A significant shift in federal security measures occurred earlier in 2026 with the complete withdrawal of National Guard troops from several major U.S. cities. This action fulfilled a promise made by the former President in late 2025, a pledge laced with a warning of potential return should crime rates surge once more.
Over five thousand troops had been deployed under Title 10 authority – essentially federalizing them – to Los Angeles, Chicago, and Portland, Oregon. The initial deployment in June 2025 was framed as a necessity to protect federal property and support Immigration and Customs Enforcement amidst escalating unrest. It also came during a period when many cities were grappling with a dramatic rise in violent crime, mirroring levels not seen in decades.
The decision to remove these forces wasn’t met with universal approval. Democratic leaders in the affected cities vehemently opposed the initial federalization, arguing it was an overreach of power and bypassed established protocols. Legal challenges followed, with the Supreme Court even temporarily halting deployment in Chicago, questioning the legal basis for military intervention in local law enforcement matters.
California’s governor, for example, publicly condemned the move, characterizing it as an unlawful and unethical use of the National Guard, and vowed to restore the troops to state control once they were withdrawn. The core of the dispute centered on the authority of the federal government to deploy military personnel within state boundaries for domestic law enforcement purposes.
The withdrawal coincided with reported declines in violent crime across the nation. Data from a major association of city police chiefs indicated substantial drops in homicides, robberies, and aggravated assaults. The administration attributed this positive trend directly to its policies, emphasizing a “no-nonsense” approach to public safety and increased federal resources.
The administration asserted that the surge in federal support, coupled with stricter immigration enforcement and backing for law enforcement agencies, had been instrumental in reversing the upward trend in crime. They claimed communities previously overwhelmed by violence were now experiencing a restoration of peace and security.
It’s important to note that National Guard presence continues in other locations, such as Washington, D.C., New Orleans, and Memphis, but these deployments operate under different legal frameworks and agreements between state governors and the federal government. The demobilization in Los Angeles, Chicago, and Portland represents a distinct shift in federal strategy.
The former President’s statement accompanying the withdrawal signaled a conditional retreat. While the troops were being removed, the message was clear: they could be redeployed swiftly if crime rates were to climb again, potentially with even greater force. This leaves a lingering question about the future of federal involvement in local law enforcement.
