Sponsor Advertisement
President Trump Ends National Guard Deployment in Major Cities

BREAKING: President Trump Ends National Guard Deployment in Major Cities

President Donald Trump has ceased National Guard deployments in LA, Chicago, and Portland following a Supreme Court ruling, amidst legal and financial considerations.

President Donald Trump has ordered the withdrawal of National Guard troops from several key cities, including Los Angeles, Chicago, and Portland, in the aftermath of a Supreme Court decision that questioned the extent of his authority to deploy troops domestically. The action marks a significant change in federal presence in these metropolitan areas.

US Northern Command confirmed the return of the troops, which had been on a federal protective mission to safeguard federal buildings and support federal agents. At its height, this operation saw around 5,000 members in Los Angeles, 500 in Chicago, and 200 in Portland. Notably, the drawdown took place without a formal public announcement by either the Pentagon or the White House.

The President had federalized the troops under Title 10 authority, which is reserved for non-law-enforcement purposes. In this capacity, the troops were not engaged in traditional policing activities. It's important to note that additional deployments under separate authorities remain active in Washington, DC, New Orleans, and Memphis, with an expected 2,500 troops continuing their mission in the nation’s capital through the end of the year, as reported by The Washington Post.

The Supreme Court's decision in December marked a temporary judicial rebuke to the administration's use of National Guard troops in Chicago. The justices stipulated that federalized Guard deployments were only permissible under "exceptional" circumstances, potentially curtailing the President's executive power for future domestic troop surges. This legal challenge, coupled with the Congressional Budget Office's projection of the substantial costs associated with these deployments—approximately $496 million in 2025 alone—has seemingly influenced the administration's strategy.

Despite the withdrawal, President Trump has expressed support for the National Guard's role, citing a decrease in crime in Washington, DC, since their deployment in August 2025. Local police data appear to corroborate this claim, with several crime categories showing a decline during the federal presence. Beyond security, the troops in DC have also contributed to community services like snow removal and trash cleanup.

The cost of maintaining troops in US cities has been significant, with an estimated $93 million monthly burn rate and a single 1,000-troop deployment costing at least $18 million per month. The quiet withdrawal from the three major cities reflects a recalibration of the administration's approach to urban deployments in light of both financial and legal pressures.

The future of federalized National Guard deployments in urban areas remains uncertain, particularly as the Supreme Court's ruling may impact forthcoming decisions on domestic military involvement. The Trump administration's recent move, as reported by journalist Tara Copp on Twitter, has ended the contentious surge of forces into Democrat-led states after facing judicial roadblocks, signaling a potential shift in the administration's domestic security policies.

Advertisement

The Flipside: Different Perspectives

Progressive View

From a progressive perspective, the withdrawal of National Guard troops from cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, and Portland is a step towards respecting civil liberties and reducing the militarization of civilian spaces. The Supreme Court's decision underscores the need for exceptional circumstances to justify such deployments, aligning with the progressive value of judicial oversight and the protection of individual rights.

The presence of military personnel in urban areas can be intimidating and may escalate tensions, especially in communities that have historically faced disproportionate law enforcement actions. Progressives would argue that resources could be better allocated to address systemic issues that contribute to unrest and crime, such as social services, education, and community development programs.

Moreover, the environmental and social impact of deploying troops—such as the carbon footprint associated with their transport and the potential disruption to daily life—must be considered. Progressives would advocate for solutions that promote long-term community well-being, such as investments in sustainable infrastructure and public health, rather than short-term military responses.

Conservative View

From a conservative standpoint, the withdrawal of National Guard troops from several major cities can be viewed through the prism of fiscal responsibility and adherence to the rule of law. President Trump's decision to retract these deployments, following the Supreme Court's ruling, demonstrates respect for the constitutional balance of powers, a tenet highly regarded in conservative ideology.

The sustained cost of these deployments, as highlighted by the Congressional Budget Office, raises concerns about economic efficiency and government spending. Conservatives often emphasize the importance of minimizing unnecessary government expenditure, and in this case, the maintenance of a large military presence in urban areas without clear and exceptional circumstances may not be a judicious use of taxpayer dollars.

Additionally, the conservative principle of limited government suggests a preference for local law enforcement managing local issues, unless there is a compelling national security interest. By withdrawing the National Guard from cities where their presence is no longer deemed exceptional, the administration is allowing local authorities to reassume their primary role in maintaining public safety and order.

Common Ground

Common ground on the issue of National Guard deployments can be found in the shared desire for safety and community well-being. Both conservative and progressive viewpoints recognize the importance of public order and the protection of citizens, albeit through different approaches.

There is agreement that the use of military forces within domestic cities should be an exceptional measure, not a standard response. This premise, upheld by the Supreme Court's ruling, resonates with both sides' respect for the law and the proper use of authority.

Furthermore, both perspectives acknowledge the need for fiscal prudence. The high cost of deploying troops, as reported by the Congressional Budget Office, is a concern for any taxpayer, regardless of political affiliation. Efforts to reallocate these funds towards more sustainable and preventive measures can be a point of bipartisan collaboration.

Finally, there is a mutual understanding that local law enforcement agencies are primarily responsible for maintaining law and order. Encouraging cooperation between federal and local authorities, while ensuring that the latter have the necessary resources and training, can lead to effective and community-sensitive policing strategies that satisfy both conservative and progressive goals.