Lead: President Donald Trump announced on Wednesday that he is withdrawing federally controlled National Guard troops from Los Angeles, Portland, Ore., and Chicago after recent court actions raised legal doubts about federal authority to keep the forces deployed. The removal followed a U.S. Court of Appeals order that returned control of California’s Guard to Gov. Gavin Newsom and came after a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision limited the scope for domestic troop deployments. The president framed the move as a response to what he described as reduced crime in those cities but left open the possibility of renewed federal intervention if conditions worsen. California officials said the change reflects successful legal challenges that restored state control.
Key Takeaways
- The Justice Department withdrew a request to retain federal control of California Guard units, prompting a 9th Circuit order returning those troops to state authority.
- Roughly 2,000 National Guard troops were mobilized to Los Angeles in mid-2025; most left in August, with court records showing about 300 remained under federal control until this month, including roughly 100 in Los Angeles.
- California officials estimate the deployments cost taxpayers nearly $120 million, based on figures from the California National Guard.
- LAPD records show violent and property crime in Los Angeles fell about 8% this year, a statistic the city cites when assessing federal claims about public-safety trends.
- The Supreme Court previously ruled that domestic deployments of armed forces are permissible only in “exceptional” circumstances, a decision that undercut the administration’s legal theory.
- Similar legal disputes over Guard deployments are active in Oregon and Illinois, with multiple judges questioning whether such federal actions are beyond judicial review.
Background
Since mid-2025 the Trump administration has federalized state National Guard units to position troops near federal buildings in several Democratic-run cities, arguing the presence was necessary to protect federal property and personnel amid protests tied to immigration enforcement. California’s leadership, led by Gov. Gavin Newsom, challenged the move in court, calling the federalization unlawful and unprecedented. The administration’s legal filings had advanced a theory that once Guard troops are federalized they could remain under presidential control for an extended period and outside routine judicial scrutiny.
That theory ran into resistance from judges across jurisdictions, including a federal district judge in the Northern District of California who said the administration’s claim would upset the constitutional balance of state and federal authority. The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent order, which limited the circumstances under which troops could be used domestically, further narrowed the legal basis for long-term federal control. The legal fight has unfolded alongside political disputes: federal officials argued deployments prevented worse unrest, while state officials said troops were used as political theater and imposed large costs on taxpayers.
Main Event
This week the Justice Department formally withdrew a request to keep California Guard units federalized while appeals continued, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order returning control of the California National Guard to Gov. Newsom. The development followed a separate Supreme Court action that blocked a similar deployment in Chicago and signaled limits on presidential authority for domestic troop deployments. President Trump announced the move as a step back but characterized it as driven by falling crime in the affected cities rather than legal constraints.
Gov. Newsom’s office framed the Court’s and appeals court’s actions as a vindication of California’s legal challenge. Newsom directed state Guard leadership to move quickly to demobilize federal service members and bring them home, and California officials have flagged an estimated $120 million cost associated with the deployments. The state’s legal team cited court victories and appellate filings as the proximate cause for regaining control of its Guard units.
On the ground, most Guardsmen assigned under federal control had been stationed to protect federal facilities in downtown and West Los Angeles and did not routinely conduct wide street patrols. Video and reporting earlier in the year showed troops leaving some federal buildings following court orders, and federal prosecutors reported limited success obtaining indictments in many alleged assaults on federal officers connected to the protests that prompted deployments.
Analysis & Implications
The courts’ pushback marks a significant check on executive power to deploy armed forces within U.S. cities. By emphasizing that deployment authority is for “exceptional” circumstances, the Supreme Court and several lower-court decisions create a higher legal threshold for future federal use of state Guard units in domestic law enforcement roles. The rulings also reinforce the role of federal courts in reviewing executive actions that implicate state-federal balance and civil liberties.
Politically, the episode has both short- and long-term consequences. In the near term, governors and state leaders have reclaimed operational control of Guard units and the associated decisionmaking and costs. For the administration, the legal setbacks reduce an available tool for responding to civil unrest tied to immigration enforcement or other contentious issues, unless future facts clearly meet the courts’ “exceptional” standard.
Economically and administratively, restoring state control shifts responsibility for costs and deployment decisions back to governors, which may limit federal exposure but leave states to manage logistics, legal liabilities, and community relations. California’s nearly $120 million estimate for the operations underlines the fiscal impact of such federal mobilizations and may influence how states negotiate with federal partners in future incidents.
Comparison & Data
| City | Initial Troop Count | Reported Remaining | Crime change (year) | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Los Angeles | ~2,000 | ~100 | −8% (LAPD records) | ~$120 million (CA estimate) |
| Portland, Ore. | — | — | — | — |
| Chicago | — | — | — | — |
The table highlights available, confirmed figures for Los Angeles drawn from court filings, state estimates and LAPD statistics. Publicly available details for Portland and Chicago vary by jurisdiction and by the date of filings; those cases remain in active legal processes. The confirmed Los Angeles numbers show most federally federalized troops were demobilized before year’s end, with several hundred remaining under federal control until the recent appellate order.
Reactions & Quotes
State officials and legal advocates presented the court decisions as a validation of constitutional limits on federal authority.
“I’m glad President Trump has finally admitted defeat: we’ve said all along the federalization of the National Guard in California is illegal.”
Gov. Gavin Newsom (statement)
Administration allies defended the deployments as necessary at the time to protect federal property and personnel, and the president signaled the option to redeploy if officials judged conditions to have deteriorated.
“Portland, Los Angeles, and Chicago were GONE if it weren’t for the Federal Government stepping in… We will come back, perhaps in a much different and stronger form, when crime begins to soar again.”
President Donald Trump (Truth Social post)
California’s attorney general emphasized constitutional and civil-liberty concerns in the legal fight.
“For six months, California National Guard troops have been used as political pawns by a President desperate to be king.”
California Attorney General Rob Bonta (press release)
Unconfirmed
- President Trump’s claim that the troop withdrawal was driven solely by improved crime statistics is disputed by California officials and not definitively established.
- Assertions that Los Angeles would have “burned down” without federal troops are anecdotal and not corroborated by independent, citywide data linking Guard presence to the overall crime decline.
- Exact cost allocations and final invoicing related to the deployments remain subject to state and federal accounting processes and may change as reconciliations continue.
Bottom Line
The courts’ interventions have curtailed a prominent tool the federal government used to place military forces near federal installations in Democratic-led cities, reasserting judicial oversight and the principle that such deployments are exceptional. For state leaders, regaining command of the National Guard restores local control but imposes the financial and operational burdens the state described at the outset of litigation.
Politically, the episode will remain a flashpoint: federal officials may continue to signal willingness to use federal forces under different legal or factual circumstances, while governors and civil-liberty advocates will likely press for clearer limits and accountability. The legal precedents set in the coming months will shape how future domestic unrest and federal-state tensions are managed.
Sources
- Los Angeles Times (news report)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (official court website; appellate order referenced)
- Office of the Governor of California (official state press releases and statements)