Trump Orders Withdrawal of National Guard From Major Cities After Supreme Court Ruling
President Donald Trump announced on Dec. 31 that he will withdraw federally controlled National Guard troops from Los Angeles, Chicago, and Portland, Oregon, marking a significant shift in his administration’s response to civil unrest and immigration-related enforcement operations in major U.S. cities.
The announcement was made via Truth Social, where the president confirmed that the troops—previously federalized under emergency authority—would be removed despite what he described as measurable improvements in public safety following their deployment.
“Crime has been greatly reduced by having these great Patriots in those cities,” Trump wrote, while signaling that the withdrawal would proceed regardless of objections from federal officials concerned about maintaining order.
The decision follows weeks of legal uncertainty and comes shortly after a divided U.S. Supreme Court ruling that limited the administration’s authority to deploy National Guard forces in certain domestic contexts, particularly in Chicago.
Background on Federalization of the National Guard
Under normal circumstances, National Guard units operate under the authority of state governors. However, federal law allows the president to assume control of those forces during emergencies. Trump has previously exercised this authority, arguing that violent unrest and interference with federal immigration enforcement justified federal intervention.
The deployments to Los Angeles, Chicago, and Portland were framed by the administration as necessary to protect federal facilities and immigration agents amid protests and clashes that officials said impeded federal operations.
Although the Posse Comitatus Act generally restricts the use of federal military forces for domestic law enforcement, exceptions exist when National Guard units are federalized during emergencies. Trump has repeatedly argued that the situations in these cities met that threshold.
Criticism of Local Leadership
In his Dec. 31 statement, Trump sharply criticized local and state leaders who opposed the presence of federalized Guard troops. He expressed disbelief that Democratic mayors and governors would seek the withdrawal of forces that, in his view, had stabilized their cities.
“It is hard to believe that these Democrat Mayors and Governors, all of whom are greatly incompetent, would want us to leave,” Trump wrote. “Especially considering the great progress that has been made???”
The president has consistently argued that local officials failed to address violence and unrest effectively, necessitating federal intervention. His administration has frequently accused so-called “sanctuary” jurisdictions of undermining federal immigration enforcement and public safety.
Local leaders, however, have countered that the deployments escalated tensions, infringed on state authority, and eroded trust between residents and law enforcement.
Supreme Court Ruling Shapes Policy Shift
The withdrawal announcement comes just days after a pivotal Supreme Court decision on Dec. 23. In a closely divided ruling, the Court determined that Trump may not deploy National Guard troops in Chicago specifically to protect federal immigration agents under the circumstances presented.
While the ruling did not broadly prohibit federalization of the Guard, it significantly narrowed the conditions under which such deployments could occur. Legal analysts noted that the decision reinforced limits on executive power when federal action conflicts with state authority absent clear emergency conditions.
The ruling appears to have played a decisive role in the administration’s reassessment of its strategy, particularly in cities where legal challenges were already underway.
Impact on Immigration Enforcement
Trump has repeatedly stated that the original deployments were intended to ensure the federal government could enforce immigration laws without obstruction. According to the administration, protests and unrest had disrupted operations and endangered federal personnel.
With the withdrawal now confirmed, questions remain about how immigration enforcement will proceed in the affected cities. Federal officials have not yet outlined alternative measures to protect agents or facilities, and it remains unclear whether additional legal challenges could arise if new enforcement strategies are introduced.
Supporters of the president argue that the deployments demonstrated strong leadership and temporarily restored order, even if the mission has now concluded. Critics contend that the use of federalized troops blurred constitutional lines and set a troubling precedent.
Political and Legal Repercussions
The move underscores the ongoing tension between the White House and Democratic-led cities over public safety, immigration, and the balance of federal and state power. It also highlights how judicial intervention can constrain executive authority, even in areas traditionally associated with national security and emergency response.
Some constitutional scholars view the episode as a test case for future presidents considering similar actions. The Supreme Court’s involvement signals that courts are increasingly willing to scrutinize domestic military deployments, particularly when civil liberties and federalism are at stake.
For Trump, the withdrawal allows him to claim success—pointing to reduced crime—while shifting responsibility back to local governments. For city leaders, it represents a restoration of state control, though concerns remain about maintaining order without federal support.
What Comes Next
As of Dec. 31, no timetable has been released detailing how quickly the National Guard units will depart each city, nor has the Pentagon issued formal guidance on the logistics of the withdrawal.
The White House has also not clarified whether similar deployments in other jurisdictions could be reconsidered or reinstated under different circumstances.
“This is a developing story,” federal officials said, noting that further updates are expected as the withdrawal process unfolds and as legal implications of the Supreme Court ruling continue to be evaluated.
For now, the announcement marks a notable moment in Trump’s presidency—one that reflects both the limits of executive power and the enduring conflict between federal authority and local governance in times of unrest.
Emily Johnson is a critically acclaimed essayist and novelist known for her thought-provoking works centered on feminism, women’s rights, and modern relationships. Born and raised in Portland, Oregon, Emily grew up with a deep love of books, often spending her afternoons at her local library. She went on to study literature and gender studies at UCLA, where she became deeply involved in activism and began publishing essays in campus journals. Her debut essay collection, Voices Unbound, struck a chord with readers nationwide for its fearless exploration of gender dynamics, identity, and the challenges faced by women in contemporary society. Emily later transitioned into fiction, writing novels that balance compelling storytelling with social commentary. Her protagonists are often strong, multidimensional women navigating love, ambition, and the struggles of everyday life, making her a favorite among readers who crave authentic, relatable narratives. Critics praise her ability to merge personal intimacy with universal themes. Off the page, Emily is an advocate for women in publishing, leading workshops that encourage young female writers to embrace their voices. She lives in Seattle with her partner and two rescue cats, where she continues to write, teach, and inspire a new generation of storytellers.
