Sending soldiers into cities under the guise of fighting crime is an unprecedented abuse of power. ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌

[link removed]

President Trump has threatened

[link removed]

to send troops to Chicago to “straighten that one out.” New York City, he says, might be next.

Already, armed National Guard regiments are patrolling the streets of Washington, DC. All this on top of the deployment of troops to Los Angeles earlier in the summer.

The deployment of out-of-state troops to occupy cities cannot plausibly promote public order. It’s blunt force, a brutal power grab. It runs afoul of the Constitution and the proper role for states.

I write history books

[link removed]

and consider myself an expert on the presidency. I can think of few analogies — not in this country, anyway — for such a move by a chief executive.

Why is this particular turn so alarming? After all, public safety is important, and fighting crime is a worthy goal. My colleague Liza Goitein explains the legal and constitutional issues:

—

Trump is on even thinner legal ice with this plan than he is in Los Angeles and DC. Unlike in the capital, the president doesn’t command the Illinois National Guard unless he calls them into federal service (i.e., “federalizes” them). There are various laws that authorize him to federalize the Guard, but none of them would apply here.



In Los Angeles, Trump is relying on a law (Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code) that authorizes federalization when “the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States,” meaning federal law. Immigration law is federal law. Trump claimed that the protests rendered him “unable . . . to execute” ICE raids. Although dozens of raids happened during the protests and the administration did not cite a single raid that was thwarted, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals deferred to Trump’s assessment.



But that law simply wouldn’t apply to the type of crime Trump has cited in Chicago — essentially, violent street crime. The laws that are implicated are largely those of Illinois and Chicago, not the “laws of the United States.”



Even under the Insurrection Act — which is the main exception to the law barring deployment of the military for domestic law enforcement — the president may deploy troops to execute the law only in situations involving either federal laws or those state laws designed to protect the constitutional rights of classes of people (basically, civil rights laws).



Nor can Trump ask other states’ governors to send their Guard forces into Chicago, as he did in DC under a law known as Section 502(f), which authorizes governors to voluntarily use their Guard forces for missions requested by the president or secretary of defense. Under this law, presidents have asked governors to deploy Guard forces within their own states, in other states that consent, or (as only Trump has done) in DC without local consent. No governor has sent Guard troops into another state that did not consent, as would be the case here. That’s because Guard forces deployed under this law remain state officers as a legal matter. And under the Constitution, states are sovereign entities vis-à-vis one another. That means one state cannot invade another, even at the president’s request.



If the president wants to send one state’s National Guard forces into an unwilling state, he must federalize them first. But to federalize them, he needs statutory authority. And there is no statutory authority to federalize the Guard to police local crime.



The Pentagon reportedly sees its planned military deployment in Chicago as a model for other cities. And of course, the other cities Trump has name-checked in this context are governed by Democrats: Baltimore, Los Angeles, New York, and Oakland.



Flooding “blue” cities with soldiers on the pretext of fighting crime would be an unprecedented abuse of power that would violate states’ rights and threaten our most fundamental liberties. The plan is profoundly un-American. And it is illegal.



Public safety matters greatly. But facts belie the (ever shifting) rationale. New York, for example, remains one of the nation’s safest large cities. As Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch

[link removed]

told Attorney General Pam Bondi yesterday, crime has dropped dramatically, even this year. Fighting crime is not a rationale — it’s a pretext.

The cities targeted so far have two things in common: a Black mayor and a fusillade of presidential rhetoric denouncing them as “hellholes.”

Bill Kristol, founder of The xxxxxx and a longtime prominent Republican, surveyed the past week and put it this way

[link removed]

: “What we are seeing is not merely a ‘slide toward authoritarianism.’ It’s a march toward despotism. And it’s a march whose pace is accelerating.”

What can be done to push back? Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker warned federal forces, “Do not come to Chicago. You are neither wanted here nor needed here.” Trump, in turn, mused, “They say . . . ‘He’s a dictator. He’s a dictator.’ A lot of people are saying, ‘Maybe we’d like a dictator.’” He added, “I don’t like a dictator. I’m not a dictator.” (As presidential quotations go, it’s about as reassuring as Richard Nixon’s “I am not a crook.”)

Pritzker and New York Gov. Kathy Hochul can play pivotal roles. States and cities can go to court — an epic legal battle. They can rally the public in their states and around the country. They can monitor and document the conduct of deployed forces.

We must all speak out when our Constitution is under threat.

Get some rest this Labor Day. It’s going to be a busy fall.





The Power Grab Over Elections

Last week, President Trump announced he would issue another executive order aimed at rewriting election rules, including by getting rid of mail voting and dictating how states may count ballots. Such an order would be blatantly unconstitutional: Only Congress and the states have the power to run elections. Although the White House has since walked back the threat, it forms part of the administration’s broader effort to undermine elections. Still, Bart Gellman writes in The New York Times, “there are reasons to hope Mr. Trump will fail to subvert next year’s midterms.” Read more

[link removed]

Voting Rights in the States

The upcoming Supreme Court term may further weaken the already battered Voting Rights Act. In State Court Report, Alicia Bannon previews two cases that could limit the 60-year-old civil rights law’s protections and explores how state laws and constitutions have the potential to fill the voting rights gap. “But as important as state law would be, it’s no substitute for a strong national standard that protects all voters,” she writes. Read more

[link removed]

The Racist Foundations of the Big Lie

New Brennan Center research shows that racist attitudes are linked to distrust in the 2020 election results and support for the January 6 insurrection. As influential voices continue to push false narratives about Americans of color, Chelsea Jones writes, “we should be vigilant to how this work might seed the next Big Lie and further erode democratic values.” Read more

[link removed]

Scholars’ Influence on the Bench

In gun cases, more than in other areas of constitutional law, Supreme Court justices are increasingly relying on legal scholarship — and sometimes requesting more of it. “Exploring why may offer lessons for those seeking to influence outcomes in other areas of constitutional law,” Brennan Center fellow Eric Ruben and the Duke Center for Firearms Law’s Andrew Willinger write. In a new piece, they examine how this trend shaped the Court’s 2023–2024 term and consider the reasons behind this distinctive judge–scholar collaboration. Read more

[link removed]

Podcast: The Past, Present, and Future of the Voting Rights Act

Our latest episode examines the Voting Rights Act, known as the legislative crown jewel of the civil rights movement. This summer, a lower court ruling in Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe blocked voters in seven states from using the law to challenge racially discriminatory voting practices. The Supreme Court put the decision on hold. But the very fact that we are celebrating a pause on the near destruction of the last remaining protection of the Voting Rights Act shows how bad things have gotten in the courts. Thankfully, the Supreme Court doesn’t have the only say. The Constitution gives Congress the power to protect the right to vote with legislation. Listen on Spotify

[link removed]

, Apple Podcasts

[link removed]

, or your favorite podcast platform

[link removed]

, or watch on YouTube

[link removed]

.





Coming Up

VIRTUAL EVENT: The Next Phase of the Fight

[link removed]

Thursday, September 4, 3–4 p.m. ET



Challenges to democracy intensified over the summer. The National Guard deployed in California. The Supreme Court ruled on presidential power using the shadow docket. In Texas, an egregious gerrymander has set off a partisan war nationally.



Now the fall will mark the next phase of the fight for the Constitution. Will the rule of law hold? How will the 2026 election unfold? Join us for a virtual event highlighting some of the biggest news stories of the past three months. Brennan Center experts will break down what’s happened and what will come next in the struggle to uphold democratic values. RSVP today

[link removed]



Want to keep up with Brennan Center Live events? Subscribe to the events newsletter.

[link removed]





News

Kareem Crayton on the impact of Texas’s redrawn congressional map on communities of color // REUTERS

[link removed]

Ames Grawert on bail reform and crime rates // THE WASHINGTON POST

[link removed]

Douglas Keith on partisan judicial elections in North Carolina // THE ASSEMBLY

[link removed]

Lawrence Norden on new requirements for federal election security grants // NPR

[link removed]

Joseph Nunn on the deployment of the National Guard // NPR

[link removed]

Feedback on this newsletter? Email us at [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]







[link removed]

Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law

120 Broadway, Suite 1750 New York, NY 10271

646-292-8310

tel:646-292-8310

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Support Brennan Center

[link removed]

View Online

[link removed]

Want to change how you receive these emails or unsubscribe? Click here

[link removed]

to update your preferences.

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]