A federal judge cited a lack of “rebellion” as the reason why armed troops aren’t needed in Chicago. But since when has reality stopped this administration from flouting the law?
On paper, it appears that the Trump administration’s efforts to escalate tensions in Chicago with the assistance of the military are on hold.
US District Judge April M. Perry issued a 14-day temporary restraining order, blocking the federalization and deployment of both Illinois National Guard members and out-of-state troops, ruling that the White House failed to justify the move under federal law.
“I have seen no credible evidence that there is a danger of a rebellion in the state of Illinois,” said Perry, rejecting one of the administration’s central arguments.
The ruling came after a lengthy hearing just hours after Texas National Guard personnel were spotted near an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Broadview, a Chicago suburb.
The administration had placed Illinois Guard members under federal command earlier in the week over objections from Gov. J.B. Pritzker and other state leaders.
Federal lawyers argued that the deployment was necessary to protect federal agents and property during an ongoing immigration enforcement operation that has sparked protests and clashes.
They also claimed the president’s authority in such decisions was not subject to judicial review.
However, Judge Perry pushed back repeatedly, questioning both the scope of the mission and the administration’s legal basis. “I am very much struggling to figure out where this would ever stop,” she said, adding that troops on the ground would likely “add fuel to the fire.”
That “fuel” – the imposing presence of armed soldiers in the streets of a city with a Democratic mayor located in a Blue State – is just what Trump has been counting on.
His administration is itching to invoke the Insurrection Act, a federal law dating back to 1807 that empowers the president to deploy the military and federalize the National Guard units nationwide.
And he’s using the National Guard in cities like Chicago, Portland, and soon elsewhere, as bait to do it.
He just needs the flimiest of excuses, whether it’s a protester spitting on a soldier, or some invented affront (you can bet on the latter) to declare the entire country too lawless for civilian police to handle on their own.
It reminds me of my time in covering the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, when servicemembers were sent into hostile territory on “presence patrols,” which were often no more than an effort to get someone to shoot at them so they could return fire.
That I can aptly make the comparison between a flawed battlefield tactic from two poorly conducted wars that uncecearily put servicemembers in deadly situations with no real purpose and Trump’s own ambition to use cities like Chicago as a “training ground” for our military is horrifying and likely to come true despite the judge’s ruling.
Because this president has been emboldened by his dutiful minions and a GOP-led Congress that has decided it no longer wants or needs to be a check on the Executive, as mandated by a pesky little set of arcane rules known as the Constitution.
Fortunately, there are some still willing to speak truth to power.
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, a likely 2028 presidential candidate, said there was “no place for the National Guard in the streets of American cities like Chicago.” And city Mayor Brandon Johnson called it “a victory for the rule of law, not intimidation.”
Unfortunately, it will take more than opposition from Pritzker and Johnson, as well as a judge’s ruling, to prevent Trump from realizing his dictatorial ambitions, so don’t be surprised when soldiers find themselves standing on Chicago streets anyway.
