Washington: President Donald Trump’s controversial decision to deploy National Guard troops to several U.S. cities is facing increasing legal scrutiny, as federal courts challenge the administration’s claims of maintaining public order amid nationwide protests. This week, a federal judge in Chicago temporarily blocked the deployment of troops to Broadview, a suburb, citing concerns that the presence of military forces could escalate tensions rather than ensure safety.
U.S. District Judge April Perry emphasized that evidence of significant violence at local demonstrations was minimal, noting that federal intervention appeared disproportionate. The order, which remains in effect until at least October 23, marks the second judicial setback for the Trump administration within a week. A similar ruling in Portland, Oregon, earlier highlighted the growing judicial resistance to the use of National Guard forces in Democratic-led cities under the administration’s pretext of protecting federal property.
The controversy centers on the Trump administration’s justification for these deployments. Officials argue that National Guard units are necessary to curb violent unrest and protect public buildings, often linking protests to anti-fascist groups such as “antifa.” However, critics including local leaders and judges accuse the administration of exaggerating the threat posed by demonstrators, framing peaceful protests as dangerous to justify federal intervention.
Legal battles are continuing on multiple fronts. A federal appellate court in San Francisco is reviewing the Portland case, which could allow troops to return if the ruling is overturned. Similar challenges have arisen in Los Angeles and other cities, reflecting nationwide pushback against the militarization of civil spaces. Despite mounting opposition, President Trump has signaled that he intends to extend National Guard presence to additional cities, portraying the deployments as a necessary response to left-wing unrest.
The Illinois ruling adds to a growing list of court decisions that limit the administration’s ability to unilaterally deploy military forces domestically. With appeals already underway, the battles over the scope of federal authority and civil liberties are likely to continue, highlighting tensions between state sovereignty, judicial oversight, and the executive branch’s approach to civil unrest.