Connect with us

News

How and Where the National Guard Has Deployed to U.S. Cities

Published

on

How and Where the National Guard Has Deployed to U.S. Cities

Note: National Guard deployments to Chicago and Portland were temporarily blocked by a court order. Elements of the District of Columbia National Guard were activated and deployed to Washington, D.C.

Advertisement

The New York Times

Since taking office, President Trump has relied on the National Guard to help implement a sweeping agenda on crime and immigration, kicking off a blitz of deployments that have rattled cities, tested the limits of his legal authority, and drawn in the Supreme Court.

Advertisement

So far, Mr. Trump has called upon the military force to help stop illegal crossings at the southern border and staff immigration facilities; to guard federal property and personnel amid protests in Chicago, Los Angeles and Portland, Ore.; and to back crime-fighting efforts in Washington, D.C., and Memphis. He has done all this while publicly mulling similar actions in cities like Baltimore, New Orleans and San Francisco.

National Guard deployments to U.S. cities

Advertisement
  • Legal status
    Active

    Type of deployment
    Federal

    Date of deployment
    June 7
    Advertisement

    Max. number of troops
    4,100
  • Legal status
    Active

    Type of deployment
    Hybrid

    Date of deployment
    Aug. 11

    Max. number of troops
    2,500
  • Legal status
    Pending

    Type of deployment
    Federal
    Advertisement

    Date of deployment
    Sept. 28

    Max. number of troops
    400
  • Legal status
    Pending

    Type of deployment
    Federal

    Date of deployment
    Oct. 4

    Max. number of troops
    500
    Advertisement
  • Legal status
    Active

    Type of deployment
    Hybrid

    Date of deployment
    Oct. 10

    Max. number of troops
    150

Advertisement

Notes: The date of deployment corresponds to the date of the executive order or memorandum ordering the deployment of the National Guard. The number of troops deployed to each city is the maximum number of troops listed in the announcement or mentioned by public officials. The number of National Guard troops on the ground at any given time can fluctuate.

Who is in charge of National Guard deployments?

Advertisement

The deployments, which have provoked fierce lawsuits from state and local leaders, are not all on the same legal footing. The main difference, according to experts in armed forces law, comes down to who commands the Guard: the president, or the governor of an individual state.

Advertisement

Who approves the deployment? Governor Both president and governor President
Who commands the Guard? Governor Governor President
How is the Guard paid? State funds Federal funds Federal funds
Can the Guard perform law enforcement duties? Yes, unless prohibited by state law Yes, unless prohibited by state law No, with narrow exceptions

When called into action by a governor responding to a state-level emergency, the Guard serves under a status known as state active duty, under which there is no general prohibition against troops conducting law enforcement. In recent years, Guard members under that status have policed the southern border, patrolled New York City’s subway platforms and helped support crime-fighting efforts in Albuquerque.

Advertisement

But when deployed under the president’s command — typically, when called to train or fight overseas — National Guard troops become federalized and are subject to a section of the U.S. Code known as Title 10, the same laws governing other active-duty military branches.

Advertisement

Where National Guard troops have deployed under Title 10

Note: National Guard deployments to Chicago and Portland were temporarily blocked by a court order.

Advertisement

The New York Times

Crucially, troops under that status are forbidden, with narrow exceptions, from performing law enforcement under the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which came about after the federal government withdrew troops from the Southern states defeated in the Civil War.

Advertisement

In Chicago, Los Angeles and Portland, where Mr. Trump has deployed the Guard over governors’ objections, he has done so by placing the troops directly under federal control — itself a legally contentious move. As a result, troops’ activities there are largely restricted to guarding federal property.

A third status, known as Title 32, combines aspects of state and federal duty. In that hybrid designation, Guard troops remain under their governor’s command, but the deployment receives federal funding and comes at the request of the president or secretary of defense.

Advertisement

Where National Guard troops have deployed under Title 32

Advertisement

Advertisement

Note: Elements of the District of Columbia National Guard were activated and deployed to Washington, D.C.

The New York Times

Advertisement

In Memphis, where the governor is commanding the Guard mission at Mr. Trump’s urging, and in Washington, D.C., where the president has authority over the local Guard, troops have deployed under a hybrid status. Guard soldiers in those cities have more openly patrolled the streets, but they have so far steered clear of serving warrants or making arrests.

Military law experts say the distinction between those different deployment statuses is critical not only to what troops can do on the ground but also to how courts will weigh the legal questions posed by Mr. Trump’s rapid assumption of power.

“There is very little case law on all of this,” said Elizabeth Goitein, a senior director at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University’s law school, “partly because domestic deployment of the military has happened extremely sparingly in our nation’s history.”

Advertisement

What the courts say

In court, the Trump administration has argued that the president has broad authority to federalize the National Guard anywhere in the country, at any time, whenever he feels it is necessary to enforce the law or suppress disorder.

Advertisement

That power, federal lawyers say, extends from an obscure, rarely invoked statute that gives the president authority to federalize the force in times of rebellion, invasion or when the president is otherwise unable to enforce federal law.

But the Trump administration has gone further, arguing that the same statute grants the president a sweeping exemption from the Posse Comitatus Act, the law barring the use of federal soldiers for law enforcement. Presidents typically have had to invoke the Insurrection Act, an extreme step, to claim such an exemption.

Further complicating the issue are Mr. Trump’s moves to deploy the National Guard across state lines, a step usually taken only with the consent of all parties involved, said Mark Nevitt, an associate professor at Emory University School of Law.

Advertisement

Mr. Trump has pushed to deploy federalized Guard troops from Texas to Chicago, and troops from California to Portland, while several Republican governors have agreed to send troops under their command to Washington, D.C.

Advertisement

National Guard troops that have deployed to another state

Advertisement

Note: National Guard deployments to Chicago and Portland were temporarily blocked by a court order.

The New York Times

State leaders in California, Illinois and Oregon have contested the Trump administration’s arguments in court, and rulings so far have been divided. The administration has recently appealed to the Supreme Court in the Illinois case, setting the stage for a high-stakes decision that could shape how the Guard is used moving forward.

Advertisement

Officials in Tennessee and Washington, D.C., have also challenged the deployments to their cities.

Military law experts described Mr. Trump’s actions as a rarity in U.S. history, highlighting that the president’s aggressive maneuvering of federalized Guard troops comes in the face of protests far more subdued than the kind of mass unrest that has been used to justify their use in the past.

Advertisement

But Kevin Greene, a co-director of the University of Southern Mississippi’s Center for the Study of the National Guard, said it also strikes at a question dating back to the country’s earliest days, and the founders’ skepticism of a standing army on domestic soil.

“The history of the United States is about the pendulum swinging back and forth as it relates to the militia and the National Guard, as to who has authority over it, and who should,” he said.

Advertisement

News

Trump proposes painting executive office building white

Published

on

Trump proposes painting executive office building white

President Trump has submitted plans plans to paint the Eisenhower Executive Office Building white to a group that advises on architecture in Washington, D.C.

The French Second Empire-style, slate-gray building houses office space for members of the president’s team, including the National Security Council. 

An America 250 flag outside the Eisenhower Executive Office Building near the White House in Washington, DC, US, on Thursday, April 9, 2026. 

Advertisement

Daniel Heuer / Bloomberg via Getty Images


The building sits across a driveway from the West Wing and was completed in 1888. The plans submitted by the president say that the Eisenhower Executive Office Building is an eyesore that has long been criticized and has fallen into disrepair since its completion. The plans say “the color, design, and massing of the existing structure does not align visually with the surrounding architecture and lacks any symbolic cohesion with the White House.” The plan points to examples of cracks and poor exterior maintenance and argues, “The benefit to painting the stone is that it is repeatable.” 

“The inability to bring the stone facade back to a baseline color has plagued the maintenance of the [Executive Office Building] in the past, and and will continue to plague it if not addressed,” the plan says.

The plans included renderings of what the building would look like if it’s painted white. 

screenshot-2026-04-10-at-2-37-04-pm.png

Rendering from President Trump’s plans showing what the Executive Office Building would look like if it were painted white.

The Executive Office of the President submitted a design proposal to the Commission of Fine Arts, a panel of Trump appointees who advise on public architecture and design in the nation’s capital. 

Advertisement

The CFA will hear a presentation on the plan on April 16.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Women are getting most of the new jobs. What’s going on with men?

Published

on

Women are getting most of the new jobs. What’s going on with men?

The Labor Department says the vast majority of new jobs created over the last year went to women, most of them in health care.

melitas


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

melitas

In December 2016, as Donald Trump was headed to the White House for the first time, Betsey Stevenson offered the incoming president some economic advice.

Stevenson, a professor of public policy and economics at the University of Michigan, argued in an op-ed that it would be a disservice to encourage men “to cling to work that isn’t coming back.” She cited Trump’s promise to bring an iPhone factory to the U.S.

“If Trump really wants to get more Americans working,” she wrote at the time, “he’ll have to do something out of his comfort zone: make girly jobs appeal to manly men.”

Advertisement

It’s a message she believes is even more relevant today.

For decades, the focus has been on getting more women into male-dominated fields. Some efforts have been more successful than others. But now, with the vast majority of new jobs going to women, it’s clear that men need help, too.

“This is happening at a time where it’s become verboten to talk about diversity, equity and inclusion,” Stevenson says. “And yet the people we need to be talking about right now are men.”

17 times as many jobs filled by women

In the mid-1970s, women held about 40% of jobs in the U.S, not including farm work or self employment. By the early 2000s, women’s share of jobs had grown to just under half. It’s hovered around there since, crossing the 50% threshold just a few times, including during the Great Recession, just before COVID, and now.

That parity masks the significant gains women have recently made in the labor market. Of the 369,000 jobs the Labor Department says were created since the start of Trump’s second term, nearly all — 348,000 of them — went to women, with only 21,000 going to men. That’s nearly 17 times as many jobs filled by women as by men.

Advertisement

The lopsidedness was driven by huge growth in health care, where women hold nearly 80% of jobs. Over the past 12 months, health care alone added 390,000 jobs, more than in the economy overall, making up for job losses elsewhere.

“If we want to see job growth that’s as robust for men as it is for women, we’re going to have to see men embracing those kinds of jobs,” says Stevenson.

So far, that hasn’t happened in any meaningful way. Stevenson believes it’s because men are more likely than women to have an identity tied to a particular occupation, making it harder for them to find work outside that field, much less in one dominated by women.

Meanwhile, in his second term, Trump has not strayed from his message that manufacturing will make the country strong. It’s something he emphasized in his second inaugural address, declaring that “America will be a manufacturing nation once again,” and in his repeated promises that tariffs would “bring factories roaring back.”

When manufacturers added 15,000 jobs in March, the White House called it proof that “the best days for American workers, manufacturers, and families are still ahead,” despite the fact that the sector is still down 82,000 jobs from when Trump took office.

Advertisement

“We have seen a year of a president absolutely fixated [on] growing the manufacturing sector,” Stevenson says. “There’s not enough of those jobs for men as a whole to thrive.”

A push for policies to open doors for men

What’s happening now in the labor market comes as no surprise to Richard Reeves, president of the American Institute for Boys and Men, a nonpartisan think tank.

He says not enough attention has been paid to the scarcity of men in certain professions, and now we’re seeing the consequences.

“There is no cause for panic here,” says Reeves, who’s been studying the decades-long decline in labor force participation among men. “But I do think we should be alert to signs that the labor market might be moving even more quickly in directions that are leaving too many men behind.”

Reeves notes that for years, the country has embraced policies and programs aimed at getting more women into science, technology, engineering and math, and the share of women in STEM jobs has grown.

Advertisement

“But that didn’t happen by itself. It happened as a result of concerted efforts to break down gender stereotypes,” he says.

Still, gaps remain, and some of those efforts have seen their government funding cut under Trump.

Now Reeves says what’s needed are policies and programs to draw male workers into fields such as nursing, teaching and social work.

“Those are occupations that serve people, and they should look like the people that they serve,” he says. “And it’s good for men because it means they won’t lose out on those jobs if that’s where the growth is coming from.”

Framing jobs as more masculine

Stevenson has been thinking about ways to make the fastest-growing sectors of the economy more welcoming to men.

Advertisement

“I think there are ways for us to talk about those jobs as being particularly masculine,” she says.

For instance, many health care jobs could be framed as roles requiring the strength to lift people. Preschools could highlight the need for teachers who serve as positive male role models.

“Kids love to be rough and tumble and build things,” she says.

Stevenson knows some people will be offended by such gender stereotyping.

“But I do want to encourage us to realize that we have to help men understand that they can do caregiving roles and stay masculine,” she says.

Advertisement

Ongoing challenges for women and men

What Stevenson doesn’t want people to conclude is that everything is okay now that women are leading on jobs.

“We know that there is still discrimination that holds people back,” she says.

For women, she says, that discrimination might be preventing them from getting the promotion that they deserve, contributing to the widening gender pay gap. For men, it may mean sitting on the sidelines because they don’t think there’s a role for them in the economy.

“I think we can use this moment to realize that discrimination, occupational segregation… these are things that harm all of us, not just one narrow group,” she says.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Video: How Trump’s Advisers Felt About Going to War With Iran

Published

on

Video: How Trump’s Advisers Felt About Going to War With Iran

new video loaded: How Trump’s Advisers Felt About Going to War With Iran

Our reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan discuss how individual members of President Trump’s administration felt in the leadup to the war in Iran, and how they communicated their thoughts to Mr. Trump.

By Maggie Haberman, Jonathan Swan, Christina Shaman, John Pappas and Ray Whitehouse

April 9, 2026

Continue Reading

Trending