Texas National Guard members are seen at the Elwood Army Reserve Training Center in Elwood, Illinois, Oct. 7, 2025. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)
President Donald Trump’s novel employ of National Guard troops for law enforcement purposes has reignited a debate over the powers of states to control police powers, as evidenced by Illinois’ lawsuit against the president in the dueling briefs of current and former state leaders.
A bipartisan group of former governors said Trump’s federalization and sending National Guard members to Chicago to control protests were “modest.” upended the careful balance between state and federal powers.
At the same time, a group of 17 current Republican attorneys general told the court supported the government’s move that they said it was necessary to protect immigration officials.
Both groups filed briefs in Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson’s lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division seeking to block the Trump administration’s deployment of National Guard troops to the nation’s third-largest city.
Trump called on Wednesday for arresting Johnson and Pritzker for failing to provide support to Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials, a provocative demand that raised further concerns about his administration’s relationship with world leaders.
The bipartisan group supported Pritzker and Johnson’s call for an injunction to block the deployment, while Republicans said the injunction should be rejected.
Democratic attorneys general support Oregon
In another case in which Oregon is challenging Trump’s order to send troops to Portland, Democratic governors or attorneys general in 23 states and the District of Columbia spoke in favor of the state’s position.
Democratic Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, who was among those who lobbied for Oregon, said Wednesday He did so to “put an end to the dangerous overreach of power we are seeing with Donald Trump’s Guard deployments.”
The meager was also endorsed by Democratic state officials from Washington, Maryland, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, Kansas and Kentucky and the Attorney General of the District of Columbia.
Former governors say the deployment strips state authority
The federal structure of the U.S. government, which gives powers to both the federal and state governments, leaves broad police powers to the states, the nonpartisan group wrote.
Sending military forces to carry out law enforcement would unbalance that agreement, they said.
This group includes former Democratic governors. Jerry Brown of California, Steve Bullock of Montana, Mark Dayton of Minnesota, Jim Doyle of Wisconsin, Parris Glendening and Martin O’Malley of Maryland, Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, Christine Gregoire, Jay Inslee and Gary Locke of Washington, Tony Knowles of Alaska, Terry McAuliffe of Virginia, Janet Napolitano of Arizona, Deval Patrick of Massachusetts, Bill Ritter Jr. of Colorado, Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, Steve Sisolak of Nevada, Eliot Spitzer of New York, Ted Strickland of Ohio, Tom Vilsack of Iowa and Tom Wolf of Pennsylvania.
Former Republican Governors. Arne Carlson of Minnesota, Bill Graves of Kansas, Marc Racicot of Montana, Bill Weld of Massachusetts and Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey also signed the order.
“The current use of military resources based on claims of near-unfettered federal authority is unlawful,” they wrote. “The President’s assertion of authority to deploy military troops on domestic soil based on his unreviewable discretion and without the cooperation and coordination of state authorities threatens to upset the delicate balance of state and federal authority that underlies our constitutional order.”
The Trump administration is misunderstanding the section of federal law that Trump relied on to federalize National Guard troops, the group said.
The administration’s assertion that only the president can decide whether to meet the conditions for federalizing National Guard units “not only undermines state sovereignty, but also deprives governors of an important public safety tool,” they wrote.
“If federalization of the National Guard is not verifiable, a president motivated by ill will or competing political priorities could divert National Guard resources from critical government needs, including natural disasters or public health crises,” they continued.
States need ICE enforcement, Republican governors say
The group of current Republican attorneys general argued that their states were being harmed by the protests in Chicago and other cities that are preventing federal ICE officers from doing their jobs.
The attorneys general are Brenna Bird of Iowa, Austin Knudsen of Montana, Gentner Drummond of Oklahoma, Alan Wilson of South Carolina, Steve Marshall of Alabama, Tim Griffin of Arkansas, James Uthmeier of Florida, Chris Carr of Georgia, Raúl R. Labrador of Idaho, Todd Rokita of Indiana, Lynn Fitch of Mississippi, Catherine Hanaway of Missouri, Michael T. Hilgers of Nebraska, Marty Jackley of South Dakota, Ken Paxton of Texas and John B. McCuskey of West Virginia.
They described the Chicago protests as acts of violence that require a forceful response.
“Instead of peaceful protests, some of these protests turned violent, threatened federal officers, damaged federal property, and certainly hindered the enforcement of federal law,” they wrote. “President Trump’s deployment of a small number of National Guard members to combat this lawlessness is responsible, constitutional and lawful.”
The attorneys general added that their states have been harmed by immigrants in the country without legal authorization who have settled in their states, which they said gave the president a public interest in calling in troops to assist.
“The President’s action to federalize the National Guard benefits the public interest by allowing ICE agents to continue carrying out their legal duties to identify, apprehend, and deport illegal immigrants. This is the only way to protect states from the harm caused by illegal immigration,” they wrote.
