded 4,100 with 700 Marines added. The troops remained in Los Angeles for weeks, with the Pentagon beginning a partial withdrawal of 2,000 soldiers on July 16 — approximately 60 days after initial mobilization. Most remaining troops demobilized by late July, but the deployment was not formally ended by court order until December 31, 2025.

A retired general told NPR the deployment was "unprecedented" — at no prior point in US history had this authority been used without the governor's consent.

The Chicago Attempt

The administration also attempted to deploy Texas National Guard troops to Illinois — specifically to Chicago — over the objections of the Illinois governor. This case reached the Supreme Court, which ruled 6-3 against the administration. The majority opinion stated plainly: "the Government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois."

Court Rulings

Both deployments were struck down by courts. A federal judge ordered the LA deployment ended and called the mission "profoundly un-American." The Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling on the Chicago deployment established clear precedent that the federal government cannot deploy military forces to states over governor objections without specific statutory authority.

On December 31, 2025, the federal court formally ended the California deployment. Governor Newsom directed leadership to quickly send remaining soldiers home to their families.

Legal Analysis

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 prohibits the use of federal military forces for domestic law enforcement unless expressly authorized by the Constitution or an Act of Congress. The Tenth Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states, including command of state National Guard forces absent lawful federalization.

The Brennan Center for Justice published detailed analysis concluding that the administration lacked legal authority for the deployment. The Lawfare analysis noted that while some legal scholars argued the president has broader National Guard authority, the courts decisively rejected this position in both the LA and Chicago cases.

Expanding Pattern

The LA and Chicago deployments were not isolated incidents. NPR reported that New Orleans was targeted for National Guard deployment in October 2025, and the Wikipedia article on "Domestic military deployments by the second Trump administration" documents deployments to multiple cities. The pattern — using military force to support immigration enforcement in cities that resist the administration's immigration agenda — represents a systematic approach to deploying the military against domestic civilian populations.

Why This Is Classified Severe

This incident receives a severe classification because:

• Unprecedented: The first federal activation of National Guard troops without governor consent since the 1960s. Multiple courts and the Supreme Court ruled it illegal.
• Scale: 4,000 troops and 700 Marines deployed to American cities — a military force larger than the US garrison in many foreign countries.
• Constitutional crisis: The deployment tested whether the executive branch could unilaterally deploy military force against civilian populations in American cities. The courts said no — but the administration attempted it anyway.
• Chilling effect on protest: Deploying military forces in response to protests against government policy — regardless of whether those protests are related to immigration — chills the exercise of First Amendment rights.
• Supreme Court rebuke: A 6-3 Supreme Court ruling finding "no source of authority" for the deployment is an extraordinary judicial repudiation of executive overreach.