Hundreds of Texas National Guard soldiers assembled on Tuesday, October 7, 2025, at an Army facility outside Chicago as tensions escalated over former President Donald Trump’s renewed threat to invoke the Insurrection Act, an extraordinary measure that would allow him to deploy troops (of his own preference, especially) to Democratic-led cities against the will of local and State officials.
The Republican leader, who has repeatedly signaled his intention to expand presidential authority, again refused to rule out invoking the centuries-old law to bypass potential court restrictions. Trump suggested that the move might be necessary to enforce federal authority in cities he claims are overrun by crime and chaos.
“Well, it’s been invoked before,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. He insisted that troops were needed to “protect federal property and personnel in carrying out their duties, as well as assisting an overall drive to suppress crime.”
He specifically cited Chicago as an example of what he described as lawlessness, adding, “If you look at Chicago, Chicago is a great city where there’s a lot of crime, and if the governor can’t do the job, we’ll do the job. It’s all very simple.”
A Rarely Used Law
The Insurrection Act, which grants the president power to deploy the military to quell unrest in emergencies, has rarely been used—typically only at the request of state governors. The last invocation occurred in 1992, when President George H.W. Bush sent troops to Los Angeles to contain riots after the acquittal of officers in the beating of Rodney King.
Ordinarily, federal law bars the use of the military in domestic law enforcement. However, the Insurrection Act provides an exception, enabling troops to directly police and arrest civilians in extreme situations.
Experts warn that Trump’s apparent intention to unilaterally invoke the act would mark a profound escalation in his assertion of executive power.
“It’s an extremely dangerous slope, because it essentially says the president can just do about whatever he chooses,” said Randy Manner, a retired Army major general who once served as acting vice chief of the National Guard Bureau. “It’s absolutely, absolutely the definition of dictatorship and fascism.”
Trump Targets Chicago and Portland
Trump’s latest orders involve sending National Guard troops from Texas to Chicago and Portland—cities governed by Democrats who have strongly opposed his move. Similar deployments were made earlier to Los Angeles and Washington, D.C.
On Tuesday, Texas Guard troops were seen gathering at the Army Reserve Training Center in Elwood, about 80 kilometers southwest of Chicago. It remains unclear when they will begin operations within the city.
Despite Trump’s portrayal of Chicago and Portland as “war zones,” local officials report that recent protests over immigration policies have been largely peaceful. Demonstrations have been limited in size, and everyday life in Chicago continues unaffected. Restaurants and entertainment venues remain crowded, and residents have been enjoying the warm fall weather along the city’s lakefront.
These protests are far smaller than the widespread unrest seen in 2020 following the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis. The most persistent demonstration has taken place outside an immigration processing facility in Broadview, where small groups of protesters have clashed with federal officers. Authorities have used tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse crowds, leading to several arrests and injuries, including that of a journalist.
State Pushback and Legal Challenges
Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker, a Democrat, accused Trump of exploiting the military for political gain.“Donald Trump is using our service members as political props and as pawns in his illegal effort to militarize our nation’s cities,” Pritzker said on October 6, 2025..
In response, Illinois and the city of Chicago filed a joint lawsuit seeking to block the deployment of 300 Illinois National Guard troops and 400 Texas Guard troops. During a court hearing, Justice Department lawyers confirmed that the Texas contingent was already en route to Illinois.
Federal Judge April Perry allowed the deployment to continue temporarily but ordered the U.S. government to respond to the lawsuit by Wednesday.
Meanwhile, in a related decision, a federal judge in Oregon on Sunday temporarily barred the administration from sending troops to police Portland, siding with state and local officials who argued the deployment violated constitutional limits on presidential authority.
Implications for Federal Power
National Guard troops typically operate under the command of their state governors and are mobilized to assist during natural disasters or emergencies. Trump’s attempts to federalize the Guard for domestic policing purposes raise unprecedented constitutional and legal concerns.
While the Supreme Court has ruled that the president alone can determine whether the conditions for invoking the Insurrection Act have been met, such use of force on domestic soil without state consent remains deeply controversial.
Trump’s latest maneuvers underscore his broader agenda to consolidate executive authority and redefine the boundaries of presidential power—an approach that critics say risks undermining democratic checks and balances.
As legal challenges mount and political tensions rise, the deployment of troops to U.S. cities may soon become a defining test of how far a president can go in the name of law and order.
