Texas National Guard troops arrive in Illinois ahead of expected Chicago deployment – CBS News
Watch CBS News
Members of the Texas National Guard arrived in Illinois on Tuesday and are expected on the streets of Chicago as early as Wednesday at the request of President Trump. CBS News Homeland Security correspondent Nicole Sganga has the latest.
Gov. Tim Walz says he anticipates President Trump will send the National Guard to Minnesota.
Walz attended the North Star Summit for a panel with Gov. JB Pritzker of Illinois to discuss state and federal leadership.
“I think it’s logical for them to come here,” said Walz. “We fall into exactly what they’re trying to target, blue cities, in places that he wants to make an impact.”
The moderator asked Walz whether he was preparing for a possible deployment.
“We’re preparing for it. We’re preparing to use the court. We’re preparing to follow all the laws as they’re written to challenge them on this,” said Walz. “But I think it’s really important for the citizens to see this is not normal.”
Walz also said he began to think about the possibility of troops being sent to Minnesota months ago.
“Prior to last year, we started to think about what would happen. Governors were talking together about what the implications look like,” said Walz.
“You do your job, and we’ll do ours. And the fact of the matter is we’re doing ours. I don’t have to remind you; the government is shut down,” said Walz. “So yes, we’re preparing for it. But the challenge for governors is, we have to simultaneously deliver and do the services. And right now there is no desire in the federal government to do that. They’re not fulfilling their obligations, they’re not getting the work done, they’re not doing any of that.”
A federal judge in Oregon has temporarily blocked President Trump from deploying National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon, and an Illinois judge is weighing whether to block troops from entering Chicago. Nicole Sganga has details.
President Trump has ordered National Guard troops into two more American cities — Portland, Oregon, and Chicago. Ash-har Quraishi and Adam Yamaguchi report.
The state of Illinois and Chicago are suing the Trump administration over their plans to deploy the National Guard.
“The American people, regardless of where they reside, should not live under the threat of occupation by the United States military, particularly not simply because their city or state leadership has fallen out of a president’s favor,” the lawsuit states in its introduction.
In the lawsuit, which names both the state of Illinois and the city of Chicago as plaintiffs, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul writes, “Defendants’ deployment of federalized troops to Illinois is patently unlawful.” He continues, “Plaintiffs ask this court to halt the illegal, dangerous, and unconstitutional federalization of members of the National Guard of the United States, including both the Illinois and Texas National Guard.”
Raoul is asking for a temporary restraining order, saying deployment will cause “additional unrest,” “mistrust of police” an dharm to the state’s economy.
Over the weekend, a federal memo obtained by CBS News revealed up to 300 members of the Illinois National Guard would be federalized and deployed to “protect federal property” and “government personnel performing federal functions.”
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker confirmed that memo and said he had also been told an additional 400 other National Guard members from Texas would be deployed to Chicago and Portland, Oregon.
The quickly unfolding developments come as the administration portrays the Democrat-led cities as war-ravaged and lawless and amid Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigration. Officials in both cities have disputed the president’s characterizations, saying military intervention isn’t needed and it’s federal involvement that’s inflaming the situation.
The lawsuit alleges that “these advances in President Trump’s long-declared ‘War’ on Chicago and Illinois are unlawful and dangerous.”
“The American people, regardless of where they reside, should not live under the threat of occupation by the United States military, particularly not simply because their city or state leadership has fallen out of a president’s favor,” the lawsuit says.
Pritzker and Raoul will hold a news conference at 2 p.m. Monday, where they will also be joined by Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson. CBS News Chicago will stream that news conference live on our 24/7 news stream and on air.
Sara Tenenbaum is the Senior Digital Producer for CBS News Chicago covering breaking, local and community news in Chicago. She previously worked as a digital producer and senior digital producer for ABC7 Chicago.
The state of Illinois and Chicago are suing the Trump administration over their plans to deploy the National Guard.
“The American people, regardless of where they reside, should not live under the threat of occupation by the United States military, particularly not simply because their city or state leadership has fallen out of a president’s favor,” the lawsuit states in its introduction.
In the lawsuit, which names both the state of Illinois and the city of Chicago as plaintiffs, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul writes, “Defendants’ deployment of federalized troops to Illinois is patently unlawful.” He continues, “Plaintiffs ask this court to halt the illegal, dangerous, and unconstitutional federalization of members of the National Guard of the United States, including both the Illinois and Texas National Guard.”
Over the weekend, a federal memo obtained by CBS News revealed up to 300 members of the Illinois National Guard would be federalized and deployed to “protect federal property” and “government personnel performing federal functions.”
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker confirmed that memo and said he had also been told an additional 400 other National Guard members from Texas would be deployed to Chicago and Portland, Oregon.
President Trump first used the National Guard against anti-U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement protests in Los Angeles in the spring.
Pritzker and Raoul will hold a news conference at 2 p.m. Monday. CBS News Chicago will stream that news conference live on our 24/7 news stream and on air.
This is a developing news story. Check back with CBS News Chicago for updates.
Sara Tenenbaum is the Senior Digital Producer for CBS News Chicago covering breaking, local and community news in Chicago. She previously worked as a digital producer and senior digital producer for ABC7 Chicago.
A new CBS News poll shows a majority of Americans disapprove of how President Trump and congressional Republicans and Democrats have handled the government shutdown. Willie James Inman reports on that and Mr. Trump’s latest National Guard moves.
U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, issued the temporary restraining order, which is set to expire on Oct. 18, according to court records.
The plaintiffs say a deployment would violate the U.S. Constitution as well as a federal law that generally prohibits the military from being used to enforce domestic laws.
Immergut wrote that the case involves the intersection of three fundamental democratic principles: “the relationship between the federal government and the states, between the military and domestic law enforcement, and the balance of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government.
“Whether we choose to follow what the Constitution mandates with respect to these three relationships goes to the heart of what it means to live under the rule of law in the United States,” she wrote.
Generally speaking the president is allowed “a great level of deference” to federalize National Guard troops in situations where regular law enforcement forces are not able to execute the laws of the United States, the judge said.
However, she concluded that in the situation in Portland, the president “did not have a ‘colorable basis’ to invoke § 12406(3) to federalize the National Guard because the situation on the ground belied an inability of federal law enforcement officers to execute federal law.”
Plaintiffs were able to show that the demonstrations at the Portland immigration facility were not significantly violent or disruptive in the days or weeks leading up to the president’s order, the judge wrote, and “overall, the protests were small and uneventful.”
The judge added that, “The President’s determination was simply untethered to the facts.”
The Defense Department had said it was placing 200 members of Oregon’s National Guard under federal control for 60 days to protect federal property and personnel at locations where protests are occurring or likely to occur after Trump called the city “war-ravaged.”
The state of Oregon filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration last Sunday following the president’s announcement that he would send troops to Portland. The lawsuit argued that Mr. Trump lacks the authority to federalize the National Guard.
Following the ruling, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson indicated an appeal was likely, saying in a statement that “President Trump exercised his lawful authority to protect federal assets and personnel in Portland following violent riots and attacks on law enforcement — we expect to be vindicated by a higher court.”
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield called the ruling “a healthy check on the president.”
“It reaffirms what we already knew: Portland is not the president’s war-torn fantasy. Our city is not ravaged, and there is no rebellion,” Rayfield said in a statement. He added: “Members of the Oregon National Guard are not a tool for him to use in his political theater.”
“Today’s outcome is proof that Portlanders’ commitment to peaceful expression and civic unity truly matters,” Portland Mayor Keith Wilson said in a statement Saturday following the ruling. “We have not met aggression with aggression. We’ve stood firm, calm and grounded in our shared values and that is why this decision went our way. Portland has shown that peace is power.”
Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek has pushed back on Mr. Trump’s plans to send troops to Portland and told reporters at a news conference last week that the city “is a far cry from the war-ravaged community he has posted on social media.”
Earlier in September, Mr. Trump had described living in Portland as “like living in hell.”
The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building in Portland has been the site of nightly protests, and the demonstrations and occasional clashes with law enforcement. A handful of immigration and legal advocates often gather at the building during the day. At night, recent protests have typically drawn a couple dozen people.
The order Saturday comes after a broader effort from the administration in what Mr. Trump has characterized as a crackdown on crime in Democratic-led cities.
Mr. Trump deployed the National Guard and active-duty Marines to Los Angeles over the summer and as part of his law enforcement takeover in the District of Columbia.
On Saturday, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker said that the Trump administration intends to federalize 300 Illinois National Guard members after he was offered an ultimatum to deploy the troops himself but refused.
Last month, Mr. Trump signed a presidential memorandum mobilizing federal law enforcement agents to Memphis, Tennessee, at the request of the Tennessee governor.
Tensions are high in Portland, Oregon, as National Guardsmen could possibly be deployed there as early as this weekend. Federal agents and demonstrators squared off again, but Portland’s mayor and chief of police say they don’t need the help. Adam Yamaguchi reports.
President Trump is expected to expand his use of National Guard troops across a number of U.S. cities this week, including Portland, Oregon. In Memphis, CBS News has learned a multi-federal agency task force will likely start patrols by mid-week. Nicole Valdes has details.
Trump plans to send troops to Portland, Oregon; governor says it is “not needed here” – CBS News
Watch CBS News
Democratic Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek and other officials Saturday held a news conference to speak out against President Trump’s social media post announcing that he will send federal troops to Portland.
President Trump is escalating his use of the National Guard to crack down on crime in major cities. He appeared to shelve plans to send troops to Chicago, but said he will send them to Memphis instead.
In an interview on “Fox and Friends” Friday morning, President Trump said he is no longer sending the National Guard to Chicago, saying instead that they’ll be deployed to Memphis, Tennessee.
The White House has been sending mixed signals over whether they would be sending troops to Chicago for some time, even as immigration activity has ramped up under the banner of “Operation Midway Blitz.”
On Tuesday, Mr. Trump appeared to already be backtracking on plans to send the guard to Chicago, saying he would be announcing he’d be sending troops to another city “very shortly.” He appeared to make that announcement on the Fox News morning show Friday.
“I’ll be the first to say it now, we’re going to Memphis,” the president said. “I would have preferred going to Chicago.”
Mr. Trump then said he had spoken to a man he refused to name but said is the president of Union Pacific railroad, who told him he should send the National Guard to Memphis instead. The president said this man told him when he visited Memphis he was not allowed to even walk a single block and instead had to be driven in armored vehicles because the city is so unsafe.
The CEO of Union Pacific is Jim Vena; the company’s most recent president, Beth Whited, stepped down at the beginning of July and the company doesn’t list a replacement.
The president appeared to still be considering sending troops to Chicago one day, saying the same executive told him not to “lose” the city.
“He said ‘Don’t lose Chicago,'” Mr. Trump told the “Fox and Friends” hosts. “‘You’re gonna lose Chicago, sir. It’s a great city. You’re gonna lose Chicago.'”
The president did not say what he, or the executive, meant by saying he would “lose” Chicago. He also lashed out at Gov. JB Pritzker, calling him “loud” and once again claiming crime in Chicago is “out of control” as he spoke about shooting numbers.
This past weekend, Pritzker responded to Trump’s “Chipocalypse Now” post on his Truth Social account with a post on X, writing, “The President of the United States is threatening to go to war with an American city. This is not a joke. This is not normal. Donald Trump isn’t a strongman, he’s a scared man. Illinois won’t be intimidated by a wannabe dictator.”
Friday morning, Pritzker tweeted in response to the Memphis news, “It’s disturbing that the President is hellbent on sending troops onto America’s streets. Using those who serve in uniform as political props is insulting. None of this is normal.”
In his “Fox and Friends” appearance, Trump claimed the deployment of the National Guard to Memphis had the support of both Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee, a Republican, and Memphis Mayor Paul Young, a Democrat.
Young released a statement Thursday, writing in part, “I am committed to working to ensure any efforts strengthen our community and build on our progress. We agree with Governor Lee that effective support for Memphis comes through focused initiatives that deliver results like we have seen with the FBI, state troopers, and other law enforcement partnerships. What we need most are financial resources for intervention and prevention, additional patrol officers, and case support to strengthen MPD’s investigations.”
CBS News Chicago has reached out to the White House for comment and is waiting to hear back.
Sara Tenenbaum is the Senior Digital Producer for CBS News Chicago covering breaking, local and community news in Chicago. She previously worked as a digital producer and senior digital producer for ABC7 Chicago.
As National Guard troops patrol the streets of Washington, D.C., President Trump has threatened to send soldiers to other cities across the country to help stop crime, but are they legally allowed to perform law enforcement duties? The answer depends on who deploys them.
“We’re going to clean up our cities. We’re going to clean them up, so they don’t kill five people every weekend,” Mr. Trump said when asked about his intention to send National Guard troops to cities like Chicago.
Troops in Washington, D.C., are tasked with securing monuments, community patrols and area beautification, among other duties. But using the National Guard to “clean up our cities” is lined with legal red tape.
“National guard troops under the command of the governor of a state can perform law enforcement duties within that state,” Richard Painter, a law professor at the University of Minnesota, said.
That means if Gov. Tim Walz were to activate the National Guard in Minnesota, like what happened during the George Floyd riots in 2020, they could be authorized to act as law enforcement, including making arrests. That’s not exactly the case if the troops were activated by the president.
“National Guard troops under the command of the President of the United States have a status similar to the U.S. military and are prohibited by federal law from engaging in law enforcement activities in the U.S.,” said Painter before adding, “There are very few exceptions that would allow federal troops to be deployed for domestic law enforcement purposes.”
One of those exceptions is to enforce a federal court order, which happened in 1957 when President Dwight Eisenhower sent troops to Arkansas to enforce desegregation of schools.
“Attempting to take over policing in, say, Minneapolis, that is simply beyond the power of the federal government,” said Joseph Nunn, counsel in the Liberty and National Security program at the Brennan Center for Justice.
The rules for what federal troops can and can’t do are rooted in the Posse Comitatus Act from 1878.
“The Posse Comitatus Act bars the federal armed forces from participating in civilian law enforcement activities unless doing so has been expressly authorized by Congress,” Nunn said.
If National Guard troops are sent to Chicago, Nunn said it would be a similar situation to what occurred earlier this summer in Los Angeles, when the president sent the Guard as well as several hundred marines to assist Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations as well as protect federal agents and property.
“If the government attempts to push beyond that, if the president actually tries to interfere in state and local law enforcement, you will absolutely see litigation,” Nunn said.
Litigation is what happened in California. Gov. Gavin Newsom sued in response to Mr. Trump’s deployment of California’s National Guard to quell protests against immigration enforcement.
Earlier this month, a federal judge in California ruled that Mr. Trump violated federal law with how troops were deployed in Los Angeles this summer.
Washington — The Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for President Trump’s administration to resume sweeping immigration enforcement stops in the Los Angeles area for now as part of the president’s campaign to carry out mass deportations of people in the U.S. unlawfully.
The high court agreed to freeze a district court’s temporary restraining order that prevented federal immigration authorities from stopping people in Southern California without reasonable suspicion that they are in the U.S. unlawfully. That order barred officials from relying solely on certain factors like a person’s race or occupation as the basis for a detentive stop.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit largely rejected the Trump administration’s request to pause the district court’s order. The Justice Department then sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that the injunction issued by the district court hampered the ability of immigration authorities to enforce the nation’s immigration laws in Los Angeles and put them at risk of violating its order during routine investigative stops.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.
“That decision is yet another grave misuse of our emergency docket,” Sotomayor, joined by Kagan and Jackson, wrote of the majority’s move. “We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job. Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent.”
In response to the Supreme Court’s order, White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said “we look forward to full vindication on this front in short order, but in the meantime, the Trump Administration will continue fulfilling its mandate to arrest and deport criminal illegal aliens.”
The Department of Homeland Security praised the court’s move, calling it a “win for the safety of Californians and the rule of law.”
“DHS law enforcement will not be slowed down and will continue to arrest and remove the murderers, rapists, gang members and other criminal illegal aliens that Karen Bass continues to give safe harbor,” DHS spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said, referring to the mayor of Los Angeles.
In a statement of her own, Bass said the ruling “will lead to more working families being torn apart and fear of the very institutions meant to protect — not persecute — our people.”
“I want the entire nation to hear me when I say this isn’t just an attack on the people of Los Angeles, this is an attack on every person in every city in this country,” the mayor said. “Today’s ruling is not only dangerous — it’s un-American and threatens the fabric of personal freedom in the United States of America.”
The legal challenge
U.S. Border Patrol agents outside a press conference by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday, Aug. 14, 2025, in Los Angeles.
Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images
The greater Los Angeles area, located within the Central District of California, is home to nearly 20 million people. The Trump administration estimates that 2 million of its residents are in the country illegally and has said that the region is a “top enforcement priority.”
In June, federal immigration agencies began undertaking efforts to ramp up immigration enforcement in Los Angeles, which Mr. Trump called the “largest mass deportation operation … in history.” After protests broke out in response to enforcement operations at workplaces in the region, the Trump administration deployed members of the California National Guard and active-duty Marines to Los Angeles in June to protect federal property and immigration agents.
The dispute before the Supreme Court arose after three men who are in the U.S. illegally were arrested and filed a lawsuit seeking release from detention. The men, who live in Pasadena, were working as day laborers and were arrested in mid-June as part of a targeted enforcement action at a donut shop, according to court papers. They have since been released on bond.
The migrants, later joined by two U.S. citizens and four organizations, challenged the Trump administration’s immigration raids, alleging that officers violated their Fourth Amendment rights when conducting patrols and other enforcement operations. One of the plaintiffs, Brian Gavidia, was confronted by armed agents while working at a tow yard and repeatedly told officers he was a U.S. citizen as they tried to detain him.
The plaintiffs claimed that Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were targeting certain businesses and conducting “indiscriminate immigration operations.”
Last month, a federal district court agreed to issue a temporary restraining order that blocked federal agents from conducting immigration enforcement stops without reasonable suspicion that the person they are stopping is in the U.S. illegally. The order from U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong specified that agents could not rely solely on four factors as grounds for detaining people: apparent race or ethnicity; speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent; being at a specific location like a bus stop, agricultural site or day laborer pick-up site; and the type of work a person does.
In her decision, Frimpong, who was appointed by President Joe Biden, wrote there was a “mountain of evidence” that “roving patrols” were indiscriminately stopping and detaining people without reasonable suspicion in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
But in the request for emergency relief from the Supreme Court, Sauer, the solicitor general, called Frimpong’s injunction a “straitjacket on law-enforcement efforts.”
“The injunction wrongly brands countless lawful stops as unconstitutional, thereby hampering a basic law-enforcement tool, while turning every single stop in the District into a potential contempt trap,” he wrote in a filing. “No agent can confidently enforce the law and engage in routine stops when the district court may later refuse to credit that the stop reflected additional, permissible factors and instead treat virtually any stop as contemptuous misconduct.”
Lawyers for the plaintiffs said that the Trump administration’s pattern of conducting immigration enforcement stops without reasonable suspicion has done “immeasurable” harm.
“Numerous U.S. citizens and others who are lawfully present in this country have been subjected to significant intrusions on their liberty. Many have been physically injured; at least two were taken to a holding facility. And all have had to endure the prospect of unavoidable future intrusions based on broad demographic factors like the color of their skin,” they told the Supreme Court in a filing.
The lawyers warned that, if allowed, the Trump administration’s practices could ensnare millions of people in Southern California who are U.S. citizens or legally in the country in an “immigration dragnet.”
“The government’s extraordinary claim that it can get very close to justifying a seizure of any Latino person in the Central District because of the asserted number of Latino people there who are not legally present is anathema to the Constitution,” they said.
Melissa Quinn is a politics reporter for CBSNews.com. She has written for outlets including the Washington Examiner, Daily Signal and Alexandria Times. Melissa covers U.S. politics, with a focus on the Supreme Court and federal courts.
The National Guard was deployed to Washington, D.C., and reportedly may be sent to other cities. But wherever Americans live, it is speaking to larger issues – ranging from crime and their safety, to rights and freedoms and their views on the powers of a president.
Those in favor of President Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to cities are largely in his Republican base and say it reduces crime, feel it makes them personally safer — even if they don’t live in cities — and that in principle they’d support deployment to other U.S. cities.
The majority of Americans are opposed, though, and those who are, tend to feel their own rights and freedoms would be less secure as a result. They do not think it would be effective at reducing crime or make them any safer.
To those in favor, it’s not a case of red-versus-blue cities. They’d support the Guard being sent to either Democratic- or Republican-led places, or coming to their own local area as well.
To those opposed, they believe the president is acting out of politics more than crime prevention.
People who live in cities generally oppose the idea of sending troops to other cities and Americans in rural areas are mostly in favor of sending the Guard to other cities. Opinion is more tied to partisanship than geography, though.
The people who think the presence of the National Guard does reduce crime, but still oppose the deployment to Washington or elsewhere, tend to see Trump acting for political reasons, not just crime prevention.
The bulk of Americans, wherever they stand on this deployment, think in principle, both the president and a local leader like a mayor or governor should have the authority to deploy the National Guard. Fewer — including a lot of those opposed — think it should be only a local leader. Very few think it should be only Donald Trump.
Approval ratings
The policy on which one judges a president can of course affect the overall evaluation of him.
Republicans, and Trump’s supporters overall, say they’re judging him on immigration and deportation policy more than on his economy and inflation policies; that topic, plus crime, together far outpaces inflation and the economy as their most important metric.
Of late, the deployments may have the political effect of focusing on matters other than inflation, at least for the president’s political base. And that in turn has helped his overall numbers a bit.
His Republican approval now ticks back up over 90%, and his overall approval has stabilized, up two points now, after steadily declining over the weeks and months of his term.
Meanwhile, those judging him on economic and inflation policies don’t approve of him overall or on the matter of inflation, specifically.
The relatively small group of people who disapprove of him on inflation, but approve on immigration, mostly approve of him overall.
Tariffs
Economic matters remain tougher for Mr. Trump, as they have been. Many continue to say Trump’s policies have made them financially worse off.
Four in 10 Americans report buying fewer things because of tariffs.
Support for tariffs continues to drop incrementally, if steadily.
And as with many other items, support for tariffs is centered in the Republican and MAGA political base, but not elsewhere.
That extends to a call for some financial sacrifice, too. Seven in 10 Republicans say Americans should be willing to pay more for what they buy to support Trump’s trade policies. This is true for Republicans across income levels.
On balance, people overall are mixed about the potential impact on manufacturing jobs. Relatively more do think the tariffs will lead to manufacturing jobs more than will lead to losses, and Republicans are also the most likely to think this.
Views of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act remain underwater and its approval rating is unchanged from July, shortly after it was signed into law.
The Fed
Most Americans continue to call for a Federal Reserve that operates independently of what Donald Trump wants.
Unlike matters related to immigration or the National Guard, there is a bit of difference within the GOP ranks. MAGA Republicans specifically would like the Fed more under Trump’s guidance than non-MAGA Republicans. Nor would all Republicans have Trump replace Fed members who disagree with him.
Trump’s approach
All of these matters also speak to questions of executive power and how it is applied.
In all, as a general description, people tend to like Trump’s goals relatively more than his approach.
In general, two-thirds of Americans feel Donald Trump is trying to increase the powers of a president. That’s not collectively what they’d want; most would say not to change those powers.
And while Democrats see an approach they’d describe as Trump trying to bring the federal government more under his direct control, Republicans describe him trying to make it work more efficiently.
Kabir Khanna contributed data weighting and analysis to this report.
This CBS News/YouGov survey was conducted with a nationally representative sample of 2,385 U.S. adults interviewed between September 3-5, 2025. The sample was weighted to be representative of adults nationwide according to gender, age, race, and education, based on the U.S. Census American Community Survey and Current Population Survey, as well as 2024 presidential vote. The margin of error is ±2.5 points.
Anthony Salvanto, Ph.D., is CBS News’ executive director of elections and surveys. He oversees the CBS News Poll and all surveys across topics and heads the CBS News Decision Desk that estimates outcomes on election nights
What we know about Trump’s plan to send National Guard troops to Chicago – CBS News
Watch CBS News
President Trump is promising to send the National Guard into Chicago despite strong opposition from state and local officials in Illinois. It’s the latest in Mr. Trump’s federal attempt to crackdown on crime. Scott MacFarlane has more.
President Trump suggested Tuesday he’s planning to send National Guard troops to Chicago, in what could be the latest salvo in his controversial push to use federal forces to address crime, drawing pushback from local political leaders.
“We’re going in. I didn’t say when, we’re going in,” Mr. Trump said in an Oval Office event, after a reporter asked if he plans to send the Guard to Chicago.
Mr. Trump did not specify whether his administration will primarily send Guard forces or federal law enforcement agents to Chicago. He also didn’t say how many Guard troops could be deployed, or where they will hail from.
The president has vowed for weeks to intervene in Chicago and Baltimore, arguing the two cities have failed to contain violent crime. Chicago could be the third city to face a crackdown under the Trump administration: Thousands of Guard troops and federal agents have been deployed to the streets of Washington, D.C., since last month as part of an anti-crime initiative, and Guard forces were sent to Los Angeles in June to protect immigration agents.
Mr. Trump said he hopes Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker — a vociferous Trump critic — will call him and request that troops be sent to Chicago. But the president said: “We’re going to do it anyway. We have the right to do it because I have an obligation to protect this country.”
In a press conference Tuesday, Pritzker called Mr. Trump’s comments “unhinged.”
“No, I will not call the president asking him to send troops to Chicago,” he said.
Pritzker said he expects federal agents from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other agencies to surge in Chicago in the coming days. He said the president could then “use any excuse” to deploy military personnel.
The governor said his administration is “ready to fight troop deployments in court.”
Any Guard deployment to Chicago would likely draw legal pushback.
The D.C. National Guard is controlled by the president, but the 50 states’ Guard forces are typically run by governors. Mr. Trump called members of the California National Guard into federal service without Gov. Gavin Newsom’s permission by invoking a law that applies to rebellions or situations where the president can’t enforce the law with “regular forces.”
Newsom sued the Trump administration over the move. An appeals court ruled that Mr. Trump likely had the right to call up the California National Guard, but a lower court judge on Tuesday ruled the deployment violated a 19th century law prohibiting the military from being used for domestic law enforcement.
