Federalism at Stake: The National Guard in Chicago

By: Cory Voskanian

Photo by Ashlee Rezin / Chicago Sun-Times via AP

In early October, the Trump administration authorized the deployment of 500 National Guard members to Chicago amidst protests against immigration enforcement efforts. This decision was met with resistance by Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, who immediately deemed the actions illegal. Additionally, suggestions of unconstitutionality were further bolstered by the fact that 200 of those National Guard members were originally from the state of Texas. This violation of federalism called for the involvement of a federal judge, who placed a restraining order on the National Guard and determined that there was no credible evidence of a rebellion in the state of Illinois (Smith et al., 2025). While tensions in Chicago have seemingly been temporarily quelled, this episode has revealed a dangerous precedent: partisan interests can disrupt the balance of power designed to protect states and citizens. Reaffirming these boundaries is of utmost importance as it secures the very values upon which the United States functions. One policy recommendation that could reaffirm federal limits over interstate guard deployment is a prior written authorization requirement between states validating the presence of National Guard personnel. To build on this recommendation further, the establishment of a federal-state oversight commission could be utilized to review, monitor, and report on any interstate actions by the National Guard. 

To begin, conversations surrounding unconstitutionality could be mitigated if legislation were passed that required a written agreement between states before confirming the use of the National Guard in another state’s territory. Clarifying the constitutional basis of these deployments is necessary because such uncertainty creates hesitation amongst state officials, ultimately hampering long-term state cooperation in moments of urgent need. In the case of Chicago, Governor Pritzker confirmed that “no officials from the federal government called [him] directly to discuss or coordinate” the deployment of the National Guard in Illinois (Bizzle & Machi, 2025). If legislation existed that required communication about National Guard deployment, the mobilization would likely not have occurred in the first place, as this required exchange of information would have introduced procedural friction and interstate dialogue that could have delayed unilateral action. Moreover, if it had, it would have support from the leader of the jurisdiction. Pritzker further commented on the breach in federalism when he stated that “there is no reason a president should send military troops into a sovereign state without their knowledge, consent, or cooperation.” (Bizzle & Machi, 2025). These statements by Pritzker show a clear breach of federalism, with national and other state governments dominating the government of another state completely arbitrarily. If an agreement had existed previously that allowed for the entry of the National Guard, then the constitutionality of the action would not be under question. The deployment ultimately suggests an uneven distribution of political power among the states, with those aligned with the executive branch appearing to hold greater influence than those that are not. In addition to his actions surrounding the deployment of the National Guard, Donald Trump has also called for the arrests of multiple Democratic leaders, including Governor Pritzker, for “failing to protect immigration officers.” Pritzker dismissed the accusation, warning that “Trump is now calling for the arrest of elected representatives checking his power. What else is left on the path to full-blown authoritarianism?” (Schmall et al., 2025). While the deployment of the National Guard had already demonstrated a large overreach in federal power, demands to arrest those who disagree ideologically suggest an even broader breach of the American values designated by the First Amendment. It is clear that without an open line of communication established through legislation, this issue has spiraled out of control and violated multiple principles on which the United States was founded.

However, this safeguard alone is not enough to prevent further misuse of the National Guard; a commission that brings voices from both federal and state governments to discuss interstate deployments would be helpful in discerning the constitutionality of guard presence in other states. While a federal appeals court has now ruled that the actions of the Trump administration were not substantiated by evidence of a “rebellion,” there is still a larger conversation that must be had about the circumstances that allowed the initial deployment of the National Guard (Kanu, 2025). Through a bipartisan commission that includes members from the Department of Homeland Security, state legislators, and civil rights leaders, a comprehensive review could be conducted to ensure the justified use of the National Guard in the future. This commission would evaluate constitutional and civil rights compliance to ensure that the deployment meets a legitimate emergency threshold, that the receiving state’s governor grants written consent, and that the mission does not disproportionately impact any racial group. The commission would only further contribute to transparency between the national government, state governments, and the public if information is communicated in advance and justified within reason. 

Although these proposals suggest strong steps towards a future of accountability, loose interpretations of the Constitution may still leave room for ambiguity in future scenarios. Originally, Trump justified his use of the National Guard in Chicago in order to “prevent ongoing and intolerable risks to the lives and safety” of immigration officers (Lonsdorf & Archie, 2025). This decision was backed by the provision within the Constitution that designates him the Commander-in-Chief of the American militia (U.S. Constitution, Article II). While the Trump administration’s choice to deploy the National Guard rests on claims of maintaining national security, invoking the powers defined within Article II oversteps the role of the states to maintain public safety in their territory as defined by the Tenth Amendment. Given the fact that Governor Pritzker was never notified of the National Guard entering Illinois and did not ever request the presence of the troops, there was no reason that local governance should have been displaced (Bizzle & Machi, 2025). The unilateral decision by the Trump administration to intervene constitutes a direct violation of state sovereignty and undermines the cooperative federalist system the U.S. depends upon. 

Overall, the deployment of the National Guard in Chicago by the Trump administration poses an obvious breach of federalism that requires immediate redress. Two policy suggestions that could be used to tackle recent events include the creation of legislation that formally allows for interstate National Guard deployment and the creation of a commission that could assess the constitutionality of future interstate guard mobilizations. Together, these measures would restore accountability and balance to federal-state relations, ensuring that future deployments uphold constitutional norms rather than undermine them. 

The views expressed in this publication are the authors' own and do not necessarily reflect the position of The Rice Journal of Public Policy, its staff, or its Editorial Board.

---

References

Bizzle, Jeramie, and Sara Machi. “Pritzker Says Trump Is Ordering Texas National Guard Members to Illinois.” Cbsnews.com, 6 Oct. 2025, www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/pritzker-says-trump-is-ordering-texas-national-guard-members-to-illinois/. 

Kanu, Hassan Ali. “‘Political Opposition Is Not Rebellion’: Appeals Court Rejects Trump’s Rationale for Chicago Troop Deployment.” POLITICO, Politico, 16 Oct. 2025, www.politico.com/news/2025/10/16/trump-national-guard-chicago-ruling-00612918.

Kat Lonsdorf. “Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court to Allow National Guard Deployment in Illinois.” NPR, 17 Oct. 2025, www.npr.org/2025/10/17/nx-s1-5578266/trump-supreme-court-national-guard-illinois.

Library of Congress. “Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress.” Congress.gov, 2018, constitution.congress.gov/.

Schmall, Emily, et al. “National Guard Poised to Enter Chicago as Trump Calls for Jailing Democratic Leaders.” Reuters, 8 Oct. 2025, www.reuters.com/legal/government/national-guard-poised-enter-chicago-trump-calls-jailing-democratic-leaders-2025-10-08/.

Smith, Mitch, et al. “National Guard Live Updates: Federal Judge Restricts Troop Deployment in Chicago Area.” The New York Times, 9 Oct. 2025, www.nytimes.com/live/2025/10/09/us/trump-national-guard-chicago-portland.