The presence of the National Guard in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Portland is temporarily ending, a decision announced following legal challenges to their deployment. Former President Trump asserted the troops’ removal came despite a demonstrable impact on crime rates within those cities, framing their presence as a critical intervention.
Trump directly attributed reductions in crime to the “Patriots” of the National Guard, claiming the cities were spiraling out of control before federal intervention. He expressed disbelief that Democratic mayors and governors would request their withdrawal, particularly given the perceived improvements in public safety.
The initial deployment sparked immediate legal pushback from California, Illinois, and Oregon, all arguing the federal government overstepped its authority by federalizing the National Guard. Governors contended that control of the Guard rested constitutionally with the states, not the president.
Federal judges ultimately sided with the states, issuing rulings that blocked the deployments and returned control of the troops to their respective governors. These legal setbacks directly led to the current withdrawal, though Trump signaled a future return under potentially different circumstances.
Chicago, as of late December, reported a significant decrease in murders – 412 compared to 585 in the previous year. City officials highlighted 2025 as having the fewest homicides in decades, a figure not seen since the mid-1960s.
Portland experienced recurring protests against ICE enforcement, often escalating into clashes with law enforcement. These demonstrations underscored ongoing tensions surrounding immigration policy and federal actions within the city.
Los Angeles also saw confrontations during anti-ICE protests, as federal authorities intensified deportation efforts targeting individuals with criminal records. Resistance to these actions sometimes turned violent, highlighting the deep divisions surrounding immigration enforcement.
Trump predicted a resurgence in crime would inevitably lead to the Guard’s return, promising a “much different and stronger form” of intervention. He framed the situation as a temporary reprieve, anticipating a future need for federal assistance in maintaining order.
The National Guard’s typical operational structure places them under the command of state governors, with presidential federalization reserved for specific, limited circumstances. This fundamental principle was at the heart of the legal battle surrounding their deployment to these cities.
