Trump announces withdrawal of National Guard from Chicago, Los Angeles, Portland

President Donald Trump announced today that the National Guard troops stationed in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Portland will be withdrawn, despite claims that their presence had significantly reduced crime in those cities.

The decision follows a series of legal setbacks and court rulings that limited his ability to deploy federal forces, Caliber.Az reports via foreign media.

On his Truth Social page, Trump stated that the removal of the National Guard would proceed "despite the fact that crime has been greatly reduced by having these great patriots in those cities." He emphasized that federal intervention was crucial in restoring order, arguing that "Portland, Los Angeles, and Chicago were gone if it weren’t for the Federal Government stepping in."

Trump warned that the cities could face a resurgence in crime following the withdrawal. “We will come back, perhaps in a much different and stronger form, when crime begins to soar again,” he said, calling out the local Democratic leadership for their handling of crime and security.

Legal challenges

The announcement follows a legal battle over the deployment of National Guard troops. Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to overturn a lower court ruling that blocked the deployment of 300 National Guard members to Chicago. This ruling was part of a broader effort to protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents amid a rise in protests and opposition to federal immigration policies.

The U.S. President’s efforts to federalize the National Guard in several states had faced legal hurdles. Earlier this month, a federal judge in California blocked the deployment of 4,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles, citing overreach by the federal government and concerns over the use of military forces in domestic law enforcement. The judge ordered that control of the Guard be returned to Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom.

In Oregon, a district court issued a permanent injunction in November, preventing the deployment of National Guard troops to Portland. The city had been a focal point of protests against federal immigration policies, with demonstrators clashing with federal officers. The Trump administration has appealed the ruling.

Political and public reaction

The decision to withdraw the National Guard comes amid growing political tensions between the White House and local Democratic leaders. Mayors and governors in California, Oregon, and Illinois have consistently opposed the use of National Guard units for crime prevention and federal law enforcement, arguing that it undermines local authority and escalates tensions.

California Governor Gavin Newsom expressed concern over the impact of the National Guard's removal, stating, “It’s disappointing to see this administration walk away from the cities that need support. Local leaders, not federal forces, should be responsible for community safety.”

Meanwhile, critics of the Trump administration's tactics argue that federal intervention in local matters could deepen divisions. "This is about power, not public safety," said Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler. "We must ensure that local residents can make decisions that affect their communities."

Ongoing tensions

Despite these legal setbacks, Trump’s administration remains committed to using the National Guard to address violent crime in major cities, especially those with high-profile clashes between federal officers and protesters. The National Guard's presence in Washington, D.C. earlier this year was credited with a dramatic decrease in violent crime in the capital, but the mission also saw two West Virginia National Guard members attacked in a premeditated assault. One of the Guard members was killed, and the other was seriously wounded.

Trump's administration has made it clear that if crime rates rise again in Chicago, Los Angeles, or Portland, federal intervention could return in a “much different and stronger form,” though it remains to be seen whether such plans will gain approval from courts or local officials.

As the legal and political challenges continue, the situation in these cities remains fluid, with many watching closely to see how it will affect the broader national conversation on crime, federal authority, and local governance in the coming year.

By Aghakazim Guliyev