Trump Withdraws National Guard, Dares Cities to Keep Order Without Him

Paul Riverbank, 1/1/2026National Guard troops are leaving Chicago, Los Angeles, and Portland after court rulings constrained President Trump’s authority, spotlighting a fierce legal and political struggle over federal power, state rights, and the limits of presidential intervention in local law enforcement.

President Trump, never one to shy away from a dramatic flourish, took to Truth Social with a message that brimmed with confidence. “We are removing the National Guard from Chicago, Los Angeles, and Portland, despite the fact that CRIME has been greatly reduced by having these great Patriots in those cities, and ONLY by that fact,” he posted. He went a step further, painting an almost apocalyptic picture of what he claimed would’ve happened if federal forces had not stepped in. “Portland, Los Angeles, and Chicago were GONE if it weren’t for the Federal Government,” he wrote, though he added a hint of warning: "We will come back, perhaps in a much different and stronger form, when crime begins to soar again—Only a question of time!”

Yet, behind the rhetoric, the decision was more a matter of legal compulsion than presidential willpower. Just a week earlier, the Supreme Court kneecapped Trump’s efforts to keep Guard units deployed in Chicago, rejecting the administration’s reliance on an old statute aimed at situations when civilian authorities cannot keep the peace. The tide of judicial opinions has shifted; judges have begun dissecting the boundaries of federal authority over state military units.

In Los Angeles, federal lawyers retreated from an attempt to hold command over the local Guard as their appeal spun through the courts. Their withdrawal followed a decisive ruling in Trump v. Illinois that forced a public reckoning with how—and for how long—a president can override governors on domestic deployments.

California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, wasted little time responding. On X (formerly Twitter), he wrote: “This admission by Trump and his occult cabinet members means this illegal intimidation tactic will finally come to an end.” The governor also waited for the Ninth Circuit to issue a formal order restoring control of the Guard to Sacramento.

While the press tracked the departures, a look at federal records told the underlying story. At the peak, about 300 National Guard members in California answered to the White House; at least a hundred remained in Los Angeles as recently as early this month. Many were stationed inside federal buildings, keeping a low profile, only to vanish in the night after a judge ordered their removal. The administration insisted their role was essential to maintain calm amid public tension over immigration raids and civil protests.

The legal standoff was unyielding. Judge Charles Breyer of the Northern District struck a blunt tone in his ruling, declaring Trump’s takeover of California’s Guard during the unrest unlawful. "Handing unchecked authority to the executive to control state troops indefinitely," Breyer cautioned, “upsets the delicate balance the Constitution demands between states and Washington.” With that, he returned command of the troops to Governor Newsom, framing the dispute as one with stakes far beyond the current crisis.

Nor was California alone in its predicament. Federal judges in Oregon and Illinois are now digging into similar questions about the role of the White House—and whether the courts should serve as a brake on executive ambitions, even when public safety is at stake. Notably, some of the most pointed judicial skepticism has come from Republican appointees, highlighting that concern over executive reach doesn’t run neatly along partisan lines.

With the courts dominating headlines, Washington lawmakers have started stepping into the fray. Some in Congress, wary of the line blurring between military muscle and local policing, are voicing discomfort about what this spells for civil liberties and the foundational principles of federalism.

Tension between federal muscle and local control is hardly a recent invention. But these past weeks have put the issue in stark relief—on courthouse steps, in city halls, and across airwaves. The departing National Guard troops mark more than just the end of a federal mission in three of America’s largest cities; they serve as a reminder that the contest over presidential power and state sovereignty is not just a headline, but an ongoing American story, unresolved and evolving.

On a windswept Monday morning, as downtown Chicago stirred awake, National Guard convoys quietly rolled out, leaving behind a city still sorting through the aftershocks of federal intervention. Los Angeles and Portland saw similar exits—silent, efficient, and under a haze of ongoing debate about where federal power ends and local authority begins.President Trump, never one to shy away from a dramatic flourish, took to Truth Social with a message that brimmed with confidence. “We are removing the National Guard from Chicago, Los Angeles, and Portland, despite the fact that CRIME has been greatly reduced by having these great Patriots in those cities, and ONLY by that fact,” he posted. He went a step further, painting an almost apocalyptic picture of what he claimed would’ve happened if federal forces had not stepped in. “Portland, Los Angeles, and Chicago were GONE if it weren’t for the Federal Government,” he wrote, though he added a hint of warning: "We will come back, perhaps in a much different and stronger form, when crime begins to soar again—Only a question of time!”Yet, behind the rhetoric, the decision was more a matter of legal compulsion than presidential willpower. Just a week earlier, the Supreme Court kneecapped Trump’s efforts to keep Guard units deployed in Chicago, rejecting the administration’s reliance on an old statute aimed at situations when civilian authorities cannot keep the peace. The tide of judicial opinions has shifted; judges have begun dissecting the boundaries of federal authority over state military units.In Los Angeles, federal lawyers retreated from an attempt to hold command over the local Guard as their appeal spun through the courts. Their withdrawal followed a decisive ruling in Trump v. Illinois that forced a public reckoning with how—and for how long—a president can override governors on domestic deployments.California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, wasted little time responding. On X (formerly Twitter), he wrote: “This admission by Trump and his occult cabinet members means this illegal intimidation tactic will finally come to an end.” The governor also waited for the Ninth Circuit to issue a formal order restoring control of the Guard to Sacramento.While the press tracked the departures, a look at federal records told the underlying story. At the peak, about 300 National Guard members in California answered to the White House; at least a hundred remained in Los Angeles as recently as early this month. Many were stationed inside federal buildings, keeping a low profile, only to vanish in the night after a judge ordered their removal. The administration insisted their role was essential to maintain calm amid public tension over immigration raids and civil protests.The legal standoff was unyielding. Judge Charles Breyer of the Northern District struck a blunt tone in his ruling, declaring Trump’s takeover of California’s Guard during the unrest unlawful. "Handing unchecked authority to the executive to control state troops indefinitely," Breyer cautioned, “upsets the delicate balance the Constitution demands between states and Washington.” With that, he returned command of the troops to Governor Newsom, framing the dispute as one with stakes far beyond the current crisis.Nor was California alone in its predicament. Federal judges in Oregon and Illinois are now digging into similar questions about the role of the White House—and whether the courts should serve as a brake on executive ambitions, even when public safety is at stake. Notably, some of the most pointed judicial skepticism has come from Republican appointees, highlighting that concern over executive reach doesn’t run neatly along partisan lines.With the courts dominating headlines, Washington lawmakers have started stepping into the fray. Some in Congress, wary of the line blurring between military muscle and local policing, are voicing discomfort about what this spells for civil liberties and the foundational principles of federalism.Tension between federal muscle and local control is hardly a recent invention. But these past weeks have put the issue in stark relief—on courthouse steps, in city halls, and across airwaves. The departing National Guard troops mark more than just the end of a federal mission in three of America’s largest cities; they serve as a reminder that the contest over presidential power and state sovereignty is not just a headline, but an ongoing American story, unresolved and evolving.