The announcement by U.S. President Donald Trump that National Guard units would be withdrawn from several American cities, most notably Chicago and Los Angeles, should be interpreted not merely as a tactical security decision, but as a highly consequential development in terms of the limits of executive power, the principle of federalism, and the functioning of democratic checks and balances in the United States.[i] This decision came immediately after a recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, which held that Trump could not deploy military forces for internal security purposes in Chicago. The issue, therefore, extends beyond the physical withdrawal of troops and concerns the reassertion of the constitutional boundaries of presidential authority.
Within the U.S. political system, the National Guard is, under normal circumstances, a military force under the authority of state governors. The president may federalize these units only in narrowly defined and exceptional situations, such as insurrection, external threats, or cases in which the enforcement of federal law has become practically impossible. Trump’s attempt to deploy troops in cities governed by Democrats strained the legal limits of these exceptions and directly reignited the debate over federalism.
Indeed, the Supreme Court’s ruling on Chicago made it unequivocally clear that the president’s use of military force under the justification of “public order” does not constitute an automatic or unlimited authority. The decision functioned as a strong constitutional check against executive attempts to bypass local governments through securitized rhetoric.
In defending the deployment of the National Guard, Trump consistently advanced two core arguments: rising crime rates and illegal immigration. However, because this discourse disproportionately targeted large, Democrat-led cities, many observers viewed it as a politically instrumentalized security narrative rather than a neutral policy response.
In this context, Trump’s statement that “we will return more forcefully if crime rises again” can be read not only as a warning, but also as an effort by the central executive to construct legitimacy through a narrative of local governance failure.[ii] The emphasis on the persistence of security threats points to a classic political strategy in which the expansion of presidential authority is justified through the continuous invocation of danger.
The Supreme Court’s decision thus carries not only legal, but also institutional and symbolic significance. The case between Trump and the state of Illinois demonstrated that the judiciary within the American system remains capable of acting as an effective counterbalance to executive power. In this respect, the ruling may also be seen as an example of democratic resilience in response to frequent critiques of “institutional erosion” during the Trump era.
Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson’s characterization of the decision as “the recognition of a real threat to democracy” further underscores that local governments view this legal process not merely as a technical matter, but as a fundamental issue concerning the political regime itself.[iii]
On the California front, the rhetoric has been markedly harsher. Governor Gavin Newsom’s characterization of Trump’s retreat as “the end of an illegal intimidation tactic” indicates that tensions in federal–state relations are unfolding not only on legal grounds, but also along ideological lines. Newsom’s analogy—“You can’t fire me; I quit”—frames Trump’s decision not as a voluntary withdrawal, but as a compelled concession.[iv]
This language reveals how the deepening polarization in U.S. politics has come to directly permeate areas such as security and law. The fact that even the highly sensitive issue of military force is debated through overt partisan division highlights the contemporary vulnerabilities of American democracy.
Another notable aspect of Trump’s statement is the exclusion of Washington, D.C., from the withdrawal. The continued military presence in the capital suggests that Trump has not fully relinquished federal authority, but has instead chosen to preserve it in arenas where its legal basis is less contested. This approach offers important clues as to how the executive branch may act in similar security crises in the future.
Ultimately, Trump’s decision to withdraw the National Guard from certain cities may appear on the surface as a “step back,” yet a closer examination suggests it represents a temporary juncture in an ongoing power struggle in which constitutional boundaries were first strained and then redefined. The process once again demonstrates that democracy in the United States is sustained not solely through elections, but through courts, state governments, and institutional mechanisms of resistance.
However, Trump’s message that “we can return more forcefully” indicates that the debate is far from settled and may resurface under different crisis scenarios in the future. The core issue, therefore, is not whether soldiers are currently deployed on the ground, but rather who will decide, on what grounds, and within which constitutional limits tomorrow. From this perspective, recent developments should be seen not as an endpoint for American democracy, but as part of an ongoing stress test.
Another point that warrants attention is the political and psychological impact generated by the National Guard despite the fact that it has not been actively deployed. The absence of patrol duties by the hundreds of troops sent to Chicago and Portland has transformed the situation from a conventional security operation into a symbolic display of power. The mere presence of military forces, regardless of whether they are operationally engaged, has functioned as a deterrent pressure on local authorities and the public. This is significant in illustrating how, in contemporary security politics, the possibility of intervention can become a tool of governance in itself, often more consequential than actual intervention.
At the same time, this process reveals that Donald Trump has deliberately used the tension between security and law as a means of political mobilization. The maintenance of a confrontational rhetoric despite the Supreme Court ruling, coupled with the emphasis on “returning more forcefully,” demonstrates that the legal setback has not been accepted as a political retreat. This approach reflects a broader tendency of the executive to reconstruct its legitimacy not through legal constraints, but through voter support and security anxieties, even when confronted with clear constitutional limits.
[i] Matza, Max. “Trump Says He Is WithdrawingNationalGuardTroopsfromSome US Cities”, BBC News, www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9dv1200j44o, (Date Accessed: 04.01.2026).
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Ibid.
[iv] Ibid.
