A Legal Stalemate: National Guard Troops Can Stay Federalized—But Can’t Be Deployed
In a ruling that keeps tensions high between state and federal authorities, a federal appeals court has decided that while National Guard troops in Illinois can remain under federal control, they cannot be deployed—at least for now. This latest development adds another twist to the ongoing legal battle between the Trump administration and states pushing back against the use of military force in civilian protests.
But here’s where it gets controversial: The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily blocked part of a lower court’s order that had halted National Guard deployments in Illinois for two weeks. This decision keeps the troops in limbo—still federalized but barred from active duty. The legal standoff stems from President Trump’s move to deploy troops to quell protests outside ICE facilities in Democratic-led cities like Chicago and Portland, a strategy critics argue oversteps federal authority.
The Core of the Conflict
The court’s order states that Guard members “do not need to return to their home states unless further ordered by a court to do so.” For now, troops in the Chicago area are restricted to “planning and training” with no operational activities, according to US Northern Command. As of Wednesday, 300 Illinois National Guard members and 200 Texas National Guard troops were activated under Title 10 and stationed near Chicago.
And this is the part most people miss: The Trump administration is appealing a ruling by US District Court Judge April Perry, who issued a temporary restraining order against the deployment. In her decision, Perry bluntly stated she found “no credible evidence of rebellion in Illinois” justifying federal intervention. She dismissed Department of Homeland Security assessments of the protests as “unreliable” and warned that sending in troops would “only add fuel to the fire.”
A Clash of Narratives
State leaders in Illinois and Oregon have fiercely contested the Trump administration’s portrayal of their cities as “war-ravaged” and lawless. They argue the federal government is exaggerating the threat to justify militarized responses. Meanwhile, on the West Coast, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is still deliberating whether to block the federalization of the Oregon National Guard for protests in Portland. State Attorney General Dan Rayfield anticipates a ruling “in the coming days.”
So here’s the big question: Is this a necessary measure to restore order, or an overreach of federal power? Critics say deploying the National Guard risks escalating tensions, while supporters argue it’s a justified response to civil unrest. Where do you stand? Should the federal government have the final say in deploying troops domestically, or should states retain that authority? Sound off in the comments—we want to hear your take.
(CNN’s Elizabeth Wolfe contributed to this report.)
