Former President Donald Trump has recently escalated his approach to civil unrest in American cities, sending federal law enforcement to Portland and deploying National Guard troops to several states. Trump’s administration has characterized major cities, including Portland and Chicago, as “war zones,” suggesting that an apocalyptic force is required to address ongoing issues. The use of military personnel to augment civilian capacities has raised urgent ethical questions about the legality and appropriateness of deploying military personnel in domestic contexts.
To help reestablish order, Trump directed the deployment of 400 Texas National Guard members. From there, they’ll travel to states such as Illinois and Oregon. He has suggested deploying soldiers to restore order in as many as ten urban centers experiencing civil unrest. This move is more than a short-term play. State officials have reacted in remarkably different ways. Some members of Congress support the deployment, while others have raised questions about the deployment’s legality.
Legal Challenges and Restraints
Just this week, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut granted a temporary restraining order against the Trump administration’s plans. She stopped the deployment of 200 Oregon National Guard soldiers to Portland. As a fun aside, Immergut was appointed by Trump during his first term, further illustrating the complexities behind this legal fight.
In her ruling, Immergut cast doubt on the wisdom of using federalized National Guard troops while legal challenges are still in progress. She stated, “How could bringing in federalized National Guard from California not be in direct contravention to the temporary restraining order I issued yesterday?”
Even with these legal losses, Trump’s administration has doubled down on exercising this asserted authority. Illinois Governor JB Pritzker announced that the President had ordered the Texas National Guard to deploy to his state, among others. Pritzker expressed concern about the impact of federal forces on local governance, stating, “They are the ones who are making it a war zone.”
State Responses and Political Implications
State officials haven’t adopted a consistent approach towards Trump’s deployments. California Governor Gavin Newsom hailed Immergut’s ruling as an important victory for democracy, remarking, “The rule of law has prevailed – and California’s National Guard will soon be heading home.” He further emphasized the political implications of Trump’s actions, asserting that the ruling represented more than just a legal victory: “This ruling is more than a legal victory, it’s a victory for American democracy itself. Donald Trump has attempted to convert our service members into tools of his political machinations and desire for influence.”
Pritzker panned Trump’s response as a disaster. He remarked, “If they’re not going to focus on the worst of the worst, which is what the president said they are going to do, they need to get the heck out.”
Oregon Governor Tina Kotek confirmed that 101 members of the California National Guard arrived by plane on Saturday night and more troops were expected soon. Such an influx would prove to be highly controversial, underscoring the continuing friction between federal and state authorities over enforcement of public safety measures.
Broader Context of Civil Unrest
Trump paints a devil’s picture of Chicago as a city “overrun with crime and riots.” This one declaration is indicative of a larger theme he has touted for most of his presidency. He insists that these cities—mostly black or predominantly African-American enclaves—require a military presence. This strategy helps further entrench his message of law and order with the elections just around the corner. Mobilization of National Guard troops raises deep fears for public safety. It opens the door to the dangerous precedent of politicizing our military forces.
As critics have warned, deployment of National Guard troops to civilian contexts not only fails to de-escalate but often exacerbates civilian-military conflict. This deployment strategy has recently raised the ire of an unusual and diverse coalition of civil rights organizations that have pushed back against militarization in domestic matters.
Concerns over unrest are deepening in urban areas such as Portland and Chicago. In turn, Trump doubles down, primarily committed to using federal force to quell what he would characterize as intensifying riots. With legal battles heating up, state leaders are scrambling to respond in various ways. This question is by no means resolved, and the answer will have major consequences for how future administrations will respond to similar crises.