Trump’s Contentious Expansion of Military Role in Domestic Law Enforcement Sparks Legal Challenges Across US Cities

The Trump administration is considering a nationwide expansion of its law enforcement initiatives, potentially utilizing the US military for domestic crime control. This move, however, has been met with controversy as it could represent an unprecedented use of presidential powers and may be deemed illegal.

The president possesses certain authorities that enable him to deploy the National Guard and federal law enforcement agencies in US cities to combat crime. However, such a decision would raise legal questions due to its novelty and the potential for it to contravene established laws. The administration is already facing a lawsuit in California following the deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles in June, after the president asserted that protests were obstructing his federal immigration agenda.

Elizabeth Goitein, Senior Director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, expressed concerns about this potential use of military forces for domestic law enforcement, stating, “The principle against using the military for domestic law enforcement is being shredded here.”

Reports suggest that discussions have been ongoing regarding the possible deployment of the National Guard to Chicago, although specifics regarding timelines and troop numbers remain uncertain.

On Monday, Trump signed an executive order establishing specialized units within the National Guard to address urban crime. However, details about how this order will be implemented are yet to emerge. It’s worth noting that each state, territory, and Washington DC already have reaction forces in place, designed for rapid response during law enforcement or security incidents.

Speaking to reporters, Trump hinted at the possibility of taking action without waiting for governors’ requests to deploy National Guard troops to tackle crime. “We may just go in and do it,” he stated, implying a unilateral approach.

Mayors of major cities have expressed opposition to this strategy, with Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, a Democrat, describing Trump’s threats as “unconstitutional” and a threat to democracy. Illinois Democratic Governor JB Pritzker has also voiced his disapproval, stating, “Mr. President, do not come to Chicago. You are neither wanted here nor needed here.”

The expanded role of the military in domestic law enforcement activities could put both city residents and service members in a dangerous and volatile situation, according to David Janovsky, Acting Director of The Constitution Project at the Project on Government Oversight, a watchdog group. While acknowledging that there is little to stop a president from taking such action initially, he emphasized that “These powers unlock when specific circumstances exist. The problem is the president, under these laws, is the person who makes that determination.”

Trump has made bold claims about crime levels across the US to justify his law enforcement initiatives, even though violent crime nationally decreased in 2024, including in many cities Trump has criticized. He has singled out cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Baltimore, and Oakland as problematic areas.

Attorney General Pam Bondi has hinted at the possibility of targeting cities with so-called sanctuary policies, which limit local officials’ involvement in federal immigration enforcement, under the Trump administration’s anti-crime agenda. Sources suggest that future plans, including in Chicago – a sanctuary city – may mirror Trump’s summer deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles to quell immigration protests.

In June, Trump attempted to circumvent California Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom to deploy National Guard members by invoking Section 12406 of the US Code, which allows the president to deploy the guard in situations requiring the repulsion of an invasion, suppression of rebellion, or the execution of laws. Trump argued that he was unable to enforce federal immigration laws in Los Angeles due to protests.

The legality behind this action is being challenged in a California court, with potential implications for future initiatives. Goitein pointed out that Trump may not be able to use Section 12406 in cities where he intends to crack down on crime, as violent street crime is primarily a matter of state and local law, not federal law.

Another potential avenue for the Trump administration’s anti-crime agenda is the Insurrection Act, a seldom-invoked law that permits the president to use military forces to quell insurrections or rebellions on US soil. The main provision of this act states that troops can be deployed to a state by the president only if the governor or state legislature requests it. However, under specific circumstances related to the defense of constitutional rights, the president can send troops unilaterally.

The Trump administration considered invoking the Insurrection Act in Los Angeles in June but ultimately decided against it. During his first term, Trump threatened to utilize the Insurrection Act following the police killing of George Floyd in 2020, arguing that he could use it to quell anti-fascist activities deemed responsible for violent riots leading to looting.

Goitein stated that even the Insurrection Act does not grant the president unlimited authority. “When the states fail to protect the constitutional rights of a class of people—and those rights are enshrined in state law—then the military can be deployed to enforce those laws under the Insurrection Act, not the state and local laws that apply in the context of violent street crime,” she explained.

The ongoing legal battle in California over Trump’s deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles offers insights into potential challenges the president may face in his future efforts. Lawyers for California Governor Gavin Newsom argue that the president violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits the use of the military as a domestic police force. They claim the deployment was a violation of the act because it allowed the military to engage in civil law enforcement, which is barred by the act.

However, Trump’s lawyers counter that the National Guard and Marines did not participate in any civil law enforcement and therefore did not violate the act. Another potential challenge to Trump expanding his initiatives could be the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution, which reserves powers to the states or people not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution.

Newsom’s lawyers also argue that Trump’s move to call up the National Guard against the governor’s wishes violates the 10th Amendment, as it infringes on the governor’s authority as commander in chief of the California National Guard and the state’s “sovereign right to control and have available its National Guard in the absence of a lawful invocation of federal power.”