Consider This from NPR

Episode: Can Trump call the National Guard into Chicago too?
Date: August 26, 2025
Host: Ailsa Chang
Guest: Steve Vladek (Georgetown University law professor)
Episode Length: ~11 minutes of core content

Brief Overview

This episode examines President Trump's recent deployments of the National Guard in Washington, D.C., the legal authority underpinning such actions, and whether he could extend those deployments to other cities, like Chicago. Drawing on expert legal commentary and reactions from local residents and officials, the episode explores the tension between federal action and local control, the historical context for military involvement in domestic law enforcement, and the complex legal landscape shaping these contentious moves.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. The Situation in Washington, D.C.

• Deployment Details: For over two weeks, 2,000+ National Guard troops have patrolled Washington, D.C., now under arms.
  • "[The] National Guard now carrying weapons on patrol in Washington, D.C. the move marking a major escalation..." — Steve Vladek [00:16]
• Presidential Framing: President Trump has declared a "crime emergency," calling for harsh penalties and heightened federal presence.
  • "On Tuesday, he called for the death penalty for those who commit murder in Washington." — Ailsa Chang [00:24]
• D.C. Residents' View: Local perspectives reveal skepticism about both the necessity and the president's motives:
  • "I think that he wants to destroy the Democratic Party... He knows that he can go into these cities that runs by a Democrat and control it..." — Justina Wilkins Jordan [00:45]
  • "I would say President Trump, sit down and listen. It's not all about you and the Republicans. You can't control the world. I feel... he definitely want[s] to be a dictator." — Justina Wilkins Jordan [01:25]
  • "I think the idea that this is some, like, state of emergency that we're living in, it's not how I feel and I don't think it's how the people that we know here feel." — Ryan Wong [01:57]
• Crime Statistics: Despite political narrative, violent crime is at a 30-year low in D.C. (Justice Department stats, 2024).
• Public Opinion: Nearly 8 in 10 residents oppose the executive order federalizing D.C. law enforcement (Washington Post poll). [02:07]

2. Could Trump Send the National Guard Into Other Cities?

• Trump’s Suggestion: Openly considering sending National Guard troops to cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Baltimore, and Oakland, citing crime. [02:25]
• Local Response: Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson sharply rejects the possibility:
  • "The city of Chicago is not calling for American troops to occupy American cities. It's not democratic. It's unconstitutional. It's illegal and costly." — Brandon Johnson [02:45]

3. The Legal Framework — Steve Vladek Explains

• Unique Authority in D.C.:
  • "With regard to the D.C. National Guard ... The president is always the commander in chief ... He can use them at any time. He doesn't need anyone's permission." — Steve Vladek [04:44]
• Out-of-State National Guard Deployments:
  • Red-state governors have sent their Guard troops to D.C. using a little-known 2006 law — an untested approach. [04:44]
• Limits Outside D.C.:
  • "In other states ... the only way President Trump could directly command the National Guard would be to formally federalize it... And that would expose whatever he would try to, I think, a significant risk of litigation." — Steve Vladek [05:52]
• Federalization Without Local Consent:
  • Citing the Insurrection Act (since 1807), the president can sometimes send troops without a governor’s consent, but usually only in specific emergency circumstances (e.g., protecting federal property, inability of local authorities to enforce laws).
  • "What President Trump did earlier this year in California was based on his assertion that the federal forces were necessary to defend federal property and federal personnel..." — Steve Vladek [06:49]

4. Legal Challenges and Arguments

• Potential Court Arguments: Cities/states may challenge federalization by asserting:
  • The factual basis for a federal intervention doesn’t exist.
  • Even if federalization is lawful, using Guard troops for routine law enforcement may not be, except for securing federal property or officers.
  • When red-state Guard units are sent into other states under the 2006 law, the consent of the receiving governor may be legally required.
  • "You have to have the consent of the receiving state governor, or else you have a massive violation of the equality of state's rights under the Constitution." — Steve Vladek [08:44]

5. Historical Context: Military vs. Law Enforcement

• Historical Reluctance: Founders sought to maintain a "wall" between the military and policing civilians, rooted in abuses under British rule.
  • "One of the charges against King George III... was that he was using the military to effectively supplant civilian rule in the colonies." — Steve Vladek [09:08]
• Rare Applications: The Insurrection Act has been used sparingly; last deployment was in LA during 1992 Rodney King riots.
  • "For President Trump to cross that line... is not just challenging those legal precedents. It really is challenging the very, very strong norm we have in this country that we don't have the military doing law enforcement." — Steve Vladek [09:08]

6. Can Trump Leave Troops in D.C. Indefinitely?

• Statutory Reality: As laws stand, little exists to curb a president from maintaining an emergency or extended troop presence in D.C.; Congress granted significant power over the nation’s capital.
  • "For better or for worse, and I would argue for worse, Congress has given the President an awful lot of power over the District of Columbia." — Steve Vladek [10:35]
• Key Takeaway: D.C. is constitutionally and legally an outlier; what’s permitted there does not automatically apply to other cities.
  • "Just because we're getting conditioned ... doesn't mean we should feel the same if you see that in, you know, Times Square or Grant Park." — Steve Vladek [11:07]

Memorable Quotes & Notable Moments

• "I think that he wants to destroy the Democratic Party. He knows that he can go into these cities that runs by a Democrat and control it..."
  — Justina Wilkins Jordan (D.C. resident), [00:45]
• "The city of Chicago is not calling for American troops to occupy American cities. It's not democratic. It's unconstitutional. It's illegal and costly."
  — Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, [02:45]
• "In D.C. the National Guard has much broader power ... In other states ... the only way President Trump could directly command the National Guard would be to formally federalize it."
  — Steve Vladek, [05:35]
• "Congress has given the President an awful lot of power over the District of Columbia ... reflecting a series of historical and structural quirks about the nation's capital."
  — Steve Vladek, [10:35]
• "We don't have the military doing law enforcement."
  — Steve Vladek, [09:08]

Key Timestamps

• 00:00–02:25 — Resident and mayoral perspectives on federal intervention and public feeling in D.C. and Chicago
• 04:44–06:15 — Steve Vladek explains legal authority behind National Guard deployment in D.C. vs. other states
• 06:49–08:58 — Discussion of legal hurdles and challenges for deploying Guard in states without consent, Insurrection Act context
• 09:08–11:07 — Historical context, why the US keeps a separation between military and police, the implications of current actions
• 10:35–11:07 — The difference between D.C. and other cities; limits of presidential power outside the capital

Conclusion

This episode provides a nuanced, legally grounded look at the Trump administration’s National Guard deployments, highlighting resistance from cities and examining the significant constitutional and historical barriers to federal military involvement in local law enforcement. Steve Vladek’s insights stress that what’s permissible in D.C. is not easily transferable elsewhere, and broad presidential authority remains checked by law, norms, and, potentially, legal challenges. The episode closes by underlining the importance of staying alert to the distinction between D.C. and other U.S. cities regarding federal intervention.