Trump Announces Temporary Withdrawal of National Guard From Three Cities

President Donald Trump said on New Year’s Eve on Truth Social that National Guard forces deployed to Chicago, Los Angeles and Portland, Oregon, would be withdrawn "for now." In the same post he wrote that the troops "had helped reduce crime" and warned they "will come back, perhaps in a much different and stronger form, when crime begins to soar again, Only a question of time!" The announcement came after a string of judicial setbacks that curtailed the administration’s asserted authority to federalize state National Guard units for domestic law enforcement missions.

The decision followed a U.S. Supreme Court action the prior week that rejected the administration’s bid related to deployments tied to protecting Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in the Chicago area, a ruling that undercut plans to use federalized guard units for certain domestic operations. In Oregon, a federal judge issued a permanent injunction blocking the deployment of National Guard troops to the state. In California, an appeals court upheld a lower-court order directing the administration to return control of the California National Guard to Governor Gavin Newsom after the Justice Department withdrew a request to pause that portion of the order. Troops had already been pulled from Los Angeles streets on Dec. 15 in compliance with courts that found the federalization had exceeded statutory limits.

Newsom praised the change, posting on X that the move "means this illegal intimidation tactic will finally come to an end" and likening the withdrawal to the political equivalent of "you can’t fire me, I quit." The governor’s reaction framed the withdrawals as a victory for state authority over its own forces.

The president’s post did not mention the large contingent of National Guard members operating in the District of Columbia. The D.C. attorney general, Brian Schwalb, has brought suit seeking to halt deployments of more than 2,000 guardsmen patrolling the capital, and that litigation remains active. The disparate outcomes of multiple courts illustrate a fragmented legal landscape in which federal, state and judicial decisions now determine the scope and duration of domestic force deployments.

Beyond the immediate personnel movements, the episode raises broader questions about executive power, public safety and the practical tools available to governors and the federal government. Federalizing state guard units had been positioned by the administration as a law-and-order response, but recent rulings have reinforced legal constraints on using those units for domestic policing functions without clear statutory authority. The administration’s vow that forces could return "in a much different and stronger form" leaves open the possibility of alternative approaches, from seeking new legal avenues to deploying federal agents under different authorities.

For local officials and residents, the court-driven withdrawals mean responsibility for street-level public safety will revert to state and municipal agencies, while the federal government calibrates its next steps. For policymakers, the episode is likely to accelerate debates in Congress and the courts about the limits of executive authority in domestic law enforcement, the proper role of the National Guard, and the oversight mechanisms that should govern any future deployments. The immediate effect is a reduction in federalized troops on three major-city streets, but the legal and political contest over when and how such forces can be used is likely to continue.