President Donald Trump indicated late last week that Chicago could be the next U.S. city targeted for a federal troop deployment, mirroring similar actions already taken in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C.On Monday, Trump doubled down on the potential of sending the U.S. military to Chicago, though he stopped short of making any guarantees."They need help. We may wait. We may or may not, we may just go in and do it, which is probably what we should do," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.The Washington Post reported over the weekend that the Trump administration has been working on plans for some time to deploy the National Guard to Chicago, possibly as early as September.The Trump administration has cited high levels of crime and lack of immigration enforcement as reasons for deploying federal troops. However, officials from D.C., Los Angeles and Chicago have pushed back against those claims and voiced strong opposition to Trump’s actions.“The guard is not needed,” Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson told NBC News. “This is not the role of our military. The brave men and women who signed up to serve our country did not sign up to occupy American cities.”Sending federal troops to Chicago would represent a significant escalation beyond the Trump administration’s earlier deployments in Los Angeles and D.C., pushing the limits of executive authority and inviting greater legal scrutiny. It could also lay the groundwork for Trump to send troops to other U.S. cities.Here’s a closer look at the federal laws at play and the legal arguments the Trump administration may use to uphold its deployment of federal troops to cities like Chicago.Title 10, Section 12406When considering the legal justifications for future troop deployments to cities like Chicago, Baltimore and New York, it’s best to begin with the Trump administration’s past actions.Washington, D.C., was the most recent place targeted, but its unique status as the capital means it’s unlikely to serve as a legal precedent for a nationwide rollout.Los Angeles, on the other hand, may offer a better roadmap.On June 7, Trump deployed 2,000 California National Guard troops in response to protests over his administration’s immigration policies. Shortly after, the number of Guard troops was increased to 4,100, plus approximately 700 Marines were also sent to the state.In a memo announcing the deployment, Trump invoked Title 10, Section 12406 of the U.S. Code, which states that the president can federalize National Guard units to repel an invasion, suppress a rebellion or enforce federal law.Video below: President Trump considers deploying armed National Guard to cities amid criticismAccording to Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, it was the first time since 1965 that a president activated a state’s National Guard without the governor’s request.California subsequently sued Trump, arguing that the deployment of federal troops violated the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 federal law that generally prohibits the use of the U.S. military to enforce domestic law.The Trump administration has maintained that federal troops were not engaged in law enforcement, but were instead deployed to protect federal immigration personnel and property.A federal judge initially ruled in favor of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, stating that Trump must relinquish control of the National Guard back to the state. However, a week later, an appeals court overturned the ruling.The lawsuit went back to court earlier this month, but a new ruling has not been made.Looking toward Chicago, Baltimore and New York, Trump could attempt to invoke Section 12406 again, using claims of high crime rates or lack of cooperation with federal officials in immigration enforcement as justification. But, like California, the move would certainly be met with legal action.Insurrection Act of 1807Another route the Trump administration could take is to invoke the rarely used Insurrection Act of 1807.The 19th-century law serves as an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, giving the president the power to use the U.S. military to carry out domestic law enforcement duties.Like Section 12406 of Title 10, the Insurrection Act requires certain conditions to be met to justify its use, such as suppressing an insurrection, quelling domestic violence or enforcing civil rights. However, it is widely viewed as a more extreme measure, especially when used without a state’s consent.Additionally, Section 12406 only gives the president control of the National Guard, while the Insurrection Act extends to the entire armed forces. The act also authorizes those forces to engage in domestic law enforcement, including detaining civilians and controlling crowds. Section 12406 does not.According to the Brennan Center for Justice, the Insurrection Act has only been used 30 times in American history. Most recently, it was used in 1992, at the request of California’s governor, to respond to the Los Angeles riots. The last time it was used against the state’s wishes was during the 1950s and 1960s to enforce school desegregation and to protect civil rights marches.Trump has never officially invoked the Insurrection Act, though he has repeatedly threatened to do so. "If there’s an insurrection, I would certainly invoke it," Trump said in June, regarding the situation in Los Angeles. "We’ll see … If we didn’t get involved right now, Los Angeles would be burning."Some legal experts have questioned whether Trump’s past actions have already crossed the threshold, including his deployment of the Marines to Los Angeles, which isn’t explicitly protected by Section 12406, but does fall under the Insurrection Act’s powers.Ultimately, if Trump does invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy troops to cities like Chicago, Baltimore, or New York, it would almost assuredly be challenged in court.However, it’s important to note that the Supreme Court, in the 1827 case Martin v. Mott, ruled that the president has sole discretion to determine if conditions are met to invoke the Insurrection Act. It’s a judgment that courts have historically been reluctant to contest.
President Donald Trump indicated late last week that Chicago could be the next U.S. city targeted for a federal troop deployment, mirroring similar actions already taken in Los Angeles and
On Monday, Trump doubled down on the potential of sending the U.S. military to Chicago, though he stopped short of making any guarantees.
"They need help. We may wait. We may or may not, we may just go in and do it, which is probably what we should do," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.
The Washington Post that the Trump administration has been working on plans for some time to deploy the National Guard to Chicago, possibly as early as September.
The Trump administration has high levels of crime and lack of immigration enforcement as reasons for deploying federal troops. However, officials from D.C., Los Angeles and Chicago have and voiced strong opposition to Trump’s actions.
“The guard is not needed,” Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson told NBC News. “This is not the role of our military. The brave men and women who signed up to serve our country did not sign up to occupy American cities.”
Sending federal troops to Chicago would represent a significant escalation beyond the Trump administration’s earlier deployments in Los Angeles and D.C., pushing the limits of executive authority and inviting greater legal scrutiny. It could also lay the groundwork for Trump to send troops to other U.S. cities.
Here’s a closer look at the federal laws at play and the legal arguments the Trump administration may use to uphold its deployment of federal troops to cities like Chicago.
Title 10, Section 12406
When considering the legal justifications for future troop deployments to cities like Chicago, Baltimore and New York, it’s best to begin with the Trump administration’s past actions.
Washington, D.C., was the most recent place targeted, but its means it’s unlikely to serve as a legal precedent for a nationwide rollout.
Los Angeles, on the other hand, may offer a better roadmap.
On June 7, Trump deployed 2,000 California National Guard troops in response to protests over his administration’s immigration policies. Shortly after, the number of Guard troops was increased to 4,100, plus approximately 700 Marines were also sent to the state.
, Trump invoked , which states that the president can federalize National Guard units to repel an invasion, suppress a rebellion or enforce federal law.
Video below: President Trump considers deploying armed National Guard to cities amid criticism
According to Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, that a president activated a state’s National Guard without the governor’s request.
California subsequently Trump, arguing that the deployment of federal troops violated the , an 1878 federal law that generally prohibits the use of the U.S. military to enforce domestic law.
The Trump administration has maintained that federal troops were not engaged in law enforcement, but were instead deployed to protect federal immigration personnel and property.
A federal judge initially ruled in favor of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, stating that Trump must relinquish control of the National Guard back to the state. However, a week later, an appeals court overturned the ruling.
The lawsuit went back to court earlier this month, .
Looking toward Chicago, Baltimore and New York, Trump could attempt to invoke Section 12406 again, using claims of high crime rates or lack of cooperation with federal officials in immigration enforcement as justification. But, like California, the move would certainly be met with legal action.
Insurrection Act of 1807
Another route the Trump administration could take is to invoke the rarely used .
The 19th-century law serves as an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, giving the president the power to use the U.S. military to carry out domestic law enforcement duties.
Like Section 12406 of Title 10, the Insurrection Act requires certain conditions to be met to justify its use, such as suppressing an insurrection, quelling domestic violence or enforcing civil rights. However, it is widely viewed as a more extreme measure, especially when used without a state’s consent.
Additionally, Section 12406 only gives the president control of the National Guard, while the Insurrection Act extends to the entire armed forces. The act also authorizes those forces to engage in domestic law enforcement, including detaining civilians and controlling crowds. Section 12406 does not.
According to the Brennan Center for Justice, the Insurrection Act has only been used . Most recently, it was used in 1992, at the request of California’s governor, to respond to the Los Angeles riots. The last time it was used against the state’s wishes was during the 1950s and 1960s to enforce school desegregation and to protect civil rights marches.
Trump has never officially invoked the Insurrection Act, though he has repeatedly threatened to do so.
"If there’s an insurrection, I would certainly invoke it," Trump said in June, regarding the situation in Los Angeles. "We’ll see … If we didn’t get involved right now, Los Angeles would be burning."
Some legal experts have , including his deployment of the Marines to Los Angeles, which isn’t explicitly protected by Section 12406, but does fall under the Insurrection Act’s powers.
Ultimately, if Trump does invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy troops to cities like Chicago, Baltimore, or New York, it would almost assuredly be challenged in court.
However, it’s important to note that the Supreme Court, in the , ruled that the president has sole discretion to determine if conditions are met to invoke the Insurrection Act. It’s a judgment that courts have historically been reluctant to contest.
