This past summer, President Trump deployed federal military forces and National Guard units to Los Angeles and D.C. In September, with the permission of the Governor of Tennessee, Tennessee’s National Guard units were deployed to Memphis, Tennessee.

As of fall 2025, President Trump has repeatedly tried to deploy the National Guard to Chicago and Portland, but his administration has been blocked by the federal courts from doing so. He has also threatened to deploy National Guard units to other cities, including Baltimore, Boston, and New Orleans. These deployments are unnecessary, immoral, and are unconstitutional and illegal when invoked without the consent of the State Governor. 

Know Your Rights (KYR).

Important Reminder: You have the same rights under the U.S. Constitution and state law regardless of who the law enforcement officer is – a National Guard member, police, ICE, FBI, military troop, etc. – purportedly enforcing the law.  Know your rights in your state and assert them. See the Resources below for KYR materials.

What is the National Guard?

The National Guard is a military force composed of the Army and Air National Guard, who are engaged part-time or on an as-needed basis in states and D.C. In states, the National Guard is commanded by the Governor.

What is the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA)?

The Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) (18 U.S.C. §1385) is a federal law that forbids the U.S. military — federal armed forces, and National Guard troops who have been called into federal service —  from engaging in actions that exert compulsory power over civilians. In other words, the military cannot engage in civilian law enforcement: they cannot stop, search or arrest civilians (as well as engage in pursuits, arrests, apprehension, security patrols, traffic control, crowd control, riot control, evidence collection, interrogation, or acting as informants according to military training).

When Can the National Guard Be Deployed in Your City:

There are various laws and statutes, many old and untested, that allow for the National Guard and other military troops to be deployed in the U.S. Generally, there are 3 ways the National Guard may be invoked: 

1. A State Governor may deploy the National Guard (State Active Duty (SAD)) and serves as the Commander of the Guard (i.e., disaster relief). The PCA does not apply. 

2. National Guard may be deployed by the President to execute state/federal missions with the consent of a State Governor. The Guard remains under the control of the State Governor but paid with federal funds. (Fed Law Title 32 USC). The PCA does not apply.

1. Under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Army or Secretary of the Air Force, “a member of the National Guard may be ordered to perform training or other duty . . .” 32 U.S.C. § 502(f).  

2. National Guard troops can engage in civilian law enforcement if: 1) under state law, they are given peace officer status; 2) if there is no state law, they are deputized by state or local law enforcement agencies to enforce state law; or 3) if they are deputized by a federal law enforcement agency. 

3. The President may invoke the National Guard to be deployed in a state for a limited set of circumstances, with or without the consent of that Governor. If the President federalizes the National Guard, the National Guard is under the same chain of command as active-duty military, with federalized National Guard troops now falling under the command of the Secretary of Defense and POTUS. 

1. The President can deploy troops if a State Governor asks for aid to suppress an insurrection in the state. (10 USC § 251).

2. The President can deploy troops to suppress an “insurrection,” “rebellion,” or “domestic violence” that prevents the execution of laws with or without the consent of the Governor. (The Insurrection Act, Title 10 USC §§ 251-55). (1)

1. Invoking the Insurrection Act temporarily suspends the PCA and allows the President to deploy the military or National Guard to assist civilian authorities with law enforcement.

3. The President can deploy troops to stop an “invasion” by a foreign nation, a “rebellion” against the authority of the government of the U.S., or is unable to execute the law with regular forces. (10 USC § 12406). 

What Happened in California: 

The Trump administration alleged people damaged federal property and harmed federal agents in the midst of immigration raids in June of 2025. President Trump used 10 USC § 12406 to federalize California’s (CA) National Guard - at one point 4,000 National Guard members - for 60 days to protect federal personnel and property.  The Trump administration also deployed 700 U.S. Marines to protect federal personnel, property, and functions, claiming he had inherent Constitutional power to do so (this executive branch theory has not been endorsed by the Courts). The CA National Guard members and Marines comprised Task Force 51 (TF51).

President Trump’s invocation of 10 USC § 12406 to patrol streets in a major city in support of routine law enforcement activities given the circumstances was unprecedented.

Invocation of CA National Guard Troops Allowed by the Ninth Circuit For Now. 

Governor Newsom and the State of California sued the Trump administration, challenging President Trump’s invocation of CA’s National Guard. A District Court (trial court) in California entered an order returning the National Guard to the command of Governor Newsom, but a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel issued a preliminary decision staying that order, allowing the Trump administration to retain command of the CA National Guard. The Ninth Circuit panel ruled President Trump was entitled to deference invoking § 12406 and federalizing the CA National Guard to execute the laws. This ultimate issue is on appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (2)

How military troops were deployed and whether their actions violated the PCA were not addressed on appeal in this case. 

How the National Guard Was Deployed Violated the PCA 

Governor Newsom and the State of California also sued the Trump Administration claiming the actions of TF51 violated the PCA. After a three day trial, Judge Charles R. Breyer of the Northern District of California ruled that the Trump Administration willfully violated the PCA when the Department of Defense (DOD) systematically used armed soldiers (whose identity was often obscured by protective armor) and military vehicles to set up protective perimeters and traffic blockages, engage in crowd control and otherwise demonstrate a military presence in and around LA. (Newsom v. Trump, 25-cv-04870-CRB (9.2.25)).  (3)

The District Court granted an injunction enjoining (stopping) Secretary of Defense Hegseth and the Department of Defense (DOD) from: 

Deploying, ordering, training, or using the CA National Guard and any military troops from executing the law, which includes engaging in arrests, apprehensions, searches, seizures, security patrols, traffic control, crowd control, riot control, evidence collection, interrogation, or acting as informants.

The Trump administration is appealing this decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This decision only applies to CA. But it's precedential for other States.

What Is Happening in Tennessee:

On September 15, 2025, President Trump issued a memorandum creating a “Memphis Safety Task Force.” The Task Force, composed of several federal agencies, is working with local law enforcement officials and agencies to address “violent crime” in Memphis. Pursuant to the order, Secretary of War Hegseth, (4) with the consent of Governor Lee, deployed Tennessee’s National Guard pursuant to 32 U.S.C. § 502(f), and according to reports they are actively patrolling in Memphis. 

What Is Happening in Oregon:

On September 27, 2025, President Trump posted on social media that he was directing Secretary Hegseth to provide troops to what he claimed was “War ravaged Portland” and any ICE facilities being attacked by  “Antifa” (5) and others (he also made several other social media posts regarding Portland). The following day, Secretary Hegeseth issued a memorandum authorizing the federalization and deployment of 200 Oregon National Guard members, over the objection of Governor Kotek. Secretary Hegseth relied on President Trump’s June 7, 2025 presidential memorandum federalizing National Guard units pursuant to 10 USC § 12406, as well as military forces, to protect ICE facilities, federal property, personnel, and functions nationwide.

On September 28, 2025, the State of Oregon and the City of Portland sued the Trump administration, challenging the deployment of Oregon’s National Guard, and sought a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). The Trump administration argued it was entitled to deploy the Oregon National Guard in response to alleged acts of violence during several days of protests at a Portland ICE facility in June of 2025 that resulted in arrests of some protestors and the temporary closure of the facility for 24 days due to damage to facility card readers.  However, evidence presented in the litigation of protest activity at the ICE facility weeks and days before the federalization of Oregon’s National Guard generally indicated that the protests were relatively small and did not result in any significant incidents or disruptions. 

First TRO: On October 4, 2025, District Court Judge Karin J. Immergut entered a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) enjoining (stopping) the federalization and deployment of Oregon’s National Guard to Portland. The Court found the State and City would likely succeed in demonstrating that the Trump administration did not have a sufficient basis to invoke Oregon’s National Guard under 10 USC § 12406(3) because the circumstances on the ground demonstrated regular law enforcement officers were able to execute federal law, and President Trump’s determination otherwise “was simply untethered to the facts.” The Court also ruled that President Trump and his administration did not have a sufficient basis to invoke the Oregon National Guard under 10 USC § 12406(2), finding that the protests at the ICE facility did not amount to a rebellion. The Court also ruled the invocation of Oregon’s National Guard violated the Tenth Amendment. The court did not reach other legal arguments, including those regarding the PCA. (6)

Second TRO: The following day, on October 5, 2025, over 100 federalized members of California’s National Guard were deployed and arrived at the Portland Air National Guard base, with an additional 99 members set to arrive in Portland later that day. In response, the State of Oregon, the City of Portland, and the State of California jointly filed a lawsuit seeking a second TRO against the Trump administration, arguing that the deployment of the California National Guard was an attempt to circumvent the First TRO.  On October 5, 2025, Judge Immergut entered a second TRO temporarily enjoining (stopping) federalized members of the National Guard in Oregon. The Trump administration has not yet appealed the second TRO.

Appeal of the First TRO: The Trump administration appealed the first TRO, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay to the part of the order that prevented the Trump administration from federalizing the Oregon National Guard, but the part of the court order preventing the deployment of National Guard Units was left in place. The Ninth Circuit had oral arguments regarding the first TRO on October 8, 2025, but has not issued a decision.

What Is Happening in Illinois:

On October 4, 2025, President Trump ordered the federalization and deployment of “at least” 300 members of the Illinois National Guard in this state of Illinois, over Governor Pritzker’s objection, pursuant to 10 USC § 12406. The Trump administration claimed National Guard units were needed to protect the Broadview (Immigration) Detention Center (located in a suburb outside of Chicago), other federal property, ICE, and federal personnel enforcing federal law. The administration also alleged that incidents of violence and threats of violence were impeding the execution of federal law. On October 4, 2025, Secretary Hegeseth also requested the State of Illinois agree to deployment of 300 Illinois National Guard members pursuant to 32 U.S.C. § 502(f). Governor Pritzker refused the request. On October 6, 2025, 200 Texas National Guard units arrived in Illinois and were being set to be deployed pursuant to 32 U.S.C. § 502(f) (an unprecedented action to have one State’s National Guard unit deployed in another State over that State’s objection; it was also attempted in Oregon). 

On October 6, 2025, the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago sued the Trump administration challenging the deployment of any National Guard units. The State and City claimed President Trump’s deployment was not made in good faith and instead was to punish elected state officials because of the Trump administration's objections to State and City policies, including sanctuary laws. (7) The State and City also argued there was no need for military units to address issues of crime in Chicago, an issue President Trump has repeatedly raised in the media. 

On October 9, 2025, a District Court in Illinois entered a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) preventing the Trump Administration from federalizing and deploying any US National Guard units in Illinois for 14 days. The Court found that federal governments' assertions of violence were not reliable. (8) Further, the Court found that the State and City made a clear showing that the Trump Administration exceeded its authority to invoke the National Guard under 10 USC § 12406(2) because there was no evidence of a rebellion or to demonstrate an inability to enforce federal laws through regular forces under 10 USC § 12406(3). The Court also ruled the deployment of the National Guard for the purpose of so-called crime control, would violate the Tenth Amendment. The Court did not reach any arguments about the PCA.

The Trump administration appealed, and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay to the part of the District Court order preventing the Trump administration from federalizing National Guard units, but left in place the part of the order preventing units from being deployed in Illinois. The Seventh Circuit upheld the District Court’s ruling finding the Trump administration did not meet its burden under 10 USC § 12406 to demonstrate a rebellion or the inability to enforce federal law with regular forces. 

On October 17, the Trump administration appealed this case to the U.S. Supreme Court. (9)

The District of Columbia:

Currently, D.C. is occupied by National Guard units from other states.  D.C. is different because it is not a state, so the PCA does not apply, and National Guard units from other States can be deployed to D.C. There is also a Home Rule statute that allows the President to demand the assistance of the D.C. Metropolitan Police and to deploy the D.C. National Guard. D.C. is currently challenging the deployment and federalization of National Guard units from other states in federal court. 

Unresolved Issues Pertaining to State National Guard Units:

• A State Governor has not deployed that State’s National Guard to another State without the consent of the receiving Governor. It would violate state sovereignty and be subject to litigation.

• An unresolved question is whether the President can commandeer a State’s National Guard when a Governor has actively deployed that National Guard.  

• The U.S. Supreme Court has not ruled on whether the President can order one State’s National Guard units to deploy to another state and engage in civilian law enforcement pursuant to 32 U.S.C. § 502(f). This issue may be addressed by the Supreme Court in the appeal from Illinois.

What is Martial Law?

The term “martial law” has no established definition, but it is generally understood as a power that allows the military to take over the role of civilian government in an emergency. Under martial law, a military commander has the authority to make and enforce laws and suspend existing laws. By contrast, the Insurrection Act generally permits the military to assist civilian authorities (whether state or federal), not take their place. Under current law, the president has no authority to declare martial law. Additionally, martial law declarations are subject to judicial review. 

What You Can Do to Prepare:

There is so much to learn from organizers in other cities throughout the world who have deterred or experienced military occupations. They have organized mass demonstrations and public gatherings; distributed Know Your Rights (KYR) materials and conducted massive KYR trainings; established mutual aid hubs and networks; created rapid response teams to document and spread news of immigration/troop sighting to ensure people’s safety; demanded elected officials speak out and pass city/county legislation/resolutions condemning troops in cities (ACLU’s Firewall for Freedom: Keep the Military Out of Domestic Law Enforcement); demanded elected officials issue executive orders precluding local law enforcement officials from cooperating with federal immigration authorities and military troops (see Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson’s Executive Orders below) and more.

Looking for something shorter to share? Check out our National Guard Primer Here.