The headlines were moving so fast last year that it felt like we were living through a legal thriller. Honestly, if you blinked, you might have missed the actual turning point. President Trump has a vision for the National Guard that is, let’s just say, "unconventional" compared to how the military has been used for the last few decades. He wanted boots on the ground in cities and near the border to handle what he called "domestic terrorists" and a "crime emergency." But then, the courts stepped in.
Basically, several federal judges decided that the President can’t just treat the National Guard like his personal police force. It’s a huge deal. Why? Because it strikes at the heart of "state sovereignty"—the idea that a Governor, not the President, usually calls the shots for their state's Guard.
The Oregon Stand-off: A Judge Says No
It started getting really heated in Portland. Trump wanted to federalize the Oregon National Guard to protect ICE facilities and crack down on protests. He claimed there was a "rebellion" brewing.
U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut wasn’t having it.
Here’s the thing that surprised everyone: Immergut was actually a Trump appointee. But in her October 2025 ruling, she was blunt. She said the President’s claims were "untethered to the facts." She basically told the administration that protests aren’t the same thing as an armed rebellion.
You’ve gotta realize how rare it is for a judge to use that kind of language against the person who gave them their job. She wrote that this is a nation of "Constitutional law, not martial law." Short. Sharp. To the point. When the administration tried to bypass her by sending in California or Texas troops instead, she stayed up late and issued a second restraining order in the middle of the night.
📖 Related: Is there a bank holiday today? Why your local branch might be closed on January 12
Why the "Federalization" Talk Matters
To understand why a judge blocks Trump National Guard orders, you have to look at the law they were trying to use: 10 U.S.C. § 12406.
It sounds like boring legal jargon, but it’s the "secret sauce" the White House was relying on. This law allows the President to federalize the Guard if he can’t execute federal laws using regular forces (like the FBI or Marshals).
The Trump administration argued that because local Democratic mayors wouldn’t help with immigration raids, the President was "unable" to enforce the law.
The Counter-Argument
The judges saw it differently. In Los Angeles, Judge Charles Breyer called the deployment "profoundly un-American." He was worried about a "perpetual police force."
Think about it:
👉 See also: Is Pope Leo Homophobic? What Most People Get Wrong
- If a President can federalize troops whenever there's a protest, they could stay there forever.
- It bypasses the Posse Comitatus Act, which is the old law that says the military shouldn't be doing domestic police work.
- It takes power away from Governors like Gavin Newsom or Tina Kotek, who were screaming that they didn't want the troops there.
The Supreme Court Weighs In (The Chicago Case)
The real "nail in the coffin" for the first wave of these deployments happened just a few weeks ago, at the tail end of 2025. The Supreme Court took a look at the situation in Chicago.
In a 6-3 decision, the high court refused to let the Trump administration send Guard troops into the city for immigration sweeps. The majority basically said the government didn't prove there were "exceptional circumstances."
By December 31, 2025, the administration actually blinked. They announced they were pulling the Guard out of Los Angeles, Portland, and Chicago. Trump posted on Truth Social that the troops had already "reduced crime," but the legal reality was that the courts had boxed him in.
Is it Really Over?
Not quite. Just yesterday, January 15, 2026, the President started talking about the Insurrection Act of 1807.
This is the "big gun" of presidential power. If he invokes this, it’s much harder for a judge to block him. He’s threatening to use it in Minnesota because of protests against ICE.
✨ Don't miss: How to Reach Donald Trump: What Most People Get Wrong
Minnesota’s Attorney General, Keith Ellison, has already said he’ll see them in court. It’s a game of legal chess. The administration is looking for a loophole, and the states are looking for a judge.
What This Means for You
If you live in a city where this is happening, the "National Guard block" means the person patrolling your street is likely a local police officer, not a soldier in camo with an M4.
For the rest of the country, it's a massive test of how much power the White House actually has. We’re seeing a real-time tug-of-war between the Executive branch and the Judicial branch.
Actionable Insights for Following This Case:
- Watch the "Insurrection Act" headlines: If the administration stops using Title 10/32 and switches to the Insurrection Act, the legal bar for a judge to block them becomes much, much higher.
- Check your state's "Peace Officer" laws: Some states have specific rules about who can make an arrest. If the National Guard isn't "deputized" by the state, their arrests might not hold up in court.
- Monitor the 9th Circuit: Many of these cases are currently being appealed. A single ruling from an appeals court could overturn what Judge Immergut or Judge Breyer decided.
The situation is changing daily, but for now, the "wall of judges" is holding. Whether that stays the case as the administration pivots to new legal strategies in 2026 is the billion-dollar question.