Updated September 4, 2025 at 1:10 PM MST
President Trump continues to discuss deploying the National Guard to various cities despite the questionable legality of doing so.
On Tuesday, Trump said he would "love to have" Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, a Democrat, call him and request troops, adding that he would "gain respect" for Pritzker if he asked for them. In response, Pritzker said "Let me be clear: The president is begging me to call him, to ask him to do something that we don't want."
Speaking in the Oval Office on Wednesday, Trump also floated the idea of deploying troops to New Orleans, where Louisiana's Republican governor welcomed the idea.
Trump's comments may be a concession that it is legally easier to deploy the National Guard in states where governors formally ask for help, Georgetown University law professor Stephen Vladeck told Morning Edition.
A federal judge in San Francisco ruled on Tuesday that Trump's use of National Guard troops in June in response to anti-immigration enforcement protests in Los Angeles was illegal. The ruling only applies in California. After the ruling, Trump said he planned to send troops to Chicago.
Vladeck, who has written about the president's use of the National Guard on his One First Substack newsletter, says Trump could attempt to deploy troops from Trump friendly states to those that don't want them — a move that would put the U.S. in "uncharted territory."
Speaking to NPR's Michel Martin, Vladeck discussed the president's options for sending troops to individual states and the likely looming legal fight that awaits.
This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
Interview highlights
Michel Martin: President Trump seems to be asking or trying to pressure Gov. Pritzker into asking Trump to send him the guard. Why would he do that? Is that an acknowledgement that he doesn't have that the president does not have the authority to send troops where they are not welcome?
Stephen Vladeck: I think at the very least, it is a concession that it's a lot easier legally for the president to send in troops with a request from the governor. Let's not forget, Gov. Pritzker has his own National Guard, the Illinois National Guard, that he would be free to deploy if he thought the circumstances warranted. President Trump could invoke some old and not often used authorities — a statute known as the Insurrection Act, for example — to send in troops without the governor's consent. But I think what he's really trying to get at is can he actually have his cake and eat it, too? Can he send in troops without using that controversial statute and without the governor's consent? That's really the mess that we're seeing this week.
Martin: So then the president mentioned the possibility of sending guard forces to New Orleans, which Louisiana's Republican governor seemed to welcome. And that seems to recall something that you wrote about back in 2020 when the president relied upon friendly governors to send troops to Washington, D.C., in the wake of the George Floyd protests. They didn't stay for long. It was a different situation. D.C. is a legal unicorn, as we know. But what do you make of this shift to more receptive governors?
Vladeck: I think it really gives up the game, Michel, on how empty all of this is. Gov. Landry, like Gov. Pritzker, is the commander in chief of his own state National Guard, the Louisiana National Guard. If there were enough, you know, lawlessness and disorder in New Orleans to justify more than just an ordinary law enforcement response. Gov. Landry doesn't need President Trump. He can do it himself. And so I think what we're really seeing is a lot of theater on the part of the Trump administration where he's trying to look like it is the savior for situations that have far more local, far more legally settled remedies if they actually warrant them.
Martin: So let's go back to the Substack. You wrote a lengthy one, and it's very detailed about what might the legal path be for the president to actually send the National Guard into places where the governors or officials there don't want them.
Vladeck: So there are two avenues. The first is federalizing the National Guard. It's what President Trump tried to do in California. What Trump is contemplating is something more obscure. You mentioned the 2020 use of out-of-state National Guard troops in D.C. That was in the context in which they weren't federalized, in which 11 states just let the president borrow their National Guard troops. And I think the critical point here is that's where we'd be in uncharted territory if the governor were to try to use that authority to send, for example, the Texas National Guard into a state that didn't want them.
Martin: Do you think this matter is going to end up before the Supreme Court?
Vladeck: I think the next move is up to President Trump. If he carries through on his threat to send un-federalized National Guard troops from one state into another without that state's consent, there will definitely be litigation. It will almost certainly end up in the Supreme Court. And that's a good thing, because the alternative is a face-to-face confrontation.
This digital article was edited by Treye Green. The radio version of this story was edited by HJ Mai and produced by Nia Dumas.
Copyright 2025 NPR
