Why Trump Says He Wants To Send The National Guard To Chicago And Portland

Summary of Why Trump Says He Wants To Send The National Guard To Chicago And Portland

by NPR

18m•October 8, 2025
Listen to Episode

Summary — "Why Trump Says He Wants To Send The National Guard To Chicago And Portland" (NPR)

Overview

This NPR Politics Podcast episode examines President Trump’s announced plans to federalize and deploy National Guard or military forces to U.S. cities (notably Portland and Chicago). The conversation explains the legal and political mechanics (including references to federalization and the Insurrection Act), contrasts forced federal deployments with state-invited Guard assistance (Albuquerque case study), explores public opinion and partisan divides, and outlines civil‑military and civil‑liberties concerns.

Key points & main takeaways

  • Trump has publicly directed or signaled intent to federalize National Guard forces to Portland and Chicago, citing crime and immigration enforcement as justifications.
  • The administration has invoked strong rhetoric—calling Portland an “insurrection” or “war zone”—and mentioned legal authorities that could permit federal control of state Guards.
  • A memo from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth (cited in the episode) references statutory authority for federal takeover to respond to invasions, rebellion, or when local authorities “can’t handle it.”
  • As of the recording:
    • Oregon federalization faced a federal judge’s pushback and an appeal.
    • Illinois had a few hundred Guard members preparing for possible deployment and training in crowd control; Texas Guard troops were already sent to potentially protect an ICE facility in Chicago.
  • Contrast with Albuquerque: New Mexico’s governor and Albuquerque’s mayor invited the National Guard to perform non‑law‑enforcement, “civilianization” tasks (logistical, support roles), reportedly leading to declines in crime metrics there and generally less controversy.
  • Civil‑military norms are a concern: many military leaders and observers object to using the armed forces against U.S. civilians or as “training grounds,” and worry about politicizing the military.
  • Legal and constitutional questions are active—moves to federalize will likely be litigated.
  • Public opinion is deeply polarized: overall modest support for Guard assistance masks a huge partisan split (NPR/PBS News/Marist poll: ~89% Republicans favor, ~76% Democrats oppose).
  • Civil‑liberties groups (e.g., ACLU) warn that normalizing military or Guard involvement in civilian law enforcement risks over‑policing and mass surveillance of vulnerable communities.

Notable quotes / insights

  • President Trump (social media): “Chicago mayors should be in jail for failing to protect ICE officers, exclamation point. Governor Pritzker also, exclamation point.”
  • President Trump (speech to military audience): “We should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military… we’re going into Chicago very soon. That’s a big city with an incompetent governor, stupid governor…”
  • NPR commentary: “There’s a difference between invasions and invitations” — contrasting federalized deployments vs. state‑requested Guard assistance (Albuquerque).
  • ACLU (local representative): Concern that military involvement “normalizes the idea of the military doing civilian law enforcement,” risking over‑policing and surveillance.

Topics discussed

  • Federalization of National Guard / legal authority (Insurrection Act, Title 10 references)
  • President Trump’s rhetoric framing cities (Portland, Chicago) as insurrections/war zones
  • Current status of planned/possible deployments (legal challenges, preparations)
  • Distinction between state‑invited Guard assistance (Albuquerque) and federal takeover
  • Civil‑military relations and the apolitical tradition of the armed forces
  • Historical precedents (e.g., 1960s federal interventions) and comparison to 2020 Operation Legend
  • Public opinion and partisan divides on Guard/military use for domestic law enforcement
  • Civil liberties concerns and community perspectives
  • Policy effectiveness: short‑term operational help vs. long‑term solutions (hiring police, community investment)

Action items / recommendations

For policymakers and officials

  • Use state‑requested, clearly limited Guard roles for non‑law‑enforcement support (civilianization) when appropriate, and prefer local control and transparency.
  • Anticipate legal challenges if attempting to federalize Guards against state wishes; prepare constitutional and statutory justifications.
  • Ensure clear rules of engagement and civilian oversight to avoid politicizing the military.

For community leaders and advocates

  • Demand transparency about missions, roles, duration, and oversight for any Guard/military deployments.
  • Monitor civil‑liberties implications (surveillance, use of force) and pursue safeguards.

For journalists and voters

  • Scrutinize rhetoric vs. on‑the‑ground facts; compare current conditions and data (crime statistics) with imagery and claims.
  • Track court cases and intergovernmental communications to understand legal outcomes.

For researchers and policymakers considering crime reduction

  • Evaluate “civilianization” models (assigning non‑police tasks to non‑sworn personnel or Guard in supportive roles) as short‑term bridges while investing in long‑term policing capacity and community services.

Bottom line

The debate over sending the Guard or military into U.S. cities is as much political and legal as it is operational. Invited, limited Guard support (the Albuquerque model) can assist local capacity with fewer controversies, whereas federalizing forces against state wishes raises constitutional questions, civil‑military norms issues, and deep partisan conflict. Expect court battles, continued political messaging, and divergent public perceptions shaped by media consumption.