In June 2025, President Donald Trump ordered the deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles. In August, he sent National Guard troops to Washington, DC. The process has since repeated itself in Memphis, Chicago, and Portland. The administration claims this is being done primarily to combat crime and restore order to cities supposedly ravaged by immigration and “domestic terrorists.”

The use of the National Guard as law enforcement is legally dubious and based on shaky justifications that deviate from precedent in a significant and alarming way. Multiple court battles are ongoing, and the outcomes of these will send clear signals about the state of checks and balances in the American system. Also of interest in this situation is the unusually intense rhetoric used by President Trump to describe the cities to which he has sent National Guard troops, which could contribute to polarization.

This article will explore three important questions regarding what exactly is happening and what it could mean for the health and future of American democracy.

Question #1: Can he do that?

The legality of these actions is hotly contested and the subject of multiple legal battles. Three laws are particularly relevant to understanding this situation.

• 10 U.S. Code § 12406: This law authorizes the President to federalize as many members and units of the National Guard, from any state, as he or she deems necessary in certain situations. These situations include:

1. 1. The US is facing an invasion or the threat of invasion.
   2. The US is facing a rebellion or the threat of rebellion.
   3. The President is unable to execute federal law with regular forces.

• The Posse Comitatus Act: First passed in 1878, this law prohibits the use of any part of the military as law enforcement except in specific cases and situations expressly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress. These include counterdrug operations and situations where nuclear material or weapons of mass destruction are involved. The Posse Comitatus act applies to members of the National Guard when they have been federalized by the President.
• The Insurrection Act: The Insurrection Act is the primary exception to the Posse Comitatus Act. It allows the President to deploy military forces within the US to enforce federal laws in cases where conditions in a state make it impossible to do so through normal judicial means. Under certain circumstances, the President may also use military force within the US to suppress “insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.” Parts of the Insurrection Act require the consent of the receiving state, while others do not. The Insurrection Act does not explicitly define what qualifies as an insurrection.

US law can be unclear and seemingly contradictory on this question. A federal court has declared President Trump’s use of California National Guard troops in Los Angeles to be illegal. A federal judge has temporarily blocked his deployment of National Guard troops to Portland, where a federal court is currently set to decide on the legality of the deployment. In both the LA and Portland cases, President Trump’s action has been found to be a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. Additionally, his deployment of National Guard troops to Chicago has been indefinitely blocked by a federal judge and will be ruled on by the Supreme Court soon.

Question #2: Why is everyone making such a big deal out of this?

There is something unique about these recent deployments of the National Guard.

National Guard troops have previously been sent in response to specific, acute crises such as riots, a postal strike, and refusals of state governors to obey federal law during the Civil Rights Movement. Each of these situations had a clear beginning and a clear end, after which the troops returned home.

President Trump’s recent deployments of the National Guard do not fit this mold. These actions are not being taken in response to any specific crisis situation. The Trump administration has cited several justifications, including crime in DC, Memphis, and Chicago, a “migrant invasion” in Los Angeles, and “domestic terrorists” in Portland. All of these cities have Democratic mayors and all but Memphis (and DC, as it is not part of any state) are in blue states. Affected mayors and governors have almost universally expressed strong disapproval and denied that troops are needed.

Let’s take a look at these explanations one by one.

High crime rates were given as an explanation for the National Guard presence in three cities: Memphis, DC, and Chicago. Overall crime in Memphis is at a historic 25-year low, with decreases across all major categories compared to the same time last year. At the start of 2025, violent crime in DC was at a 30-year low. Even Chicago, which President Trump has called a “killing field,” has seen significant decreases in violent crime. While crime is still a problem in these and other cities, there is no indication that it is beyond the ability of local civilian law enforcement to handle.

President Trump’s references to a “migrant invasion” in Los Angeles fit into a broader pattern of describing the situation at the southern border as a war zone. This language recalls Title 10, section 12406, the law mentioned earlier that allows the President to federalize National Guard units from any state in case of an invasion. However, immigrants are civilians and not part of any organized armed force, and, while government agencies may be stretched thin, there is not actually a combat zone at the southern border.

Finally, in the case of Portland, it is unclear what “domestic terrorists” President Trump is referring to. The city has seen a number of largely peaceful protests against the administration’s immigration policy in recent weeks. Some journalists have suggested that he was confused by Fox News footage of the 2020 George Floyd protests, which he may have mistaken for current events.

Clearly, all of these explanations are seriously flawed. But there is something even more disturbing about them. Unlike past issues that have warranted National Guard deployments, they have no obvious beginning — and will have no obvious end. Unless President Trump plans to keep the National Guard in US cities until there is absolutely zero crime and zero immigration — an impossible task even for US troops — there will be no “mission accomplished” moment after which he can pull them out. His justifications for their presence will last as long as he wants them to.

This situation is unprecedented and alarming.

Question #3: What does this mean for American democracy?

The impact of these decisions will not be made fully clear until after the National Guard troops have returned home. However, in the meantime, there are some observations to be made.

First, the outcome of the court battles will be an important indicator of the future of democracy in America. Democracy relies on two key dimensions of accountability: vertical, or the accountability of leaders to constituents; and horizontal, or the accountability of different branches of government to each other — familiar to Americans as the system of checks and balances. Courts are meant to check the authority of the executive branch, preventing any one leader from gaining too much power. These deployments appear to be a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, a view that has been upheld by federal courts. If those rulings are overturned by the majority-Republican Supreme Court — or worse, simply ignored by the President — that will be a dire warning about the state of horizontal accountability in the United States.

Second, the rhetoric used by the Trump administration when discussing the Democratic cities in question has been unusually extreme. American cities have been described as “war-ravaged,” “killing field[s],” “war zone[s],” and “hell hole[s].” Hearing this kind of language from leaders describing their own country is disconcerting. It was in this context that President Trump gave a speech to military leaders suggesting that American cities be used as “training grounds” for the military and stating that “we’re under invasion from within. No different than a foreign enemy but more difficult in many ways because they don’t wear uniforms.” Aggressive rhetoric like this paints immigrants and fellow Americans of different political affiliations as dangerous enemies who need to be attacked with the full force of the US military. This contributes to affective polarization — the tendency for people to dislike and distrust fellow citizens from opposing political parties. Affective polarization can weaken democracy by reducing people’s willingness to work together and make compromises across the aisle, a key component of a functioning democracy.

The Bottom Line

President Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to American cities is legally questionable, based on justifications with little basis in reality, and different from previous uses of the National Guard in significant and alarming ways. Combined with his aggressive rhetoric, these actions could pose a serious threat to horizontal accountability and contribute to affective polarization. Should this be the case, it would mean a crack in the foundations of American democracy.