Trump Sends National Guard to Chicago Amid Pritzker’s ‘Invasion’ Outcry

President Donald Trump has ordered federalized National Guard troops into the Chicago region a decisive move to protect federal personnel and property after weeks of violent clashes around Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities. The move, which federal officials say will place roughly 300 Illinois Guard members under federal control with additional forces coming from Texas, has drawn furious objections from Governor J.B. Pritzker, who called it “an invasion,” and prompted Illinois to file a federal lawsuit seeking to block the deployment.

The White House says the troops will provide security for federal facilities and agents carrying out lawful operations amid protests that have repeatedly turned violent. DHS and other agencies characterize recent confrontations at the Broadview ICE processing center and elsewhere as “violent rioters” who have boxed in vehicles, thrown projectiles, and forced agents to use crowd-control measures to clear dangerous situations. The department reported one recent enforcement surge arrested more than 800 individuals believed to pose criminal threats during coordinated operations.

Legal and constitutional fights over the scope of the federal deployment are already playing out. The president’s authority to federalize Guard units rests on 10 U.S.C. § 12406, which allows the president to call the National Guard into federal service when he deems the regular forces insufficient to “execute the laws of the United States.” Governors typically control Guard forces unless they are federalized under clear statutory authority which is precisely the point of contention between the White House and Illinois officials.

Why this matters now

• Federal agents operating at the Broadview ICE facility and other sites have faced repeated, organized attacks that threaten personnel safety and the continuity of operations. Clashes have included protesters surrounding ICE vehicles and interfering with detainee transports.

• The administration argues that local leaders have abdicated responsibility for public safety while sanctuary policies embolden protests that cross into criminal behavior. The White House says federal protection is necessary when federal functions like immigration enforcement are impeded.

• Legal experts caution that federalizing the Guard is a fraught tool and that courts will weigh whether the president’s action exceeds statutory limits or violates state sovereignty. Illinois has already asked a court for a restraining order.

The political stakes are as high as the legal ones. Democrats are seizing on the imagery of federal troops in American cities to paint the move as presidential overreach and a threat to civil liberties. Conservatives, by contrast, view the deployment as a direct answer to growing lawlessness that local governments have not been able or willing to contain. Either way, the optics will drive headlines and votes.

Facts worth noting

• DHS reported that a recent enforcement wave recovered hundreds of dangerous individuals part of what officials call “Operation Midway Blitz” and made more than 800 arrests nationwide tied to immigration enforcement actions.

• Despite national headlines about violence, some local data show mixed trends: Chicago recorded fewer than 600 homicides in 2024, the city’s lowest total since 2019, even while other categories of violent crime remain contested and politically charged.

• The statute the administration cites, 10 U.S.C. § 12406, explicitly empowers the president to call Guard units into federal service when it is necessary “to execute the laws of the United States.” Courts will review whether that statutory hook applies here.

What to watch next

1. The federal court’s response to Illinois’ lawsuit a ruling for or against a preliminary injunction could determine whether troops remain mobilized.

2. Whether the deployments are strictly limited to protecting federal property and personnel, or whether the administration takes additional steps (including invoking the Insurrection Act) that could expand military roles in policing.

3. How local law enforcement and community leaders respond: cooperation could blunt tensions, while sustained confrontation risks wider unrest and deeper legal fights.

Bottom line: the White House says federalized National Guard troops are needed to safeguard federal operations and personnel from violent interference. Governors and civil liberties groups see the deployment as a dangerous expansion of federal power over states. The courts will now adjudicate whether the president’s legal rationale holds up and meanwhile federal forces are on the ground, focused on securing ICE facilities and ensuring agents can do their jobs without being attacked.

Share this piece or subscribe to our newsletter for more on enforcement, law, and national security.