����vlog

President Donald Trump's authority to deploy National Guard troops in American cities is under legal scrutiny following violent clashes between protesters and federal agents in Portland and Chicago, with the White House defending the move as necessary for law and order.Trump compared the cities to war zones on Monday and said he’s willing to invoke the Insurrection Act to send in federal troops.“We have an Insurrection Act for a reason,” he said. “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.”A federal judge has given the Trump administration two days to respond to Illinois’ lawsuit challenging the president’s plan to send National Guard troops to Chicago, but she didn’t immediately block the deployment.Judge April Perry set a midnight Wednesday deadline for the response from the federal government and scheduled a Thursday hearing in the lawsuit filed Monday.The lawsuit alleges that the president's effort to send troops to Chicago and Illinois is "unlawful and dangerous.”“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 lawsuit says.Trump has argued that the troops are needed to help fight crime in Chicago and to ensure that federal agents can enforce immigration laws in the city, which limits cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker said, "There was never an insurrection or an invasion on the ground that justified the deployment of the military to our American city."Over the weekend, protesters clashed with federal agents outside ICE facilities in Portland and near Chicago. The White House argues that these incidents demonstrate the need for troops to protect federal buildings and restore order. However, Chicago and the state of Illinois are challenging the president's decision in court, claiming it is a manufactured crisis that usurps state police power.A federal judge temporarily blocked the president's order to deploy the National Guard in Oregon, stating that conditions were "not significantly violent or disruptive" and that the president's claims were "untethered to the facts." In response, Press Secretary Leavitt called the ruling "untethered in reality and in the law."The administration has filed an appeal, arguing that courts have "no authority to second-guess the president's judgment" on when to deploy the Guard. The legal ground remains unsettled, with one court ruling against the administration's deployment of troops to Southern California earlier this year, a decision that is currently being appealed.The White House cites the president's power as commander in chief and his authority under federal law to call up the National Guard when federal operations are threatened. However, states like Illinois and Oregon argue that this does not apply to them, as there is no insurrection, only protests. Multiple courts are now being asked to determine the boundaries of this authority.While Democratic states are suing to prevent the deployment of the National Guard, Republican states such as Tennessee and Louisiana are welcoming the support to fight crime. Troops are already working alongside local police in Memphis, illustrating the divide in how different states are responding to the president's actions.For more coverage on Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to Portland and Chicago: