Trump Orders National Guard Withdrawal from Major Cities Amid Supreme Court Setback and Democratic Pushback
By Perplexity News Staff
Washington, D.C. – President Donald Trump announced on December 31, 2025, the withdrawal of National Guard troops from Chicago, Los Angeles, and Portland, Oregon, following a Supreme Court ruling that blocked their deployment in Chicago. The move comes after legal challenges and marks a temporary retreat, though Trump hinted at a potential return “in a much different and stronger form” if crime surges.
In a Truth Social post, Trump acknowledged the Supreme Court’s December 23 decision refusing to block a lower court ruling against the troops’ presence in Chicago for immigration enforcement operations. The deployments were part of broader efforts to address what the administration described as rising urban crime and immigration-related unrest. Troops have now left the three cities, but federalized National Guard units remain in Washington, D.C., where courts have ruled the president holds unique authority since it is not a state.[1][2]
Supreme Court Ruling Invokes Posse Comitatus Concerns
The Supreme Court’s intervention highlighted longstanding legal barriers under the Posse Comitatus Act, a federal law prohibiting the military from domestic law enforcement without explicit congressional or constitutional authorization. Legal expert Paul Gowder, a professor at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, described the ruling as a “punt,” leaving open the possibility for Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act next time around.
“This is basically a punt,” Gowder said. “I actually find this really worrying because it seems like basically just an invitation for Trump to go straight to the Insurrection Act next time.” Under the Insurrection Act, the president could unilaterally declare a rebellion and deploy regular military forces, bypassing some restrictions.[1]
The ACLU emphasized that the Insurrection Act is a rare exception to the principle against military policing of civilians, last invoked without a governor’s consent over 60 years ago by President Lyndon B. Johnson to protect civil rights protesters. Critics argue Trump’s potential use would be unprecedented, tied to immigration enforcement rather than genuine insurrection.[2]
Democrats Seize the Moment
California Governor Gavin Newsom quickly declared victory, stating, “President Trump has finally admitted defeat.” Democrats have taken the offensive, framing the withdrawal as a win against federal overreach. Hina Shamsi of the ACLU called for de-escalation, urging Congress to demand the removal of mass federal law enforcement from areas like Minneapolis and to rein in agencies such as ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection.[1][2]
The controversy escalated after an ICE officer killed 37-year-old mother Renee Nicole Good during a federal immigration operation, sparking peaceful protests. The Trump administration had deployed troops arguing it met criteria for military involvement, but courts ruled otherwise, insisting regular law enforcement like ICE and FBI did not suffice to trigger exceptions.[2]
Broader Context: Trump’s Aggressive Policy Shifts
This development occurs amid Trump’s sweeping executive actions. On January 17, 2026, he issued a memorandum directing the withdrawal of the United States from numerous international organizations deemed contrary to national interests, building on Executive Order 14199 from February 2025. The list includes the 24/7 Carbon-Free Energy Compact, Colombo Plan Council, Commission for Environmental Cooperation, and Education Cannot Wait, among others. The Secretary of State is tasked with publishing the details in the Federal Register.[3]
These moves signal a nationalist pivot, prioritizing domestic security and sovereignty. However, the National Guard pullback underscores judicial checks on executive power, particularly in using military for civilian policing.
Expert Warnings on Future Risks
Gowder warned that the current scenario could recur: Trump might invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy active-duty forces, then federalize the National Guard if needed, reigniting legal battles. “Then all the same questions that both parties wanted the court to answer come right back,” he noted.[1]
Civil liberties advocates echo these concerns. The ACLU described Trump’s threats as based on “falsehoods” and aimed at enabling rights deprivations, contrasting sharply with historical uses like protecting civil rights marchers on Bloody Sunday in 1965.[2]
Impact on Cities and Political Landscape
For cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, and Portland, the withdrawal eases immediate tensions but raises questions about local policing amid ongoing protests and crime concerns. Mayors and governors in Democratic-led states view it as a restoration of local control, while Trump supporters see it as a strategic pause.
As the 2026 political cycle heats up, this episode fuels debates on federalism, immigration, and military roles in domestic affairs. Democrats are leveraging it to portray Trump as backing down under pressure, potentially galvanizing opposition ahead of midterms.
Trump’s New Year’s Eve post left the door ajar: “We will come back… when crime begins to soar again.” Whether through legal maneuvers or new invocations, the administration shows no signs of relenting on its hardline stance.[1]
Calls for Congressional Action
Amid the standoff, voices grow louder for legislative reforms. Shamsi stressed, “What’s needed now is not federal escalation, but deescalation.” Proposals include clarifying Insurrection Act limits and reinforcing Posse Comitatus in modern contexts.
(Word count: 1024)