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

Select a Section to Explore

Chapter 1 — Los Angeles: Troops Used as Police

Chapter 2 — Portland: An Emergency the Evidence Did Not Support

Chapter 3 — Chicago: Crime Was Not a License to Call Up Troops

Chapter 4 — The Cost and the Abuse of Power

1 · Los Angeles: Troops Used as Police

1 · Los Angeles: Troops Used as Police — select a subtopic

1.1 — Trump's Order, His Government's Violation

1.2 — Beyond Protecting Federal Buildings

1.3 — Six Months Under Federal Control

1 · Los Angeles: Troops Used as Police

1.1 · Los Angeles: Troops Used as Police

Trump's Order, His Government's Violation

President Trump took California's National Guard into federal service without a request from its governor. A federal trial judge found that his government then used troops for domestic policing, willfully violating the law. He found that officials contradicted their own training and coached agencies on wording to get around the ban. The injunction was paused on appeal.

Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →

Sources

[1]Presidential Memorandum, Department of Defense Security for the Protection of Department of Homeland Security Functions (June 7, 2025)

[2]Opinion Granting Injunctive Relief, Newsom v. Trump, No. 3:25-cv-04870-CRB (N.D. Cal. ECF 176, Sept. 2, 2025) (Breyer, J.)

[3]Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Oregon v. Trump, No. 3:25-cv-01756-IM (D. Or. ECF 146, Nov. 7, 2025) (Immergut, J.)

[4]Trump v. Illinois, No. 25A443, 607 U.S. ___ (Dec. 23, 2025) (on application for stay)

[5]Congressional Budget Office, letter to Sen. Jeff Merkley, Estimating the Costs of Troop Deployments to U.S. Cities (Jan. 28, 2026)

[6]Constitution of the United States, art. I, § 8, cl. 15; art. II, §§ 2 and 4 (National Archives transcription)

[7]Order Granting Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Newsom v. Trump, No. 3:25-cv-04870-CRB (N.D. Cal. ECF 225, Dec. 10, 2025) (Breyer, J.)

[8]10 U.S.C. § 12406 (National Guard in Federal service: call)

[9]Newsom v. Trump, No. 25-3727 (9th Cir. June 19, 2025) (per curiam) (order granting stay pending appeal)

[10]Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse (University of Michigan Law School), case summary, Newsom v. Trump

1.2 · Los Angeles: Troops Used as Police

Beyond Protecting Federal Buildings

More than 300 troops supported a drug operation at a farm over 140 miles from downtown Los Angeles, where the judge found no specific threat of riot. Hegseth also approved a show of presence at MacArthur Park that met no resistance and needed no troop protection. The judge found that the policing came from systematic orders, not isolated misconduct by soldiers.

Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →

Sources

[2]Opinion Granting Injunctive Relief, Newsom v. Trump, No. 3:25-cv-04870-CRB (N.D. Cal. ECF 176, Sept. 2, 2025) (Breyer, J.)

[10]Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse (University of Michigan Law School), case summary, Newsom v. Trump

1.3 · Los Angeles: Troops Used as Police

Six Months Under Federal Control

Hegseth kept about 300 California Guard members under federal control for six months; both extension orders cited direction from Trump. In December 2025, Breyer blocked the extensions and ordered the Guard returned to the governor. He found that Los Angeles had been calm by August. His ruling was preliminary and left future call-ups open.

Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →

Sources

[7]Order Granting Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Newsom v. Trump, No. 3:25-cv-04870-CRB (N.D. Cal. ECF 225, Dec. 10, 2025) (Breyer, J.)

2 · Portland: An Emergency the Evidence Did Not Support

2 · Portland: An Emergency the Evidence Did Not Support — select a subtopic

2.1 — Trump Ordered Troops When Protesters Were Outnumbered

2.2 — A Trial Found No Rebellion

2 · Portland: An Emergency the Evidence Did Not Support

2.1 · Portland: An Emergency the Evidence Did Not Support

Trump Ordered Troops When Protesters Were Outnumbered

Trump ordered troops to Portland in September 2025, calling it war ravaged and authorizing full force if necessary. A trial judge found that violent protests had subsided and that federal officers regularly outnumbered protesters that month. On the three days before his order, crowds numbered fewer than 10, then 20, then 15. Oregon's governor opposed the call-up.

Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →

Sources

[3]Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Oregon v. Trump, No. 3:25-cv-01756-IM (D. Or. ECF 146, Nov. 7, 2025) (Immergut, J.)

2.2 · Portland: An Emergency the Evidence Did Not Support

A Trial Found No Rebellion

After a court blocked Oregon's call-up, the administration sent 200 California Guard members to Oregon. After a trial, Judge Karin Immergut found the call-up violated federal law and the Tenth Amendment. She gave the President great deference and still found no rebellion or inability to enforce the law. Nine Oregon troops also remained on duty after the first order; she criticized that apparent violation without finding contempt.

Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →

Sources

[3]Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Oregon v. Trump, No. 3:25-cv-01756-IM (D. Or. ECF 146, Nov. 7, 2025) (Immergut, J.)

[11]Oregon Department of Justice, Attorney General Dan Rayfield Issues Statement on Dismissal of Federal Appeal in National Guard Case (Feb. 17, 2026)

3 · Chicago: Crime Was Not a License to Call Up Troops

3 · Chicago: Crime Was Not a License to Call Up Troops — select a subtopic

3.1 — Two Refusals, Then a Call-Up

3.2 — The Supreme Court Kept Chicago's Troops Blocked

3 · Chicago: Crime Was Not a License to Call Up Troops

3.1 · Chicago: Crime Was Not a License to Call Up Troops

Two Refusals, Then a Call-Up

Trump said he wanted troops to stop crime in Chicago even if local leaders opposed him. Illinois Governor JB Pritzker refused twice. Trump called 300 Illinois Guard members into federal service on October 4, 2025, and Texas Guard members followed. Federal courts barred deployment while allowing the troops to remain under federal control.

Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →

Sources

[4]Trump v. Illinois, No. 25A443, 607 U.S. ___ (Dec. 23, 2025) (on application for stay)

[8]10 U.S.C. § 12406 (National Guard in Federal service: call)

[12]Appendix to Application for a Stay, Trump v. Illinois, No. 25A443 (U.S. filed Oct. 17, 2025), reproducing the rulings in Illinois v. Trump of the N.D. Ill. (Perry, J., Oct. 9 and 10, 2025) and the Seventh Circuit (No. 25-2798, Oct. 16, 2025)

3.2 · Chicago: Crime Was Not a License to Call Up Troops

The Supreme Court Kept Chicago's Troops Blocked

The administration argued that troops were protecting federal officers and that Congress gave the President broad discretion. Violence was real, and the Ninth Circuit had found the first California call-up likely lawful. Three Supreme Court justices would have allowed the Chicago deployment. The Court nevertheless kept it blocked in a preliminary ruling because the government had not identified authority for military law enforcement in Illinois.

Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →

Sources

[2]Opinion Granting Injunctive Relief, Newsom v. Trump, No. 3:25-cv-04870-CRB (N.D. Cal. ECF 176, Sept. 2, 2025) (Breyer, J.)

[3]Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Oregon v. Trump, No. 3:25-cv-01756-IM (D. Or. ECF 146, Nov. 7, 2025) (Immergut, J.)

[4]Trump v. Illinois, No. 25A443, 607 U.S. ___ (Dec. 23, 2025) (on application for stay)

[8]10 U.S.C. § 12406 (National Guard in Federal service: call)

[9]Newsom v. Trump, No. 25-3727 (9th Cir. June 19, 2025) (per curiam) (order granting stay pending appeal)

[13]Martin v. Mott, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 19 (1827) (Story, J.) (Cornell LII rendering)

[14]Executive Order 10730, Providing Assistance for the Removal of an Obstruction of Justice Within the State of Arkansas (Sept. 24, 1957) (American Presidency Project transcription)

4 · The Cost and the Abuse of Power

4 · The Cost and the Abuse of Power — select a subtopic

4.1 — About $240 Million, Including Missions Courts Prevented

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

4 · The Cost and the Abuse of Power

4.1 · The Cost and the Abuse of Power

About $240 Million, Including Missions Courts Prevented

CBO estimated $193 million for Los Angeles, $26 million for Portland and $21 million for Chicago through December 2025. It said legal challenges prevented troops from carrying out their intended Portland and Chicago missions, although the mobilized troops still incurred costs. Trump announced withdrawal eight days after the Supreme Court ruling. Withdrawal ended the operations but did not recover the money or restore the months of state control already lost.

Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →

Sources

[1]Presidential Memorandum, Department of Defense Security for the Protection of Department of Homeland Security Functions (June 7, 2025)

[2]Opinion Granting Injunctive Relief, Newsom v. Trump, No. 3:25-cv-04870-CRB (N.D. Cal. ECF 176, Sept. 2, 2025) (Breyer, J.)

[4]Trump v. Illinois, No. 25A443, 607 U.S. ___ (Dec. 23, 2025) (on application for stay)

[5]Congressional Budget Office, letter to Sen. Jeff Merkley, Estimating the Costs of Troop Deployments to U.S. Cities (Jan. 28, 2026)

[7]Order Granting Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Newsom v. Trump, No. 3:25-cv-04870-CRB (N.D. Cal. ECF 225, Dec. 10, 2025) (Breyer, J.)

[10]Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse (University of Michigan Law School), case summary, Newsom v. Trump

[15]Donald Judd, CNN, Trump says he’s withdrawing National Guard from Chicago, Los Angeles and Portland (Dec. 31, 2025), as carried by KEYT

[16]Presidential Memorandum, Restoring Law and Order in the District of Columbia (Aug. 11, 2025)

[17]Order, District of Columbia v. Trump, No. 25-5418 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 17, 2025) (per curiam) (granting stay pending appeal)

[18]Kat Lonsdorf, NPR, Trump's National Guard deployment in D.C. has been extended until 2029 (July 14, 2026), as carried by KPBS

[19]Presidential Memorandum, Restoring Law and Order in Memphis (Sept. 15, 2025)

[20]Harris v. Lee, No. M2025-01915-COA-R9-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 28, 2026) (Bennett, J.)

[21]Jacob Gallant, Action News 5, Autopsy: Man killed by National Guard was shot in back (Aug. 27, 2026)

[22]Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, news release, TBI Agents Investigating Memphis Officer-Involved Shooting (July 5, 2026)

[23]Associated Press, National Guard members on patrol in Memphis fatally shoot man during pursuit, police say (July 5, 2026), as carried by WTOP

4.2 · The Cost and the Abuse of Power

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

Trump signed the California order, directed the Portland call-up and called up Illinois's Guard. Courts found that his government crossed legal limits on military policing and federalization. Congress sets those limits under the Constitution. Repeatedly using military power beyond them is an abuse of the public trust that Congress can judge through impeachment.

Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →

Sources

[1]Presidential Memorandum, Department of Defense Security for the Protection of Department of Homeland Security Functions (June 7, 2025)

[2]Opinion Granting Injunctive Relief, Newsom v. Trump, No. 3:25-cv-04870-CRB (N.D. Cal. ECF 176, Sept. 2, 2025) (Breyer, J.)

[3]Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Oregon v. Trump, No. 3:25-cv-01756-IM (D. Or. ECF 146, Nov. 7, 2025) (Immergut, J.)

[4]Trump v. Illinois, No. 25A443, 607 U.S. ___ (Dec. 23, 2025) (on application for stay)

[5]Congressional Budget Office, letter to Sen. Jeff Merkley, Estimating the Costs of Troop Deployments to U.S. Cities (Jan. 28, 2026)

[6]Constitution of the United States, art. I, § 8, cl. 15; art. II, §§ 2 and 4 (National Archives transcription)

[7]Order Granting Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Newsom v. Trump, No. 3:25-cv-04870-CRB (N.D. Cal. ECF 225, Dec. 10, 2025) (Breyer, J.)

[24]Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 65 (Avalon Project, Yale Law School)