## Legal Battles Blocked Trump’s National Guard Deployments to California,Oregon,and Illinois
California National Guard members stood in formation during protests in Los Angeles,California,on June 14,2025. (David Pashaee/AFP via getty Images)
Costumed protesters and former President Trump’s often-inflammatory social media posts grabbed headlines during his governance’s push to deploy National Guard troops to California, Illinois, and Oregon. But ultimately, the deployments were halted due to complex case law and relentless legal maneuvering by Democratic attorneys general in those states.
Earlier this month, President Trump pulled hundreds of National Guard troops from California, Oregon, and Illinois after the Supreme Court ruled against the administration in the Illinois case. This marked a significant victory for the states that had been fighting against the deployments, particularly after troops had been federalized against the wishes of their governors. The effort required constant coordination and interaction as states worked to understand and define a rarely used legal mechanism the Trump administration employed to justify the deployments.
“We were in uncharted territories. This had never happened before,” remembers California attorney General Rob Bonta.“And California was on the front lines from day one.”
In June of last year, Trump seized control of California’s National Guard—against Gov. Gavin Newsom’s wishes—and deployed more than 4,000 troops, along with Marines, to downtown Los Angeles to protect federal immigration officers and facilities amid protests.
This was the first in a pattern that unfolded over the following months,as Trump deployed the National Guard to several Democratic-led cities,claiming the deployments were necessary due to violence and rampant crime—claims contradicted by data and challenged by several local and federal judges.
The White House defended the actions, with spokesperson Abigail Jackson stating that “if Democratic leaders had spent half as much time addressing crime, their communities would be much safer,” reiterating the administration’s commitment to safety and security.
Even before the 2024 election, Democratic attorneys general had been preparing for the possibility of Trump deploying the military to U.S. cities if re-elected.This was a topic openly discussed by Trump and his advisors on the campaign trail as a potential option for assisting with immigration enforcement.
“We had done a lot of homework for this exact issue,” says Oregon attorney General Dan Rayfield.
The legal basis for the deployments centered on a 19th-century law, 10 U.S.C. 12406,which had limited precedent. the law’s vague terms, such as “rebellion” and “invasion,” were open to interpretation.
“Since this law has been used so rarely in our history, we had very little sense of what any of thes terms meant, because none of them are defined by the statute,” explains chris Mirasola, a national security law professor at the university of Houston Law Center. “That meant that the court battles against these deployments could help define the law.”
Bonta emphasized the importance of a strong legal response. “If we stumbled, or if there was bad precedent set, or if there was a broad, expansive view of Trump’s authority, there was a lot at stake,” he said.
States began coordinating closely, sharing details and strategies. Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul recalls being in constant contact with his counterparts in California and Oregon. “We were definitely in touch right when it happened, not knowing when the hammer would drop for us,” he said.
throughout the fall of 2025, Trump threatened deployments to Baltimore and Oakland, California. He deployed troops to Washington, D.C.—a unique situation where the president controls the National Guard—and later focused on Chicago and Portland.rayfield explained Oregon’s strategy was to block the deployment before troops arrived in Portland, unlike the situation in Los Angeles. California shared legal insights with Oregon and Illinois, and the states worked together to file lawsuits.
Oregon secured a temporary restraining order within 12 hours of the deployment threat, and a federal judge issued a second order blocking troops from other states entering Portland. Illinois faced a similar situation, with Texas Gov. greg Abbott offering troops, but a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking that deployment as well.
Raoul described the emotional toll of the situation. “I remember, I went down and did a press availability afterwards, and I started cracking a little bit, you know, my voice. and I was like, I’m okay if some tears come down my eye, because this is some real serious s—,” he said.
The Trump administration appealed unfavorable rulings, and troops remained on standby for months. However, in December 2025, the Supreme Court ruled against Trump in the Illinois case, upholding the block on troops in Chicago. Shortly before the new year,Trump announced he would pull troops from all three states.
Despite these victories, the attorneys general acknowledge that the administration could still invoke the Insurrection Act, a possibility Trump has repeatedly raised, including in response to recent protests in minneapolis.
“This is kind of a round that we’ve won. We’re grateful for that. But now we’re ready for round two,” Bonta said, signaling continued preparation for potential future challenges.
