Trump pulling National Guard from three cities after hitting legal roadblocks

President Trump said Wednesday, after a setback at the Supreme Court, that he is abandoning his efforts, for now, to deploy National Guard troops in Chicago, Los Angeles and Portland, Oregon, despite his belief that their presence brought down crime.

Troops already had been withdrawn from Los Angeles, where the president deployed them in a crackdown on crime and illegal immigration, after a federal judge ordered their removal.

Mr. Trump had plans to mobilize troops to Chicago and Portland, Oregon, but legal challenges prevented the deployment of troops in those two cities.

“We are removing the National Guard from Chicago, Los Angeles, and Portland, despite the fact that CRIME has been greatly reduced by having these great Patriots in those cities, and ONLY by that fact,” the president wrote on Truth Social. “Portland, Los Angeles, and Chicago were GONE if it weren’t for the Federal Government stepping in.”

The president suggested that he would bring back the Guard at some point, “perhaps in a much different and stronger form, when crime begins to soar again — Only a question of time!”

Mr. Trump’s push to deploy the troops in Democratic-led cities has been met with legal challenges at nearly every turn.

One week before Mr. Trump’s announcement, the Supreme Court rejected his request to deploy the National Guard to Chicago and protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, a rare loss for the administration. The order was not a final ruling, but it was a significant setback for the president’s efforts.

“At this preliminary state, the government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois,” the court said in an unsigned order.

The decision, which was issued over dissents from conservative Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch, jeopardized National Guard deployments to other cities.

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, who was nominated by Mr. Trump during his first term, said he agreed with the decision to block the Chicago deployment but thought the president should be afforded more latitude to deploy troops in some scenarios.

Attorneys for the Trump administration said the troops were needed to protect federal agents involved in immigration enforcement in the Chicago area. However, the court rebuffed the Trump administration’s argument that the situation in Chicago was so chaotic that it justified invoking a federal law that allowed Mr. Trump to mobilize the National Guard into federal service in extreme situations.

Those circumstances include when “there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion” or “the president is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States,” according to the law called the Posse Comitatus Act.

The court said the law’s reference to “regular forces” permits the use of the National Guard only when regular military forces are unable to restore order. As a result, it concluded that the Trump administration failed to demonstrate the need for the Guard to protect federal personnel and property in Illinois.

In the 6-3 decision, the court’s six conservative justices were evenly split and all three of its liberal justices were in the majority.

“I have serious doubts about the correctness of the court’s views. And I strongly disagree with the manner in which the court has disposed of this application,” Mr. Alito wrote in a dissenting opinion.

“There is no basis for rejecting the president’s determination that he was unable to execute the federal immigration laws using the civilian law enforcement resources at his command,” he added.

In legal flings and arguments before the high court, administration attorneys insisted that local officials, judges and surging protesters all made it nearly impossible for ICE to carry out immigration law.

The deployment was challenged in court by the Democratic-led state of Illinois and the city of Chicago. Their attorneys said Mr. Trump had an ulterior motive for the deployment: to punish his political opponents.

They argued in court documents that Mr. Trump’s invocation of the federal law was not justified and that his actions violated the Constitution’s 10th Amendment, which places limits on federal power, as well as the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally bars the military from conducting law enforcement duties.

Mr. Trump said Democratic governors and mayors should be thanking him for the deployments.

“It is hard to believe that these Democrat Mayors and Governors, all of whom are greatly incompetent, would want us to leave, especially considering the great progress that has been made???” Mr. Trump said.

In the nation’s capital, D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb sued to halt the deployments of more than 2,000 Guardsmen.

In Oregon, a federal judge has permanently blocked the deployment of National Guard troops.

California National Guard troops were removed from the streets of Los Angeles by Dec. 15 after a court ruling. Still, an appeals court paused a separate part of the order that required the control of the Guard to return to Gov. Gavin Newsom.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta celebrated the decision, writing on X: “For six months, CA National Guard troops have been used as political pawns by a President desperate to be king.

“Now, in the face of a stinging rebuke by the Supreme Court, the Trump Administration is backing away from its effort to federalize and deploy CA National Guard troops,” he said.

In a statement shared in the post, he said his office “is not backing down — and we’re ready for whatever fights lie ahead.”

• This article is based in part on wire service reports.