News
How and Where the National Guard Has Deployed to U.S. Cities
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.
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
Who is in charge of National Guard deployments?
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.
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.
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.
Where National Guard troops have deployed under Title 10
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.
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.
Where National Guard troops have deployed under Title 32
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.”
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.
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.
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.
National Guard troops that have deployed to another state
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.
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.
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.
News
Venezuela calls Trump’s call to close airspace a ‘colonialist threat’
President Donald Trump speaks to reporters after speaking to troops via video from his Mar-a-Lago estate on Thanksgiving, Thursday, Nov. 27, 2025, in Palm Beach, Fla.
Alex Brandon/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Alex Brandon/AP
The Venezuelan government has condemned President Trump’s statement on Saturday calling for the airspace above Venezuela to be closed.
In a Truth Social post, Trump said “To all Airlines, Pilots, Drug Dealers, and Human Traffickers, please consider THE AIRSPACE ABOVE AND SURROUNDING VENEZUELA TO BE CLOSED IN ITS ENTIRETY.”
The Venezuelan government responded with a statement saying Trump’s comments violate international law and are a “colonialist threat” to the country’s sovereignty.
“No authority outside the Venezuelan institutional framework has the power to interfere with, block, or condition the use of international airspace,” the statement said.

As of Sunday afternoon, Flightradar24 shows planes continuing to fly in Venezuelan airspace.
This comes a day after the Senate and House Armed Services committees said they would look into the Pentagon after The Washington Post reported that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave an order to kill all crew members aboard a boat suspected of smuggling drugs in the Caribbean in September. NPR has confirmed the Washington Post’s reporting.
The military has carried out at least 21 strikes and killed at least 82 people on alleged drug boats as part of “Operation Southern Spear,” a campaign that the Trump administration says is aimed at tackling drug-trafficking.
Venezuela said in its statement that “such statements represent an explicit use of force, which is prohibited by Article 2, paragraph 4 of the U.N. Charter of the United Nations.”
Democrats have also strongly criticized the administration’s strategy, saying the military didn’t have enough evidence that the boats were carrying drugs before conducting the strikes. Senator Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat from Maryland, told ABC’S This Week on Sunday it’s possible the military’s actions could be considered a “war crime,” and that Hegseth should be held accountable.
“They’ve never presented the public with the information they’ve got here,” Van Hollen said, “But it could be worse than that, right? If that theory is wrong, then it’s plain murder.”
However, Republican Senator Eric Schmitt, a member of the Armed Services Committee, said on Sunday Morning Futures on Fox News that Trump is acting “well within his Article 2 powers” when it comes to curbing drug smuggling by striking the boats.
“I think it’s a two part strategy,” Schmitt said. “One is to get rid of the precursors that are coming from China, and then take out the cartels that are distributing this and bringing it to the United States of America.”
Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress have expressed frustration at Trump’s stance on Venezuela, and that the Trump administration conducted the strikes without legislative approval.
“Trump’s reckless actions towards Venezuela are pushing America closer and closer to another costly foreign war,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer posted on X on Saturday, hours after Trump’s post about Venezuelan airspace.
Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a former Trump ally, also posted on Saturday, saying “Reminder, Congress has the sole power to declare war.”
News
Northwestern settles with Trump administration in $75M deal to regain federal funding
Signs are displayed outside a tent encampment at Northwestern University on April 26, 2024, in Evanston, Ill.
Teresa Crawford/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Teresa Crawford/AP
Northwestern University has agreed to a $75 million payout to the Trump administration to settle a discrimination investigation into the school and to restore federal funding that had been frozen throughout the inquest, the Justice Department announced on Friday.
“Today’s settlement marks another victory in the Trump Administration’s fight to ensure that American educational institutions protect Jewish students and put merit first,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement.
“Institutions that accept federal funds are obligated to follow civil rights law — we are grateful to Northwestern for negotiating this historic deal.”
Northwestern is one of several schools ensnared in President Trump’s campaign against university policies he has decried as “woke.”
Specifically, the Illinois private school was one of 60 colleges the Education Department accused of shirking their obligations to “protect Jewish students on campus, including uninterrupted access to campus facilities and educational opportunities” amid heated university protests against the war in Gaza.
In April, the White House announced it was withholding some $790 million in federal funds from Northwestern while the government investigated the claims. University interim President Henry Bienen said in a statement to university personnel that “the payment is not an admission of guilt,” according to the school newspaper The Daily Northwestern.
Earlier this month, Cornell reached a deal requiring the university to pay $60 million to unfreeze $250 million withheld by the Trump administration over alleged civil rights violations. The private Ivy League university said the settlement did not come “at the cost of compromising our values or independence.”
Per the agreement, Northwestern will pay out the $75 million over time through 2028 and “shall maintain clear policies and procedures relating to demonstrations, protests, displays, and other expressive activities, as well as implement mandatory antisemitism training for all students, faculty, and staff,” according to the DOJ.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon called the settlement “a huge win” for higher education.
“The deal cements policy changes that ‘will protect students and other members of the campus from harassment and discrimination,’ and it recommits the school to merit-based hiring and admissions,” she said in a statement.
“The reforms reflect bold leadership at Northwestern, and they are a roadmap for institutional leaders around the country that will help rebuild public trust in our colleges and universities,” she added.
An explainer posted to the university’s website said that the school decided to negotiate an agreement rather than take a chance in court, calling the cost of a legal fight “too high and the risks too grave.”
Northwestern’s Bienen said in a video statement that the school would retain its academic freedom and autonomy from the federal government.
“There were several red lines that I, the board of Trustees and university leadership refused to cross. I would not have signed anything that would have given the federal government any say in who we hire, what they teach, who we admit or what they study,” Bienen said.
“Put simply, Northwestern runs Northwestern.”
News
Video: Meet the Theremin, an Instrument You Don’t Have to Touch to Play
new video loaded: Meet the Theremin, an Instrument You Don’t Have to Touch to Play
By Chevaz Clarke and Vincent Tullo
November 29, 2025
-
Science1 week agoWashington state resident dies of new H5N5 form of bird flu
-
Business6 days agoStruggling Six Flags names new CEO. What does that mean for Knott’s and Magic Mountain?
-
Politics3 days agoRep. Swalwell’s suit alleges abuse of power, adds to scrutiny of Trump official’s mortgage probes
-
Ohio5 days agoSnow set to surge across Northeast Ohio, threatening Thanksgiving travel
-
Southeast1 week agoAlabama teacher arrested, fired after alleged beating of son captured on camera
-
Technology4 days agoNew scam sends fake Microsoft 365 login pages
-
News4 days ago2 National Guard members wounded in ‘targeted’ attack in D.C., authorities say
-
World4 days agoTrump yanks G20 invitation from South Africa over false genocide claims