Illinois Joins Oregon in Suing Trump Administration Over National Guard Deployment

The state of Illinois and the city of Chicago have filed a federal lawsuit against the Trump administration, seeking to block President Donald Trump’s effort to deploy National Guard troops to the state. The move follows a federal judge’s decision a day earlier to halt similar actions in Oregon, setting the stage for a growing legal and political showdown over the president’s use of federalized troops in Democratic-led states.

Illinois and Chicago’s lawsuit, filed Monday, asks a federal court to prevent the administration from federalizing the Illinois National Guard or sending Guard members from other states, including Texas, into Illinois.

“The American people, regardless of where they reside, should not live under the threat of occupation by the United States military, particularly not simply because their city or state leadership has fallen out of a president’s favor,” said Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul in the complaint.

The lawsuit represents the latest escalation in a three-day saga in which the Trump administration has attempted to extend federal control over state National Guard units in Illinois and Oregon, as well as dispatch Guard members from other states to those regions.

Federalization push sparks backlash

President Trump has spent weeks promising to send National Guard members to cities like Chicago and Portland, which he has described as plagued by violent crime and weak local governance. The administration insists the deployments are necessary to protect federal property and personnel, including immigration and customs agents.

But local leaders and governors in both states have rejected that reasoning, arguing that the president’s actions amount to a misuse of military power for political purposes.

“Violent crime is at a low point in Chicago,” said Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker. “We must now start calling this what it is: Trump’s invasion. It started with federal agents, it will soon include deploying federalized members of the Illinois National Guard against our wishes, and it will now involve sending in another state’s military troops.”

Over the weekend, Trump authorized the deployment of at least 300 members of the Illinois National Guard. A Pentagon memo reviewed by NPR indicated that the troops would be used to “protect federal property as well as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Federal Protective Service agents and other federal employees.”

Meanwhile, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said he had approved the president’s request to send 400 members of the Texas National Guard, some of whom would be deployed to Illinois.

White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson defended the administration’s decision, claiming that federalized troops were necessary to address “ongoing violent riots and lawlessness” in Chicago.

Legal fight expands to Oregon

Illinois’ lawsuit comes as Oregon continues its own legal battle over a similar deployment order. Late Sunday, U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut temporarily blocked the administration from sending National Guard troops from any other states into Oregon. The ruling came after reports that Trump had already dispatched members of the California National Guard to Portland and secured approval from Texas to do the same.

Immergut — a Trump appointee — said she was “troubled” by reports that California and Texas troops were being sent to Oregon in what she described as a direct contradiction of her previous order. Just one day earlier, she had temporarily blocked Trump from federalizing Oregon’s own Guard units.

“I am certainly troubled by now hearing that both California and Texas are being sent to Oregon, which does appear to be in direct contradiction of my order,” Immergut wrote in her ruling, according to Oregon Public Broadcasting.

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield applauded the decision, accusing the administration of attempting to circumvent the courts. “The president can’t keep playing whack-a-mole with different states’ Guard units to get around court orders and the rule of law,” Rayfield said on X.

The Trump administration is appealing the Oregon ruling. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt defended the move, saying that protesters had placed an ICE facility in Portland “under siege.”

“These people are not there to peacefully protest,” Leavitt said. “They are there to cause mayhem and havoc.”

Judge Immergut, however, had already concluded that the protests in question did not amount to a “rebellion” — one of the limited circumstances under which the president can federalize state Guard units. Her ruling noted that the protests generally involved fewer than 30 people and were “largely sedate.”

Political and constitutional stakes

The legal challenges in Illinois and Oregon are testing the limits of presidential authority over the National Guard. Under U.S. law, the president can assume control of a state’s National Guard only in narrowly defined emergencies, such as invasion, insurrection, or obstruction of federal law. Illinois and Oregon both argue that none of those conditions exist.

“This is not a matter of national security — it’s a matter of presidential overreach,” said Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson. “The people of Chicago do not need to be occupied by their own military.”

The Trump administration’s attempts to deploy National Guard troops to Democratic-run cities follow earlier deployments in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., earlier this year. Those actions, too, drew sharp criticism from civil liberties groups and state officials who said they blurred the line between civilian law enforcement and military intervention.

Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek framed the president’s actions as politically motivated. “Trump’s actions are an effort to occupy and incite cities and states that don’t share his politics,” she said Sunday night. “We should expect him to continue to push the limits of his authority.”

A deepening divide

For Illinois and Oregon, the lawsuits are about more than just preventing troop deployments — they’re about defending state sovereignty. Both argue that the administration’s efforts represent a dangerous precedent in which political disagreement could trigger military intervention.

Illinois officials say they are prepared to take the fight as far as necessary. “We are not afraid to stand up for our residents,” Raoul said. “The Constitution does not allow a president to turn the U.S. military against its own people for political gain.”

As the cases move through the courts, the dispute underscores the widening gulf between the Trump administration and Democratic-led states, which have increasingly found themselves battling the federal government over issues ranging from immigration and policing to reproductive rights.

Whether the courts will side with the states remains uncertain. But for now, the lawsuits filed by Illinois and Oregon have put the question of presidential power — and its limits — squarely before the judiciary, marking one of the most consequential constitutional confrontations of Trump’s presidency.