Trump Ordered Troops Into Three States Over Governors' Objections. The Estimated Cost: $240 Million

Trump's Order, His Government's Violation

President Donald Trump sent troops into California without its governor's request, and his government turned them into a domestic police force: that was the finding of Judge Charles R. Breyer of the Northern District of California after a trial on the Los Angeles operations.¹² Breyer found a willful violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, the federal ban on military law enforcement: officials knowingly contradicted their own training and coached federal agencies on wording to circumvent the law.² Through mid-July 2025, troops accompanied immigration officers on about 75 percent of their enforcement and removal operations around Los Angeles.²

Trump then ordered call-ups for Portland and Chicago over their governors' objections, and courts blocked both deployments.³⁴ The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the three operations cost about $240 million through December 2025.⁵ The charge is that Trump repeatedly used military power beyond the limits Congress set by law, at the expense of taxpayers and the states' authority.⁶⁵⁷³

At an August 27, 2025 Cabinet meeting, Trump said of using the Guard in Chicago, "I have the right to do anything I want to do."² He named one condition, "If I think our country is in danger," and said it was in danger in those cities.²

Trump signed the first order on June 7, 2025.¹ It invoked 10 U.S.C. § 12406, which permits a Guard call-up for invasion or danger of invasion by a foreign nation, rebellion or danger of rebellion, or inability to execute federal law with the regular forces.⁸ His memorandum defined protests or violence that directly inhibit law enforcement as a form of rebellion, named no city, and authorized troops wherever those conditions existed or were likely to occur.¹⁷

That evening, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth used the authority to take 2,000 California Guard members out of state command and into federal service, a step called federalization.⁹² He took another 2,000 on June 9, and about 700 active-duty Marines followed.⁹² Neither Governor Gavin Newsom nor the California Legislature had requested them, and California sued.²¹⁰

Beyond Protecting Federal Buildings

The troops did far more than guard federal buildings.² On June 18, more than 300 supported a drug-enforcement operation at a marijuana farm in Mecca, over 140 miles from downtown Los Angeles, where Breyer found no specific threat or risk of riot.² They set up a perimeter with riot shields and military vehicles.² The operation's military summary reported narcotics seizures, approximately 87 suspected human-trafficking victims and disruption of marijuana cultivation linked to organized crime.²

On July 7, about 80 troops joined a show of presence at MacArthur Park that Hegseth personally approved.² The military's planning documents identified no high-value targets or threats to federal functions there.² Breyer found that federal agents faced no resistance and the troops provided no needed force protection.²

The military's training materials listed twelve prohibited law-enforcement functions, but troops were told orally that four were allowed: security patrols, traffic control, crowd control and riot control.² Breyer found that officials knowingly contradicted those materials.² The violations, he wrote, were systematic and willful orders to execute domestic law, not isolated acts by individual soldiers.²

On September 2, 2025, Breyer ruled against Trump, Hegseth and the Defense Department: "Defendants violated the Posse Comitatus Act willfully."² He rejected their claims of inherent constitutional authority and of an exemption for Guard members federalized under § 12406.² His civil order bound Hegseth and the Department but not Trump personally, allowed lawful protection of federal property, and left the remaining roughly 300 Guard members in place.² The Ninth Circuit paused the order on September 4.¹⁰ The University of Michigan's Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse records that the appeal was put on hold on January 12, 2026, pending related appeals.¹⁰

Six Months Under Federal Control

Hegseth extended the federalization on August 5 and October 16; both orders cited direction from Trump, and the October order extended service through February 2, 2026, keeping about 300 California Guard members in federal service six months after the first order.⁷

On December 10, Breyer blocked both extensions in a preliminary injunction and ordered the Guard returned to Newsom.⁷ He found Los Angeles had been calm by August and said the claim that the government still could not execute federal law bordered on a misrepresentation.⁷ He declined to bar future call-ups and did not revisit the appeals court's favorable ruling on the original June federalization.⁷

Trump Ordered Troops When Protesters Were Outnumbered

On September 27, 2025, Trump publicly directed Hegseth to send all necessary troops to Portland and authorized full force if necessary, describing the city as war ravaged and its ICE facilities as under siege.³ Governor Tina Kotek rejected a proposal to mobilize Oregon's Guard under her command.³ On September 28, carrying out Trump's direction, Hegseth instead called 200 Oregon Guard members into federal service for 60 days.³

A three-day trial before Judge Karin J. Immergut later established the conditions around the single ICE building at issue.³ Violent protests had occurred in June, but civilian law enforcement brought them under control.³ The federal officials responsible for protecting the building had not requested the deployments, Immergut found.³ Federal officers regularly outnumbered protesters in September; on the three days before Trump's post, crowds numbered fewer than 10, then 20, then 15.³ After the post, the crowds grew to 60 and then just under 200.³

A Trial Found No Rebellion

On October 4, Immergut temporarily blocked the order federalizing and deploying Oregon's Guard.³ Within hours, the administration redirected California Guard members to Portland; 200 were transported to Oregon the next day.³ Hegseth also authorized up to 400 Texas Guard members for Oregon and other states.³ Immergut said sending other states' troops appeared to contravene her first order.³ Nine Oregon troops also remained on duty after it; she criticized that apparent violation without finding contempt.³

A divided appeals panel allowed federal control of Oregon's Guard on October 20, but the full Ninth Circuit withdrew that permission eight days later, and a separate order kept deployment barred throughout.³ Immergut identified conflicting federal staffing figures: the panel had relied on the government's claim that 115 Federal Protective Service officers were diverted to Portland, but the government's written response suggested 20 to 31 between June 16 and October 5.³

After the trial, Immergut entered judgment on November 7: there was neither rebellion nor danger of rebellion, and Trump was not unable to enforce federal law with the regular forces in Oregon.³ Even giving his determination great deference, she found no colorable basis for invoking the rebellion provision and held that the deployment of unlawfully federalized troops also violated the Tenth Amendment.³

Her permanent injunction barred deployment; she stayed the part of her judgment blocking federalization, setting a 14-day stay for Oregon's Guard.³ On February 17, 2026, Oregon's attorney general announced the dismissal of the federal appeal and said Immergut's injunction stood.¹¹

Two Refusals, Then a Call-Up

Trump announced his intention before the call-up: a September 3, 2025 fundraising email promised to liberate Chicago regardless of its leaders' objections and ended, "WE’RE GOING TO DO IT ANYWAY."¹² In court, the government's lawyer did not dispute that stopping crime was the deployment's objective, but § 12406 requires invasion or danger of foreign invasion, rebellion or danger of rebellion, or inability to execute federal law with the regular forces.¹²⁸ Trump, the Seventh Circuit acknowledged, had made many statements suggesting the Guard should fight crime in Chicago generally; on appeal the government confined its argument to an inability to execute immigration laws, rather than general criminal laws.¹²

Governor JB Pritzker refused a voluntary Guard request in late September.¹² On October 4, 2025, the Illinois Guard commander received an ultimatum: agree within two hours or Hegseth would direct mobilization.¹² Pritzker refused again.¹² Trump called 300 Illinois Guard members into federal service that day, and Texas Guard members were federalized and sent to Chicago the next day.⁴

On October 9, Judge April M. Perry found Illinois likely to win its claim that the deployment exceeded § 12406 and issued a restraining order.¹² On October 16, the Seventh Circuit allowed federal control of the troops but kept deployment barred.¹² On the preliminary evidence, it found insufficient evidence that protests had significantly impeded immigration enforcement: facilities stayed open, disruptions were quickly contained, and the administration itself reported successful arrests and deportations.¹² It upheld Perry's decision to credit state and local accounts over three federal firsthand declarations that omitted material facts or conflicted with independent evidence, finding no clear error.¹² Later events could meet the statute's conditions, the court said, but the existing protest activity did not establish danger of rebellion.¹²

The Supreme Court Kept Chicago's Troops Blocked

The strongest defense joins a genuine danger to broad presidential discretion: federal officers faced violence, troops could protect them, and Congress let the President judge when a statutory emergency required the Guard.⁹⁴⁸ The Ninth Circuit found Trump's first California federalization likely lawful on June 19, holding that a governor has no veto and crediting declarations of violence, including a Molotov cocktail and an officer's shattered wrist.⁹ The Los Angeles trial also found some protesters violent, the Marines assigned only to protect federal property, and no known reports by Task Force 51 troops of violations of military use-of-force rules; Breyer found no evidence that the military's presence at federal buildings involved impermissible law enforcement.² In Chicago, the Supreme Court recognized significant resistance and some violence, and Justice Alito credited government declarations reporting more than 30 injured federal officers by early October.⁴

That defense has serious history behind it.¹³¹⁴ In Martin v. Mott (1827), the Supreme Court treated a President's emergency determination under an earlier militia law as conclusive; the case concerned an invasion-related wartime call-up.¹³ President Eisenhower federalized Arkansas's Guard in 1957 to enforce court orders, invoking the Insurrection Act after ordering the obstructors to disperse.¹⁴ Trump did not invoke that Act in Los Angeles, and he invoked no statutory exception to the military policing ban in Illinois.²⁴

But the courts set limits.⁹³ Even while finding the June call-up likely lawful, the Ninth Circuit rejected immunity from judicial review, would not permit a call-up with no evidence or in bad faith, and authorized no particular troop activity.⁹ Breyer later found actual military policing in Los Angeles, and Immergut found no qualifying emergency in Oregon even under a deferential standard.²³

On December 23, 2025, the Supreme Court refused to lift the Illinois deployment bar.⁴ Under the Court's preliminary reading, Trump likely needed both lawful authority to use the regular military to enforce laws and inability to enforce them with those troops.⁴ The government had identified no such authority in Illinois.⁴ The Court left open whether a President's findings can be reviewed.⁴

Three justices dissented.⁴ Alito, joined by Thomas, argued that the Court had used an argument Illinois forfeited, added words to the statute and thwarted protection of officers; Gorsuch dissented separately, emphasizing the unresolved meaning of § 12406(3).⁴ Kavanaugh agreed with the result but cautioned that the ruling did not address the Insurrection Act and could encourage greater use of the regular military instead of the Guard.⁴

About $240 Million, Including Missions Courts Prevented

CBO estimated costs through December 2025 of $193 million for Los Angeles, $26 million for Portland and $21 million for Chicago, about $240 million combined.⁵ Its broader $496 million estimate also covered Washington, Memphis and the Texas standby force.⁵

Trump authorized troops to protect federal functions; in Los Angeles, Breyer found, their use expanded into prohibited policing.¹² In Portland and Chicago, CBO found, legal challenges prevented troops from carrying out their intended missions, although they were stationed nearby after mobilization.⁵ Mobilized troops awaiting deployment away from home incurred essentially the same costs as deployed troops.⁵ These were bills taxpayers incurred even where courts prevented the planned military intervention.⁵

California also lost control of its remaining federalized troops for six months, and Breyer found constitutional injury in the seizure of its Guard from state control.⁷

On December 31, eight days after the Supreme Court ruling, Trump announced the end of the Los Angeles, Portland and Chicago deployments.⁵⁴ The Clearinghouse records that the government withdrew its request to keep California's return-to-state-control order paused; on December 31 the Ninth Circuit lifted that pause, making the December 10 injunction fully operative.¹⁰ CBO reported that the military announced their demobilization on January 21, 2026, although 200 Texas Guard members remained mobilized on standby in Texas.⁵ CNN reported that Trump credited the troops with reducing crime and said federal forces would return when crime rose again.¹⁵ Its account supplied no city crime figures or evidence that the Guard caused a decline.¹⁵

Trump also used the Guard against crime elsewhere: his August 2025 Washington order made the mission last until he determined order was restored; in December an appeals court let it continue while the appeal proceeded, finding his claimed authority likely valid on an early record and leaving military policing undecided.¹⁶¹⁷ In July 2026, NPR reported that the Pentagon had confirmed an extension of Washington's Guard mission through Inauguration Day 2029 unless Trump ended it sooner.¹⁸ In Memphis, Trump requested Guard units for a crime task force and Governor Bill Lee agreed; those troops answered to Lee, and Tennessee's appeals court reversed an injunction for lack of standing without deciding legality.¹⁹²⁰ In a July 5, 2026 preliminary account, Tennessee investigators said two Guard soldiers assigned to the Memphis task force shot and killed 20-year-old Tyrin Johnson during a pursuit; he was armed and reportedly had fired shots. AP reported that Memphis police said he turned toward the soldiers with his weapon. But Action News 5 reported on August 27 that Johnson's autopsy showed a gunshot wound entering his back and exiting his chest.²¹ The preliminary account made no finding of wrongdoing, and the soldiers remained under Governor Lee's command.²²²³²⁰

The Power Was His. The Limits Were Congress's.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to prescribe when the militia can execute federal law, and gives the President command when it is called into federal service.⁶ It provides impeachment and removal for high crimes and misdemeanors; Hamilton's Federalist No. 65 describes that category as abuse or violation of public trust, while warning that partisan strength can displace judgments of innocence or guilt.⁶²⁴

Trump signed the California order, directed troops to Portland and called up Illinois's Guard.¹³⁴ His government used troops for policing that a trial judge found willfully violated federal law.² It federalized troops in Oregon where another trial judge found no qualifying emergency.³ It sought an Illinois deployment that the Supreme Court kept blocked for lack of an identified legal authority at that preliminary stage.⁴ CBO's estimate of the cost: about $240 million through December 2025.⁵ Those acts make the charge: repeated misuse of military power that Congress confined by law, at the expense of taxpayers and the states' authority.⁶⁵⁷³ That is an abuse of public trust for Congress to judge through impeachment.⁶²⁴