Posted originally on Aug 27, 2025 by Martin Armstrong |

The National Guard’s deployment to Washington, D.C., was a successful endeavor. For the first time, the city went twelve days without a homicide. Carjacking decreased by 83%, robberies fell 46%, and overall violent crime fell 22%. The same program may be implemented in Chicago, Baltimore, Los Angeles, and New York, but Democratic leaders insist it is unconstitutional.

“Chicago is a killing field,” the POTUS commented, calling Mayor Brandon Johnson “grossly incompetent.” Governor JB Pritzker is threatening to sue if Trump sends troops to his state. “First thing we’re gonna do is take him to court because it’s illegal. It’s unconstitutional,” Pritzker said. “Frankly, it’s un-American to send troops into an American city the way that he wants to to fight crime. There is literally a law on the books that says he’s not allowed to do that.”

Insurrection Act, codified at 10 U.S.C. §§ 251–254 does permit the president to deploy federal troops or the National Guard to states. Now, D.C. is not a state and the National Guard answers to the president directly. Trump was easily able to mobilize troops into D.C. after declaring a “crime emergency.” Deploying troops to other states may prove difficult without a specific request from the governor or evidence of a rebellion or denial of civil rights beyond the scope of local authorities.

• 252. Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority

Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.