How many National Guard members are deployed over the holidays? What states?
GoogleAI Mode: “As of December 23, 2025, tens of thousands of National Guard members are deployed both domestically and internationally for the holiday season. Total figures fluctuate, but recent reports indicate approximately 40,000 Soldiers and Airmen are currently on mission worldwide.
Specific holiday deployments and active missions include:
Domestic Deployments (U.S. Cities & Border)
The following states have active or newly approved National Guard deployments through the 2025 holiday season:
Louisiana: Approximately 350 troops are currently mobilizing to New Orleans. They will be on duty through New Year’s Eve, the Sugar Bowl, and Mardi Gras (February 2026) to bolster security and address crime.
Southern Border States: Up to 2,500 service members, including National Guard units, are deployed to the southern border through fiscal year 2025. States previously linked to these mobilization plans include Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona.
Other Impacted Cities: Federal deployments have recently been active or planned for Washington, D.C., Memphis (Tennessee), and Portland (Oregon). A planned deployment to Chicago (Illinois) remains blocked by the Supreme Court as of December 23, 2025.
International & Overseas Operations
National Guard units from various states are currently serving in several global regions:
Europe: Pennsylvania Guard members mobilized for a European deployment in mid-December 2025. Louisiana and Delaware units have recently served in Kosovo.
Africa: Units from Connecticut and New York have been active in East Africa.
Middle East: Guard members from Kentucky, Florida, and Pennsylvania have supported operations such as Operation Spartan Shield.
Pacific: Guam and Hawaii units are engaged in regional security cooperation.
For more information on specific units and their missions, you can visit the Official National Guard News page.”
THE NATIONAL GUARD & GOVERNORS
Why did the Supreme Court block the deployment to Chicago?
GoogleAI Mode: “On December 23, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Trump v. Illinois to uphold a lower court order blocking the deployment of National Guard troops to Chicago. This decision marked a major defeat for the administration’s attempts to use military forces for domestic immigration enforcement over the objections of state leaders.
The Court’s decision was based on several key legal findings:
Failure to Prove Authority: The majority stated that the administration failed to identify a specific source of legal authority that would allow the military to execute laws within Illinois at this stage.
Interpretation of “Regular Forces”: A central issue was a 1903 law that allows the president to call up the National Guard if he is “unable with the regular forces” to execute federal laws. The Court concluded that “regular forces” refers to the standing U.S. military, not civilian law enforcement or federal agents. Because the administration had not attempted to use the regular military first, they could not bypass state control to federalize the Guard.
Posse Comitatus Act Violations: The Court noted that the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 generally prohibits using federal troops for domestic policing. The administration did not meet the “exceptional” criteria required to override this act.
Exaggerated Threat Assessments: The ruling echoed lower court findings that protests in Chicago did not constitute a “rebellion” or “danger of rebellion”. Judges noted that federal facilities remained open and law enforcement was still functioning, contradicting administration claims of lawless chaos.
The three dissenting conservative justices—Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch—argued that the protection of federal officers from potential attacks should not be thwarted while litigation continues. Justice Kavanaugh concurred with the majority’s denial but on narrower grounds, suggesting the Court should not yet decide the broader statutory issues.”
What are other instances of presidential federalization of the National Guard being challenged in court?
GoogleAI Mode: “In 2025, the presidential federalization of National Guard units has faced several legal challenges across various U.S. cities. Beyond the Chicago ruling on December 23, 2025, notable cases include:
Portland, Oregon: A U.S. District Judge permanently blocked a planned deployment on November 7, 2025, ruling that the administration lacked a lawful basis to federalize the Guard and violated state sovereignty. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has also paused these deployments for further review.
Los Angeles, California: A federal judge ruled on December 10, 2025, that the Trump administration must end its federalization of the California National Guard, which had been seized against Governor Gavin Newsom’s wishes in June. An appeals court upheld this order, requiring troops to leave the city.
Washington, D.C.: A federal judge initially ordered an end to the deployment in November, citing it as unlawful. However, after a fatal attack on two Guard members near the White House on November 26, an appeals court ruled that the federalized units could remain for now.
Memphis, Tennessee: Local and state Democrats filed a lawsuit against a deployment welcomed by Governor Bill Lee. While a state judge temporarily blocked the use of troops in November, that ruling was paused on appeal, allowing the deployment to continue.
Historical Precedents
Presidential federalization of the National Guard has been historically used without successful court challenges during major civil unrest:
1967 Detroit Riots and 1968 King Assassination Riots: Presidents used federalized Guard units to support law enforcement.
1970 New York Postal Strike: Units were federalized to maintain essential services.
1992 Los Angeles Riots: This was the last major instance of federalization for domestic civil disturbance prior to the current 2025 challenges.”
THE NATIONAL GUARD & TENNESSEE
Isn’t it unique that state Democrats filed suit in Tennessee? Did Governor Lee’s support of the deployment have an impact?
GoogleAI Mode: “The lawsuit in Tennessee is unique because it challenges a voluntary state-level activation (Title 32) rather than a forced federalization (Title 10). While most legal battles elsewhere involve governors fighting against federal seizure of their troops, the Tennessee case involves local Democratic leaders suing their own Republican governor for agreeing to deploy the Guard.
Why the Suit is Unique
In states like Illinois and California, legal disputes arose because the President attempted to federalize units against the governor’s will. In Tennessee, Governor Bill Lee supported the mission, but local officials argued he bypassed state law to do so.
Partisan and Jurisdictional Divide: The suit was filed by a coalition of Democratic officials, including Shelby County Mayor Lee Harris and several state lawmakers. They contend the deployment is a “political tool” used without the required local request or legislative approval.
Constitutional Violation Claims: The plaintiffs argue that under the Tennessee Constitution, the National Guard can only be called out for domestic policing during a “rebellion or invasion,” and only if the state legislature declares it necessary—none of which occurred.
Impact of Governor Lee’s Support
Governor Lee’s cooperation with the Trump administration fundamentally changed the legal landscape of the deployment:
Authority Shift: Because Governor Lee activated the Guard under Title 32, the troops remained under his nominal command while integrating into the federally coordinated “Memphis Safe Task Force”.
Defense Strategy: The state’s defense argues that as Commander-in-Chief, the Governor has sole authority to mobilize the Guard and that the judiciary has no oversight over this executive decision.
Current Status: Although a judge initially blocked the deployment as unlawful in November 2025, she immediately paused her own order to allow for an appeal. As of late December 2025, the National Guard remains in Memphis while the Tennessee Court of Appeals prepares to hear the case in March 2026.
For updates on the ongoing litigation, you can follow the case details through Democracy Docket.”
Given Lee’s exercise of executive power and the appellate court’s actions since the lower court’s ruling, on a scale of 1 to 5, what is the likelihood that the Court will uphold the deployment?
GoogleAI Mode: “On a scale of 1 to 5, the likelihood that the Tennessee Court of Appeals will uphold the deployment is approximately a 4.
While a lower court initially ruled the deployment “unlawful” on November 17, 2025, subsequent actions by the appellate court and the legal framework of executive power strongly favor the state’s position.
Factors Indicating a High Likelihood of Support (4/5)
Procedural Stance: The Court of Appeals took the significant step of granting an interlocutory appeal and expediting the case, which indicates it views the state’s arguments as having substantial merit.
Stay of Injunction: The appellate court allowed the National Guard to remain active in Memphis while the appeal is pending, preventing the lower court’s block from ever taking effect.
Executive Deference: Tennessee law and recent arguments emphasize the Governor’s role as Commander-in-Chief, asserting that courts should not substitute their judgment for his in identifying “grave emergencies” like violent crime.
Technical Challenges: The Court of Appeals has specifically questioned whether the case should have been decided by a three-judge panel rather than a single judge, which provides a procedural path to vacate the original “unlawful” ruling without even addressing the constitutional merits.
Remaining Uncertainties (The 1/5 Dissent)
Constitutional Rigidity: The primary challenge remains the strict language of the Tennessee Constitution, which limits military use to “rebellion or invasion”—conditions the lower court determined were not met by urban crime rates.
Statutory Constraints: Plaintiffs argue that state law requires a formal request from local officials for such deployments, a step Governor Lee bypassed.
The case is currently on hold until oral arguments take place on March 5, 2026. In the meantime, approximately 700 Guard members continue to patrol Memphis as part of the “Memphis Safe Task Force”.
AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional.”
What are the legal implications for other governors if the TN Court of Appeals upholds the deployment?
GoogleAI Mode: “If the Tennessee Court of Appeals upholds Governor Bill Lee’s deployment in early 2026, it would set a precedent expanding executive authority and potentially encouraging similar actions by other governors.
The legal implications for other governors include:
Expanded Definition of “Emergency”: An uphold would validate that modern governors can define persistent social issues, such as high violent crime rates, as “emergencies” equivalent to a rebellion or invasion. This would allow governors in other states to bypass narrow constitutional language that traditionally limits military use to extreme events like natural disasters or insurrections.
Bypassing Local Consent: The Tennessee case specifically tests whether a governor can deploy troops to a city without a formal request from local leaders. A ruling for the state would signal that governors have the “unfettered” authority to override local mayors’ objections in the interest of state-level public safety.
A “Manual” for Cooperative Federalism: The Tennessee deployment (Title 32) is uniquely cooperative, where the Governor activated the Guard at the President’s request rather than the President seizing them. Upholding this would provide a legal roadmap for other Republican governors to voluntarily integrate their National Guard units into federal task forces, effectively shielding the administration from the “forced federalization” challenges currently failing in states like Illinois and California.
Insulation from Judicial Review: The state’s primary argument is that the judiciary has no role in reviewing a Governor’s military decisions. If accepted, this would significantly limit the ability of citizens or local officials in other states to challenge future deployments through the court system.
Weakening of Separation of Powers: Traditional interpretations require the state legislature to declare the need for military force. An uphold would confirm that the executive branch can act unilaterally, reducing the legislature’s role in authorizing domestic military presence.
The March 5, 2026 oral arguments will be closely watched by legal experts as a bellwether for the “weaponization” of the National Guard for political or policy goals.”
What are some historical examples of governors using the National Guard in ways similar to Governor Lee’s actions in Memphis?
GoogleAI Mode: “Governor Lee’s deployment of the Tennessee National Guard to Memphis is historically unique because it involves a governor initiating a law enforcement mission without a request from local officials. Historically, most similar domestic Guard deployments were either requested by local mayors to quell unrest or imposed by the President against a governor’s wishes.
Notable historical examples with similarities or stark contrasts include:
Racial Integration (1950s–1960s): In instances like the “Stand in the Schoolhouse Door” at the University of Alabama (1963) and the integration of Little Rock Central High School (1957), presidents federalized the National Guard to override governors who were using state forces to block federal court orders. Unlike Governor Lee, those governors were acting in defiance of federal law rather than in cooperation with a federal task force.
Civil Unrest (1968, 1992, 2020): National Guard troops were deployed to Memphis after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (1968) and during the George Floyd protests (2020). However, in both cases, the deployments were specifically requested by the city’s mayor to restore order, whereas the 2025 deployment lacks local mayoral approval.
The “Long, Hot Summer” (1967): During the Detroit and Newark riots, governors called in the National Guard to support local law enforcement. These were traditional uses of state power in response to active, acute violence and property destruction, contrasting with the current use of the Guard in Memphis to address chronic urban crime rates.
Novel State Missions (2022–2024): More recently, governors have used the Guard for non-traditional domestic duties, such as New Mexico using members as substitute teachers and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis deploying them to staff state prisons during a personnel crisis.
New York City Subway (2024): Governor Kathy Hochul deployed the National Guard to the New York City subway system to assist with bag checks and crime deterrence. While this was done without a specific “rebellion,” it was generally coordinated with city leadership, unlike the current contested deployment in Memphis.
The current Memphis mission is distinct because it integrates state troops into a federal task force under a governor’s voluntary authority (Title 32) specifically to perform civilian law enforcement duties that local leaders have officially opposed.”
What are other instances of governors being sued over National Guard deployments?
GoogleAI Mode: “Legal challenges to National Guard deployments have surged in 2025, primarily focused on governors resisting federal seizure of their troops or local leaders challenging a governor’s unilateral activation.
- Governors Resisting Federal Seizure
In several states, governors have sued the federal government to stop the president from taking control of their state’s Guard units for domestic law enforcement:
California: Governor Gavin Newsom sued to block the federalization and deployment of the California National Guard to Los Angeles. In December 2025, a federal court ruled the federalization illegal and ordered the administration to return control of the troops to the Governor.
Illinois: Governor J.B. Pritzker filed suit to prevent the deployment of federalized troops, including units from Texas, to Chicago. On December 23, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a lower court order blocking this deployment.
Oregon: Governor Tina Kotek and city leaders sued to block federalization and deployment in Portland, arguing it abused executive power and violated state sovereignty. A district judge permanently blocked the deployment on November 7, 2025.
- Local Leaders Suring Their Own Governors
Unlike the cases above, some lawsuits involve local officials suing their own governors for activating the Guard:
Tennessee: As noted, local Democratic officials sued Governor Bill Lee for deploying the Guard to Memphis without a local request or legislative approval.
West Virginia: The civic organization West Virginia Citizen Action Group sued Governor Patrick Morrisey, alleging he exceeded his authority by deploying 300 to 400 Guard members to Washington, D.C., for purposes not authorized by state law, such as natural disaster response.
- Past and Ongoing Border Disputes
Texas: While Governor Greg Abbott has not been sued by his own state for deploying the Guard to the border, he has been in a long-standing legal battle with the federal government over his use of the Guard to install razor wire and buoy barriers. In early 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that federal agents could remove state-installed wire, though the underlying cases regarding state authority continue to move through courts.
- Civil Rights Challenges
New York: While not a direct lawsuit seeking to block the mission, civil rights groups such as the NYCLU and NAACP Legal Defense Fund have formally condemned Governor Kathy Hochul’s 2024 and 2025 deployments to NYC subways, arguing they represent “security theater” and risk unconstitutional “stop-and-frisk” style harassment.”
THE NATIONAL GUARD & NEW YORK CITY
What is going on with the National Guard and the NYC subways?
GoogleAI Mode: “As of late December 2025, the New York National Guard remains a steady presence in the New York City subway system, with approximately 1,000 members deployed to support transit safety.
Current Deployment Status
Total Troops: Governor Kathy Hochul increased the total to 1,000 National Guard members in late 2024 to address crime concerns and improve the “psychological sense of safety” for riders.
Station Locations: Troops are primarily stationed at major transit hubs and entrances, including Penn Station, Grand Central Terminal, and high-traffic stations in Brooklyn and the Bronx.
Primary Duties: Their main role is assisting the NYPD and MTA Police with random bag checks to prevent weapons from entering the system. While riders can refuse a bag check, they are denied entry to the subway if they do so.
Recent Impact and Statistics (2025)
Crime Trends: Major subway crimes reportedly dropped by 8% in July 2025 compared to the previous year. Overall transit crime fell by approximately 22.8% in August 2025.
Persistent Issues: Despite the overall drop, felony assaults saw a 7% increase in the first half of 2025.
Complementary Initiatives: The Guard presence is part of a broader “five-point plan” that includes installing security cameras in every subway car (completed in 2025) and deploying 10 “SCOUT” teams of mental health clinicians to address crises in the system.
Legal and Political Challenges
Civil Rights Concerns: Groups like the NYCLU and NAACP Legal Defense Fund have condemned the deployment as “public security theater”. They argue that it disproportionately targets Black and brown New Yorkers, reminiscent of the “stop-and-frisk” era.
Local Opposition: The New York City Council and various faith leaders have called for the removal of troops, stating that the city needs “stability and community trust” rather than a military presence.
State vs. Federal Friction: Governor Hochul has pushed back against suggestions that the federal government take control of the New York National Guard for other purposes, such as immigration enforcement, asserting that the state’s units are needed for these specific domestic safety missions.
For official updates on transit safety measures, visit the Governor’s Office Newsroom.”
What are the civil liberties arguments against the National Guard’s bag checks?
GoogleAI Mode: “Civil liberties groups, led by the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, have raised several constitutional and social arguments against the use of the National Guard for random subway bag checks in 2024 and 2025.
- Fourth Amendment Violations (Unreasonable Search)
The core legal argument is that these are “suspicion-less” searches.
Lack of Probable Cause: Under the Fourth Amendment, police typically need individualized suspicion or a warrant to search a person’s property.
Misuse of “Special Needs” Exception: A 2006 federal ruling allowed random subway searches specifically for counterterrorism (preventing explosives). Advocates argue that using the Guard to search for conventional weapons like knives or guns to fight “ordinary crime” does not meet this high legal threshold.
Invasiveness: Critics argue that the current checks may exceed the limits of previous court agreements, which only allowed for searching large compartments of bags for explosives, not small pouches or personal items like wallets.
- Racial and Ethnic Profiling
Advocates warn that “random” searches often rely on officer discretion, which historically leads to biased outcomes.
Disproportionate Impact: Civil rights groups argue these tactics will likely target Black and Brown New Yorkers more frequently, mirroring the “stop-and-frisk” policies that were previously found unconstitutional.
Lack of Data Transparency: The NYPD has historically refused to collect or release demographic data on who is being stopped for bag checks, making it difficult to prove or prevent racial profiling.
- First and Fourteenth Amendment Concerns
Right to Move Freely: The NYCLU argues that citizens have a fundamental right to use public thoroughfares and transportation without police intrusion.
Privacy and Privilege: Some plaintiffs in previous lawsuits noted that searching bags could compromise confidential materials, such as political literature or attorney-client privileged documents.
- “Security Theater” vs. Effectiveness
Inefficacy: Critics call the deployment “public security theater”. They argue that with millions of daily riders, checking every 100th or 1,000th bag is an “ineffective and counterproductive” way to stop crime.
Root Cause Neglect: Groups argue that the millions of dollars spent on military deployments should instead be invested in housing, healthcare, and mental health services to address the actual causes of subway incidents.
Status of Current Challenges
While riders can technically refuse a search, they must leave the subway system if they do so. As of December 2025, the NYCLU continues to monitor the deployment for potential new lawsuits, specifically if they can prove the mission has shifted from counterterrorism to general criminal law enforcement.”
How many people were arrested or apprehended due to bag checks by the National Guard in 2025?
GoogleAI Mode: “Specific data on the number of arrests directly resulting from National Guard bag checks in 2025 has not been publicly released by the Governor’s office or the NYPD. While broader crime statistics for 2025 are available, officials have historically emphasized the deterrent effect of the Guard’s presence rather than high arrest volumes from the checks themselves.
2025 Transit Crime and Arrest Trends
Recent reports from late December 2025 highlight an overall decrease in subway crime, though they do not isolate “bag check arrests”:
Overall Crime Decrease: Governor Kathy Hochul announced on December 18, 2025, that major subway crime fell by 5.2% compared to 2024, reaching its lowest level in 16 years.
General Arrest Spikes: In early 2025, officials reported that total transit-related arrests had increased by 71% year-to-date, largely attributed to a massive surge in overall NYPD patrols rather than the specific National Guard bag check stations.
Felony Assaults: Despite overall drops, felony assaults increased by 7% in the first six months of 2025, which has been used as a justification to maintain the 1,000-member Guard presence.
Context of the Bag Checks
Deterrence Focus: The primary goal of the 1,000 National Guard members stationed at transit hubs is to prevent weapons from entering the system. Governor Hochul has stated the goal is to make criminals think it is “just not worth it” to carry a weapon onto the train.
Refusal Rights: Riders have the legal right to refuse a bag check. If they refuse, they are simply denied entry to the station rather than arrested, which contributes to a low number of direct apprehensions at checkpoints.
Recidivism Focus: MTA officials noted that a small number of repeat offenders (re-arrested hundreds of times) are responsible for a large portion of subway crimes, leading to new 2025 legislative efforts to ban such individuals from the system for up to three years.
For the most recent available departmental data, you can check the NYPD Transit Bureau Crime Statistics page.”
What role do the 10 SCOUT teams play in the subway safety plan?
GoogleAI Mode: “In the New York City subway safety plan, the 10 Subway Co-Response Outreach (SCOUT) teams are specialized units designed to provide a “clinician-first” response to individuals experiencing severe mental health crises.
As of December 2025, these 10 teams are fully operational and play the following key roles:
Clinician-Led Intervention: Each team typically pairs a mental health clinician with three MTA Police officers. The clinician leads the engagement to de-escalate situations and assess the individual’s needs, while the officers provide a “zone of safety”.
Targeting Severe Mental Illness: Unlike general outreach teams that build long-term trust, SCOUT teams focus specifically on the most severe cases of untreated mental illness. They actively canvass stations and trains for individuals who may be a danger to themselves or others.
Referral and Treatment: The teams connect individuals with medical care, psychiatric treatment, and supportive housing. As of late 2025, SCOUT teams have made over 750 referrals out of the subway system, resulting in more than 2,000 nights of treatment for those patients.
Involuntary Transport: When an individual is deemed a danger to themselves or others and refuses voluntary help, SCOUT teams are authorized to facilitate involuntary transport to a hospital for psychiatric evaluation.
Coordination with Housing Services: The program works in tandem with the city’s Department of Homeless Services and “Transition to Home Units” (THUs) to ensure that those removed from the subway for treatment have a pathway to stable housing rather than returning to the transit system.
Fully funded with $20 million from the state, these teams are a central pillar of Governor Hochul’s “cops, cameras, and care” strategy to improve subway safety and rider satisfaction.”
What do the residents think about the SCOUT program?
GoogleAI Mode: “While the SCOUT program has shown statistical success in 2025, public and resident opinions are deeply divided between those who value increased order and those who fear the “criminalization” of mental illness and homelessness.
Resident Satisfaction and Positive Sentiment
For many daily riders, the program and associated safety measures have led to a significantly improved perception of the subway system:
Safety Perception Records: According to December 2025 MTA survey data, 71% of riders now report feeling safe in the subway, a record high and a 14-point increase from the start of the year.
Increased Ridership: High safety ratings have coincided with several post-pandemic ridership records in late 2025, with single-day totals reaching over 4.6 million customers.
Support for Clinician-Led Response: Many residents support the use of mental health professionals (clinicians) over a purely police-based response, viewing the SCOUT teams as a “long-awaited and potentially game-changing step” to help those in crisis.
Critical Perspectives and Concerns
Despite positive safety statistics, significant portions of the public and advocacy groups remain critical:
“Treated and Streeted”: Critics and some first responders describe the system as a “conveyor belt,” where individuals are removed for short-term psychiatric evaluation but are often released back onto the street or into the subway system shortly after due to a lack of long-term inpatient beds.
The Role of Police: Organizations like the Coalition for the Homeless argue that SCOUT is effectively an “NYPD-led outreach program” that relies too heavily on involuntary removals rather than providing the permanent housing and voluntary care that individuals actually need.
Fear of Over-Policing: Some local leaders and residents worry that the heavy presence of National Guard, NYPD, and SCOUT teams results in the over-policing of vulnerable populations, leading to “security theater” that targets low-income and minority New Yorkers.
Transparency Gaps: A January 2025 report from the City Comptroller noted that while engagement numbers are growing, there is a lack of transparent data regarding long-term outcomes, such as how many people actually stayed in stable housing or adhered to treatment plans after being referred by a SCOUT team.
2025 Impact Summary
By the end of 2025, the program’s primary achievement remains its scale—expanding to 10 teams and facilitating over 900 referrals (including 300 involuntary ones). While the MTA reports that riders “rank subway safety as their number one concern” and are “glad to see the cops,” the debate continues over whether the city is solving the underlying mental health crisis or simply moving it out of public view.”
What do the residents think about the bag checks and the presence of the National Guard?
GoogleAI Mode: “Public opinion on the National Guard’s presence and bag checks in New York City subways remains deeply divided through late 2025. While many residents express increased feelings of safety, others view the measures as invasive, discriminatory, or ineffective.
Positive Sentiment (Safety and Deterrence)
Increased Sense of Security: Many riders report that the visible presence of uniformed National Guard members acts as a “calming presence”. According to survey data from late 2025, approximately 71% of riders feel safe in the system, a significant increase from previous years.
Support for Deterrence: Some residents welcome the bag checks as a necessary deterrent to prevent individuals from bringing weapons onto trains, particularly following high-profile violent incidents.
Reassurance for Tourists: The presence of the Guard at major hubs like Grand Central and Penn Station is often viewed as a reassuring measure for visitors and holiday tourists.
Critical Sentiment (Civil Liberties and Effectiveness)
Concerns Over Racial Profiling: Many New Yorkers and advocacy groups, such as the NYCLU, argue that the random bag checks mirror “stop-and-frisk” tactics and disproportionately target Black and Brown residents.
“Security Theater”: Critics often describe the deployment as “performative” or “security theater,” arguing that checking a small fraction of bags in a system with millions of riders is an ineffective way to prevent crime.
Dislike of “Militarization”: Some residents express a strong dislike for the “militarization” of civilian infrastructure, feeling that National Guard members are “just more bodies in the way” and lack the specific training or arrest authority needed for domestic policing.
Political Opposition: Mayoral candidates and local leaders have consistently opposed the deployment, with some calling it an “unconstitutional” use of troops against U.S. citizens.
General Mixed Reaction
“Lukewarm” Acceptance: A segment of the population remains “lukewarm,” seeing the presence as “welcome” if not necessarily reassuring enough to change their transit habits.
Preference for Mental Health Services: Many residents have voiced that they would prefer to see resources invested in social workers and mental health services rather than an increased military or police presence.”
Considering the Fourth Amendment’s special needs exception, on a scale of 1 to 5, what is the likelihood that the bag checks are constitutional even as the civil liberties argue they are illegal?
GoogleAI Mode: “The likelihood that the National Guard’s subway bag checks are constitutional is 4 out of 5.
Step 1: Application of the “Special Needs” Doctrine
The constitutional foundation for these searches is the “special needs” exception to the Fourth Amendment. Under the 2006 Second Circuit ruling in MacWade v. Kelly, the court determined that the government’s interest in preventing a catastrophic terrorist attack on mass transit outweighs the “minimal” privacy intrusion of a random bag search. Because this precedent remains the governing law in New York as of late 2025, courts are highly likely to maintain the constitutionality of the program.
Step 2: Analysis of the “General Crime Control” Limitation
The likelihood is not a 5/5 because of the Supreme Court’s ruling in City of Indianapolis v. Edmond. That case established that checkpoints cannot be used for “general crime control.” Civil liberties groups argue that because Governor Hochul and city officials have explicitly framed the 2024–2025 deployments as a way to combat “ordinary” violent crime (stabbings and assaults) rather than strictly preventing terrorism, the “special need” justification has been invalidated. However, courts typically defer to the state’s assertion that any large-scale transit security mission still serves a counter-terrorism function.
Step 3: Evaluation of the Voluntary Opt-Out Mechanism
A critical factor in the constitutional analysis is that the searches are technically voluntary. Riders are notified of the checkpoints and have the legal right to refuse the search, provided they exit the station. This “notice and opt-out” framework significantly lowers the “unreasonableness” of the search in the eyes of the judiciary, making a successful Fourth Amendment challenge difficult to sustain in 2025.
Answer:
The likelihood that the bag checks are constitutional is 4 out of 5, primarily due to the existing “special needs” precedent established in the Second Circuit, which remains un-overturned despite shifting political justifications for the deployment.
AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional.”
Accepting a Fourth Amendment challenge as difficult, what factors need to exist for the bag checks to be deemed unconstitutional based on arguing general crime control?
GoogleAI Mode: “While current precedent heavily favors the state, for a Fourth Amendment challenge based on “general crime control” to succeed, plaintiffs would need to prove that the primary programmatic purpose of the bag checks has shifted away from a specific safety threat to general law enforcement.
According to Supreme Court standards set in City of Indianapolis v. Edmond (2000), the following factors would need to be present for the checks to be deemed unconstitutional:
- Shift in Primary Programmatic Purpose
Proof of General Enforcement: Plaintiffs must prove the “actual primary purpose” is detecting evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing (like drugs or knives) rather than preventing a catastrophic event.
Documentary Evidence: Courts would examine internal directives, written guidelines, and policy statements. If these documents explicitly state the mission’s goal is “combatting a crime wave” or “addressing subway violence” without linking it to a “special need” like counterterrorism, the program becomes vulnerable.
- Statistical Evidence of Arrest Profiles
Secondary Crimes: A high volume of arrests for crimes unrelated to the “special need” (e.g., drug possession or open warrants) compared to weapon/explosive seizures would suggest the checkpoint is a pretext for general policing.
Profiling Data: If statistical data shows specific groups are being targeted, it undermines the “randomness” required for the “special needs” exception and moves the search toward unconstitutional “stop-and-frisk” territory.
- Failure to Adhere to “Standardized” Execution
To maintain constitutionality, the program must be standardized to limit officer discretion. Factors that would violate this include:
Subjective Selection: If officers on the scene, rather than a predetermined formula (e.g., “every 10th person”), decide who to search, the search is no longer considered a “reasonable” administrative check.
Excessive Intrusion: If searches exceed the scope of checking for explosives—such as reading personal mail, requesting ID, or searching small containers incapable of holding a weapon—they lose their “special needs” protection.
- Testimony from Policy Officials
Programmatic Inquiry: Courts perform the purpose inquiry at the programmatic level, not by questioning individual officers. Plaintiffs would need to depose high-ranking officials to determine if the state’s public justification (“crime fighting”) matches its legal justification (“counterterrorism”).
As of late 2025, civil liberties groups are monitoring these exact factors, arguing that Governor Hochul’s framing of the deployment as a “crime-fighting strategy” makes it a “conventional” police action that requires individualized suspicion rather than random checks.
AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional.”
What are the solutions regarding the bag checks?
GoogleAI Mode: “As of late December 2025, solutions to the legal and logistical controversy over New York City subway bag checks focus on a “cops, cameras, and care” strategy that aims to shift reliance away from military personnel toward technology and clinical outreach.
- Legislative and Policy Solutions
To address concerns that bag checks are “security theater” targeting general crime rather than terrorism, several legislative measures have been introduced or implemented:
Transit Ban Legislation: A central legislative solution in 2025 is a new state bill allowing judges to ban repeat violent offenders from the subway system for up to three years.
Targeted Deployment: Rather than system-wide checks, 94 screening teams are deployed weekly to 136 specific stations based on intelligence, threat assessments, and passenger volume to increase efficiency and decrease rider inconvenience.
Standardized Procedures: Official guides emphasize pre-planned search procedures to ensure interactions are professional and focused strictly on prohibited items, aiming to reduce the risk of unconstitutional profiling.
- Technological Alternatives
The state is increasingly using technology to supplement or replace manual bag checks:
AI-Powered Surveillance: The MTA has accelerated the installation of high-definition security cameras in every subway car and conductor cabin to provide a constant deterrent that does not require physical stops.
Weapon Detection Technology: City officials continue to pilot and review advanced metal-detection technology designed to identify weapons as passengers enter through turnstiles without requiring manual bag searches.
AI Track and Maintenance Inspections: New AI tools like TrackInspect are being used to automate track inspections, freeing up personnel and resources to focus on high-priority safety missions.
- Clinical and Social Solutions
For social issues such as homelessness and mental health—which critics argue bag checks do not solve—the state has pivoted toward non-military response teams:
SCOUT Team Expansion: The number of Subway Co-Response Outreach (SCOUT) teams, which pair mental health clinicians with police to provide medical rather than military responses, has expanded significantly in 2025.
Supportive Housing (SOS Teams): The state continues to fund Safe Options Support (SOS) teams to transition unhoused individuals into permanent housing, addressing the root causes of the presence of vulnerable populations in the transit system.
- Civil Liberties Protections
To mitigate legal challenges, riders retain specific protections:
Right of Refusal: Passengers have the legal right to refuse a bag check; the state’s solution to maintain order while respecting the Fourth Amendment is to deny entry to the system rather than perform a forced search.
Complaint Mechanisms: Riders who feel they were targeted or treated unfairly can file formal complaints with the Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) or the respective state agencies for National Guard members.”
THE NATIONAL GUARD, CALIFORNIA & ILLINOIS
How many governors are involved with a situation involving the National Guard?
GoogleAI Mode: “As of December 24, 2025, governors across more than half of the United States are involved in situations involving the National Guard. These interactions are characterized by a sharp partisan divide over domestic deployments for crime and immigration enforcement.
Governors Supporting Deployments
Approximately 26 Republican governors signed a joint statement earlier in 2025 pledging to provide National Guard troops to support federal immigration and crime initiatives.
Active Deployments to D.C.: Governors from West Virginia, South Carolina, Ohio, Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, and South Dakota have activated troops under Title 32 to support federal missions in Washington, D.C..
Immigration Assistance (ICE): At least 11 Republican-led states—Alabama, Florida, Iowa, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming—have mobilized Guard units to assist federal immigration authorities.
Louisiana: Governor Jeff Landry recently coordinated a deployment of up to 350 troops to New Orleans, effective through February 2026, to address violent crime.
Governors Opposing or Resisting Deployments
A group of 19 Democratic governors has formally condemned the use of the Guard for domestic law enforcement as an “alarming abuse of power”.
California: Governor Gavin Newsom sued the administration to block the federalization and deployment of the California National Guard in Los Angeles. Courts recently ordered these federalized troops to leave the city by mid-December 2025.
Illinois: Governor J.B. Pritzker successfully sued to block deployments to Chicago. On December 23, 2025, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court order preventing federalized troops from being sent to the city.
Oregon: Governor Tina Kotek filed suit to block the deployment of Guard troops in Portland, where litigation remains ongoing despite shifting court stays.
States with Active Domestic Operations
As of late December 2025, National Guard troops remain active on the streets in the following jurisdictions due to these specific situations:
Washington, D.C.: Supporting crime and immigration crackdowns.
Memphis, Tennessee: Supporting a multi-agency crime surge.
New Orleans, Louisiana: Mobilizing for holiday and Mardi Gras security.
Southern Border: Sustained mission for border security in states like Texas.”
Why are some governors like Newsom successful with their blocks?
GoogleAI Mode: “Governors like Gavin Newsom (California) and J.B. Pritzker (Illinois) have been successful in blocking National Guard deployments primarily because courts found the federal government failed to provide a lawful basis for federalizing state troops over a governor’s objection.
As of late December 2025, several key legal factors have led to these successful blocks:
- Violation of the 1903 Militia Act
The Supreme Court ruled on December 23, 2025, that the president may only federalize the National Guard under certain statutes if “regular forces” are unable to execute the law.
Definition of “Regular Forces”: The court clarified that “regular forces” refers to the standing U.S. military, not civilian law enforcement or federal agents.
Failure of Requirement: Because the administration did not first attempt to use the regular military, it had no authority to bypass state control of the Guard.
- The Posse Comitatus Act
Courts have frequently cited this 1878 law, which generally prohibits using federal military forces for domestic law enforcement.
Illegal Use as Police: A federal judge in California ruled in August 2025 that using federalized Guard members for “arrests, apprehensions, and security patrols” in Los Angeles violated this act.
- Lack of Factual Justification
Governors have successfully argued that the “emergency conditions” cited by the federal government did not actually exist.
“Mostly Peaceful” Protests: Judges in Illinois and California found no evidence of a “rebellion” or danger to federal property that would justify military intervention.
Abated Unrest: In Los Angeles, courts noted that civil unrest had abated long before the administration sought to extend federalization, making continued deployment illegal.
- Infringement on State Sovereignty
Governors have defended their constitutional role as Commander-in-Chief of their state’s Guard.
Governor Consent: Under Title 10, federalization typically requires gubernatorial consent unless specific, exceptional legal criteria are met. Newsom and Pritzker successfully argued that the administration illegally seized control of their units against their will.
Status of Current Blocks (as of Dec 24, 2025)
Chicago: Successfully blocked by the Supreme Court on Dec 23.
Los Angeles: Federal appellate court ordered troops out by Dec 15.
Portland: Effectively blocked by judges as an improper attempt to “circumvent” previous rulings.”
THE NATIONAL GUARD PERSPECTIVE
How do members of the National Guard feel about being caught in the middle with no say?
GoogleAI Mode: “In late 2025, National Guard members report feeling deep internal conflict, fatigue, and a sense of “shame” as they are caught between federal orders and state leadership in a series of legal battles.
- Professional and Personal Conflicts
Many members feel that being deployed for domestic policing—specifically missions involving immigration enforcement—is “not what they signed up for”.
Moral Dilemmas: Some soldiers have expressed emotional distress over potentially being ordered to take actions against their own communities, families, or culture.
Refusal of Orders: In high-profile cases, such as in Illinois, some officers have publicly vowed to defy orders they believe are unlawful, despite facing disciplinary actions like security clearance suspensions.
Encrypted Support Groups: Troops have reportedly started encrypted group chats to discuss their concerns and seek resources for questioning their deployments.
- Morale and Operational Strain
The uncertainty caused by ongoing litigation has created a state of “limbo” for many units.
“Rightsizing” and Fatigue: Guardsmen deployed to cities like Washington, D.C. have grown weary with “no end in sight” for missions that keep them away from civilian jobs and families.
Institutional Integrity: Some members and veterans’ organizations argue that these deployments are “unnecessarily inflammatory” and “damaging to the military,” blurring the essential line between domestic policing and military service.
- Experiences on the Ground
Soldiers face a polarized public while on duty:
Public Reaction: Troops in D.C. describe a “50-50” split in public sentiment; while some residents thank them for their presence, others view them with deep mistrust or disapproval.
Legal Uncertainty: After courts blocked missions in cities like Chicago, some Guardsmen were left inactive and “in limbo,” unable to perform their duties but still separated from their homes and civilian careers.
Despite these internal struggles, most active members maintain a focus on their duty, with some out-of-state troops stating they will remain at their posts “until they tell us we can go home”.”
Tell me more about the refusals
GoogleAI Mode: “In late 2025, instances of National Guard members refusing orders or speaking out against domestic deployments have become more frequent, fueled by recent court rulings that have labeled several federal missions as unlawful or illegal.
High-Profile Refusals in Illinois
The most public instances have occurred in Illinois, where 300 state Guard members were federalized for immigration enforcement in Chicago—a move the Supreme Court blocked on December 23, 2025.
Public Defiance: High-ranking members, including Capt. Dylan Blaha and Staff Sgt. Demi Palecek, have publicly stated they would not comply with orders they believe are unconstitutional.
Motivation: They described feeling “forced to go against community members and neighbors,” arguing that being used for domestic immigration sweeps “feels illegal” and is a violation of their oath to protect the Constitution.
Internal Discord: Many soldiers report that the mission “is not what they signed up to do,” leading to widespread unease within their units.
The “Duty to Disobey”
The debate over refusals centers on a core military principle: the obligation to follow only lawful orders.
Legal Obligation: Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), service members have a legal right—and sometimes a duty—to disobey “patently illegal” orders, such as those directing the commission of a crime or violating the Constitution.
Troop Sentiment: A June 2025 survey of 818 active-duty troops found that 25% believe it is their duty to disobey orders that are “obviously wrong” or “obviously unconstitutional,” with only 9% stating they would “obey any order” regardless of its nature.
Consequences of Refusal
Refusing an order carries significant risks, as the legality of the order is often only determined after the fact in court.
Disciplinary Action: If an order is later found to be lawful, a member who refuses can face a court-martial, felony-level discharge, loss of pay, or even imprisonment for up to two years.
Presumption of Lawfulness: Military law generally expects members to presume orders from a proper authority are lawful unless they clearly constitute an egregious crime, a standard established after World War II.
Impact of Court Rulings
The recent wave of judicial blocks has significantly bolstered the position of those questioning their orders:
Portland and D.C.: In late 2025, federal judges in Oregon and Washington, D.C. ruled certain domestic Guard deployments illegal or unlawful, providing a legal basis for members to argue that following such deployment orders would be a violation of their oath.
Encrypted Discussions: Troops have increasingly turned to encrypted group chats to discuss their legal rights and the morality of their deployments as they find themselves caught in the middle of these high-stakes constitutional battles.”
What are the solutions?
GoogleAI Mode: “Solutions for the ongoing National Guard deployment controversies in late 2025 focus on judicial oversight, legislative reform to modernizing 19th-century laws, and mental health support for the service members affected by the legal “limbo.”
- Judicial & Constitutional Solutions
Recent court rulings have established clear boundaries for executive power over the National Guard:
Enforcing Statutory Limitations: On December 23, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. Illinois that the president cannot federalize state Guard units for domestic policing without first proving that “regular forces” (the standing military) are unable to execute the law.
Adherence to Posse Comitatus: Federal courts in California and Illinois have increasingly ruled that domestic military deployments for civilian law enforcement violate the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits using federal troops as a domestic police force.
Respecting State Sovereignty: Judicial solutions prioritize the role of governors as Commanders-in-Chief of their state Guard. Courts have recently ordered the return of federalized units in Los Angeles and blocked them in Chicago because the administration lacked a lawful basis to seize them over governor objections.
- Legislative Reform
Lawmakers have introduced bills to narrow presidential authority and increase accountability:
Insurrection Act Reform Act of 2025: This proposed legislation would modernize the 1807 statute by narrowing the criteria for domestic military use, mandating transparency, and requiring Congressional approval if a deployment lasts longer than seven days.
No Troops in Our Streets Act: Introduced in November 2025, this bill would allow Congress to halt domestic military deployments with a simple majority vote.
State-Level Legislation: Legal experts suggest states use their own legislative power to regulate how and when their National Guard personnel can be used for domestic law enforcement on their soil.
- Support for Service Members & Families
To address the morale and “conscience” crises facing Guardsmen caught in these legal battles, resources are available to help them navigate their duties:
Conscience Advocacy: Information campaigns by veteran groups (such as those featured on NPR in late 2025) encourage Guard members to understand their legal right—and duty—to question and potentially refuse “patently illegal” orders.
Peer Support & Counseling: Active members are encouraged to use Military OneSource (800-342-9647) for confidential non-medical counseling to discuss deployment stress and ethical concerns.
Family Resilience Programs: Support systems at military installations provide “Three Rs” training—predictable routines, rules, and rituals—to help families cope with the instability of sudden or controversial deployments.
Crisis Intervention: Service members in distress can reach the Veterans Crisis Line at 988 (Press 1) for immediate, 24/7 confidential help.”
Who are the helpful veterans groups? What are the three R’s?
GoogleAI Mode: “In late 2025, a network of veterans’ organizations and military family programs is providing support to National Guard members navigating the legal and ethical complexities of domestic deployments.
Helpful Veterans & Advocacy Groups
Several organizations have launched specific 2025 initiatives to assist service members caught in the “limbo” of domestic missions:
Common Defense: This veterans’ group has been a leading voice in 2025, calling for the suspension of domestic Guard deployments until clear safety protocols and legal justifications are provided.
The ACLU & The Chamberlain Network: These groups have partnered with dozens of veterans to demand Congressional action against the perceived misuse of military power in American cities.
Veterans For Peace (VFP): Actively reinforces opposition to the deployment of troops to U.S. cities and provides resources for members questioning the morality of their orders.
Vets4Warriors: Offers 24/7 confidential peer support specifically for National Guard and Reserve members, connecting them with fellow veterans who have shared lived experiences.
Legal Defense Initiatives: Recent ad campaigns in December 2025, backed by nonprofit groups, provide links and billboards (e.g., “Obey Only Lawful Orders”) to ensure troops are aware of their right to refuse “manifestly unlawful” orders.
EANGUS (Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States): Serves as a primary legislative advocate in D.C. to improve the quality of life and readiness for Guard members and their families.
The “Three Rs” of Family Resilience
To help families cope with the instability of sudden or controversial deployments, military experts and support programs like Military OneSource emphasize the “Three Rs” to build resilience:
Routines: Establishing daily, predictable schedules—such as consistent mealtimes and bedtime rituals—to provide children with a sense of security and comfort while a parent is away.
Rules: Maintaining consistent expectations for behavior within the home. This stability prevents children from feeling overwhelmed by the change in household dynamics during a deployment.
Rituals: Creating shared activities, such as weekly video calls, letter writing, or “family game nights,” to maintain emotional connections between the deployed member and those at home.
Families can also access the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program (YRRP), which connects Guard members and their families to resources throughout the entire deployment cycle to ensure a smooth transition back to civilian life.”
What should Americans and the world know about the National Guard members caught in the middle because of the Trump administration?
GoogleAI Mode: “In 2025, National Guard members are at the center of an unprecedented legal and political clash between federal authority and state sovereignty. As of December 24, 2025, several key developments define their current situation.
- Morale and Mission Confusion
Internal reports from 2025 indicate significant demoralization and “mission confusion” among Guard members deployed to major cities like Los Angeles and Washington, D.C..
“Fake Missions”: Some troops have characterized their domestic assignments as “political theater” or “gardening,” feeling their presence is aimed at intimidation rather than addressing actual crises.
Behavioral Health Concerns: In Los Angeles, at least 105 members sought behavioral health counseling during their deployment, and several commanders who objected to the mission were reassigned.
Institutional Reputation: Retired generals have warned that thrusting the military into “aggressive interactions with civilians” in a politicized context will inevitably erode the long-term trust of the American people.
- The Legal High-Wire Act
Guard members face “legal jeopardy” due to the administration’s “boundary-pushing” use of military operations.
Conflicting Oaths: Members swear an oath to the U.S. Constitution, not to any individual leader. This creates a dilemma: they must obey lawful orders but have a duty to disobey manifestly illegal ones, such as those violating the Constitution or the Posse Comitatus Act.
Risk of Retaliation: Disobeying an order that is later found to be lawful can lead to court-martial or administrative sanctions, while following an order later ruled illegal can result in personal criminal liability.
- Federalization vs. State Command
The Trump administration has frequently used Title 10 authority to federalize the Guard, effectively stripping governors of command.
Constitutional Tensions: This has triggered major lawsuits from states like Illinois and California, which argue that federalizing units without gubernatorial consent for routine law enforcement violates the Tenth Amendment.
Judicial Intervention: As of late December 2025, the Supreme Court has significantly curbed these efforts, ruling that the administration must prove it is “unable” to execute laws with regular military forces before it can legally federalize the National Guard against a governor’s wishes.
- Impact on Recruiting
Despite these tensions, the National Guard exceeded its fiscal year 2025 recruiting goals, enlisting nearly 50,000 new members.
Surge in Interest: Total Guard strength reached over 433,000 in 2025, marking one of the most successful recruiting years in a decade.
Incentives: Success is attributed to record-high basic pay increases and new preparatory courses to ready recruits for basic training. However, experts warn that the long-term impact of controversial domestic deployments on retention and the Guard’s “civilian-soldier” image remains uncertain.”
What happens to the surge in interest for the National Guard if the Trump administration continues on “boundary-pushing” use of military operations?
GoogleAI Mode: “As of December 24, 2025, the relationship between the National Guard’s recent recruiting success and the Trump administration’s “boundary-pushing” domestic deployments is characterized by a growing tension between high enlistment numbers and declining internal morale.
Current Conflict: Record Recruiting vs. Internal Strain
Recruiting Success (September 2025): The National Guard exceeded its fiscal year 2025 goals, enlisting nearly 50,000 new members. Total Guard strength reached over 433,000, driven by the “Uncommon is Calling” marketing campaign and the Future Soldier Preparatory Course.
Demoralization in the Ranks: Despite the surge in interest, internal reports from September 2025 revealed that morale has “plummeted” among those already serving in controversial domestic deployments.
In Washington, D.C., 53% of public sentiment toward the deployment was negative, while troops reported feeling “fatigue, confusion, and demoralization”.
Some members described their domestic assignments as “just gardening,” indicating a disconnect between their training as warfighters and their use in political or law enforcement roles.
Potential Long-Term Impacts of Continued “Boundary-Pushing”
If the administration continues to use the National Guard in ways that test legal limits—such as the recent federalization efforts in Chicago and Los Angeles that were ruled illegal in December 2025—experts predict the following consequences for the force:
Retention Crises: While recruiting (getting people in) is high, retention (keeping them in) is expected to suffer. Senior leaders have warned that no amount of money can incite Guard members to continue if they feel their service is being politicized or they are consistently pulled away from families for “political theater”.
Erosion of Public and Veteran Trust: Military data shows 79% of recruits come from families with a history of service. Experts warn that increasing politicization makes veterans less likely to recommend service to their children, which could lead to a “dire decline” in future recruitment.
Readiness Degradation: Diverting thousands of soldiers to internal security operations in U.S. cities is viewed as poor preparation for the military’s primary mission of deterring foreign adversaries. Continuous domestic activation, which reached a near-record 21 million days of activation in recent years, risks atrophying the high-end combat skills necessary for national defense.
Moral and Legal Dilemmas: Continued boundary-pushing forces members to navigate the “high risk” of following orders that may be found unlawful by courts. Following the December 23, 2025, Supreme Court ruling, Guard members may face increased uncertainty about the legality of their chain of command in states where governors have explicitly objected to federal control.”
On a scale of 1 to 5, what is the moral blow to a National Guard member of having to choose between an order from their Governor or one from the President?
GoogleAI Mode: “On a scale of 1 to 5, the “moral blow” to a National Guard member forced to choose between conflicting orders from their Governor and the President is a 5 (Severe).
In 2025, this scenario is no longer theoretical but a central crisis for the force, characterized by extreme psychological strain, legal jeopardy, and institutional demoralization.
Factors Driving the Moral Crisis
Oath Dilemma: Service members swear to uphold the U.S. Constitution, which requires them to obey lawful orders while specifically disobeying unlawful ones. A 2025 survey found that 1 in 4 troops prioritize their duty to disobey orders they perceive as “obviously wrong” or “unconstitutional”.
Dual-Command Strain: National Guard members serve two masters: the Governor (state) and the President (federal). When these leaders clash, as they have in Chicago, Portland, and Los Angeles in 2025, members are caught in a “legal high-wire act” where following one leader could mean betraying their oath to the other.
Psychological and Emotional Impact:
Demoralization: Troops in 2025 have reported feeling like “political props” or “gardening” staff during domestic deployments, leading to widespread fatigue and confusion.
Fear of Retaliation: Disobeying a presidential order carries a risk of court-martial, while following an order later ruled illegal—as the Supreme Court did for Chicago deployments on December 23, 2025—can lead to personal criminal liability.
Institutional Fragmentation: The unprecedented friction between governors and the President has shredded the “bipartisan common ground” of organizations like the National Governors Association, further isolating Guard members from a clear, unified sense of mission.
2025 Legal “Safety Valves”
Despite the high moral blow, 2025 has seen increased emphasis on the duty to disobey:
Democratic “Warning” (Nov 2025): Lawmakers explicitly reminded the military they must refuse illegal orders, citing the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
Judicial Clarity: The Supreme Court’s ruling on December 23, 2025, has provided some moral relief by clearly defining certain federalization efforts as “unauthorized,” thereby validating members who prioritize state or constitutional command in those specific instances.”
What are the implications for all Americans including the National Guard when a president does not prioritize state or constitutional command?
GoogleAI Mode: “In 2025, a president’s decision to bypass state and constitutional commands when deploying the military domestically has profound implications for the National Guard, American democratic institutions, and the rule of law.
Following the December 23, 2025, Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. Illinois, these implications have moved from theoretical concerns to active legal and social crises.
- Implications for the National Guard
Legal Vulnerability: Guard members are caught in a “dual-command” crisis. Following an order from the President that violates a Governor’s command or a court order (like the recent Illinois ruling) can lead to personal criminal or civil liability for the individual soldier.
Institutional Erosion: Internal documents from 2025 reveal that troops feel “shame” and “fatigue,” perceiving their missions as “leveraging fear” rather than serving their communities. This erosion of their “moral compass” threatens the Guard’s long-standing status as a trusted nonpartisan institution.
Mission Degradation: Using elite military units for “gardening” or routine policing—which some members have termed “political theater”—detracts from the high-end combat training necessary for national defense.
- Implications for State Sovereignty and Federalism
Constitutional “Intrusion”: Deployments against a governor’s wishes are viewed as a direct violation of the Tenth Amendment, which reserves police powers to the states.
Partisan Fracture: The misuse of federal authority has polarized the states; while some Republican governors welcome these deployments, Democratic-led states have been forced to use their court systems as a “backstop” to keep democracy “on the rails”.
Destabilizing Precedents: If courts fail to curb such actions, future presidents could use the military not for necessity, but as a political tool to bypass local leaders they disagree with.
- Implications for the American Public
Erosion of Trust: When the military is used to “police Americans at home,” it risks losing its nonpartisan status, potentially being viewed as a “partisan force” or “MAGA military”.
Civil Conflict Risk: Direct military-citizen confrontations—already documented in 2025 during immigration raids in Los Angeles—create a “slippery slope” toward escalating violence or even domestic fire exchanges.
Weakened Accountability: A presidency that operates without constitutional restraint threatens the system of checks and balances, moving the country toward what critics describe as an “imperial presidency” or “dictatorship”.
- Impact on the Rule of Law
Defiance of Judicial Orders: The ultimate risk is the executive branch ignoring court rulings. As of December 24, 2025, the Supreme Court’s rejection of the administration’s “inherent constitutional authority” to deploy troops in Chicago stands as a critical test of whether the administration will respect the “backstop” of the law.”
How many soldiers won’t be home for Christmas because of the legal “limbo?”
GoogleAI Mode: “As of December 24, 2025, several thousand National Guard members remain away from home for Christmas due to a combination of federal deployments in “legal limbo” and ongoing operations.
While the Supreme Court’s December 23 ruling blocked active operations in Chicago, many troops remain activated but restricted to base until formal demobilization or further orders.
Soldiers in “Legal Limbo” (Christmas 2025)
Washington, D.C.: Approximately 2,200 National Guard members from the District and several Republican-led states remain in the capital. A federal appeals court recently ruled they may stay while litigation continues.
Chicago: About 300 Illinois National Guard members remain activated but are legally prohibited from conducting operations on the streets or with the Department of Homeland Security following the Supreme Court’s block.
Memphis: Over 850 personnel are currently in a state of limbo after a state judge ruled that Tennessee’s governor likely exceeded his authority in sending them.
Oregon: Roughly 100 Oregon National Guard members remain “in limbo” at Camps Rilea and Withycombe under U.S. Northern Command orders, even as out-of-state units were sent home.
Los Angeles: While nearly 4,700 soldiers have demobilized since earlier this year, about 300 members are expected to remain through the holiday season.
Context of Christmas 2025 Deployments
In November, defense officials announced a “rightsizing” of deployments to Chicago, Portland, and Los Angeles, citing the holiday season as a factor in sending home out-of-state units (such as 200 Texas Guard members from Chicago and 200 California Guard members from Oregon).
However, new deployments are still occurring: 350 National Guard members are scheduled to arrive in New Orleans before New Year’s Eve to assist with an immigration crackdown and crime. Additionally, many states have troops away for more traditional reasons; for example, 1,800 Iowa soldiers are currently on a year-long deployment in the Middle East.”
On a scale of 1 to 5, what is the impact of the “legal limbo” on military families including children?
GoogleAI Mode: “On a scale of 1 to 5, the impact of “legal limbo” on military families—particularly children—is a 5 (Severe).
As of late 2025, this status reflects a confluence of unprecedented psychological, financial, and institutional stressors that have pushed many families to their “breaking point”.
- Psychological Impact on Children (Severe)
For the children of thousands of National Guard members stuck in limbo, the impact is defined by “ambiguous loss” and chronic stress.
Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs): Experts now recognize the threat of detention and the instability of domestic military missions as significant ACEs linked to long-term trauma, developmental delays, and chronic health issues.
Behavioral Health Crisis: Research shows that children in families facing deployment limbo exhibit increased rates of anxiety, depression, sleep disturbances, and attachment difficulties. Military teens in 2025 are reporting twice the rate of self-harm compared to their civilian peers.
Social Isolation: In polarized communities, children may face social friction at school based on their parent’s role in controversial domestic operations in cities like Chicago or Portland.
- Financial Instability
The legal limbo has coincided with a 2025 government shutdown, creating a direct financial crisis for “citizen-soldier” families.
Pay Insecurity: Over 1 million service members are currently working without immediate paychecks due to the shutdown, causing “collective anxiety” as families lurch from one payday to the next.
Out-of-Pocket Costs: Families often have to set aside $3,000 to $5,000 for unanticipated costs associated with sudden domestic deployments, such as rent and basic supplies at the new station.
Emergency Assistance: Demand for emergency support has surged, with nonprofit organizations like Blue Star Families directing hundreds of members to no-cost counseling and food aid.
- Institutional and Moral Injury
Families are experiencing “moral injury” as they question the purpose and legality of domestic missions.
Erosion of Trust: Families are increasingly less likely to recommend military service to others, citing the “betrayal” of their basic needs by a government using them for political strategy.
Legal Jeopardy: Following the December 23, 2025, Supreme Court ruling, spouses have expressed significant anxiety that their loved ones could face personal legal liability for carrying out orders that bypass state command.
- Impact on Christmas 2025
On this Christmas Eve 2025, roughly 3,500 to 4,000 families are mourning the absence of parents tethered to domestic posts by standby orders.
Holiday Isolation: While senior leaders have served holiday meals to troops on “safety missions” in D.C., these moments of connection are a poor substitute for home life during “avoidable” deployments.
Dashed Expectations: Families that “did not usually expect things to be as hard as they are” face hollow celebrations, with many parents describing themselves as “depressed” due to the ongoing limbo.”
What are the solutions?
GoogleAI Mode: “In 2025, several solutions have been proposed or enacted to address the “legal limbo” and moral strain on National Guard members and their families. These solutions span legislative reform, judicial intervention, and state-level protections.
- National Legislative Reform: The Insurrection Act of 2025
Introduced in mid-2025 (H.R. 4076/S. 2070), this bill is the primary federal solution aimed at preventing future “limbo” scenarios. Key provisions include:
Congressional Check: Any domestic deployment lasting longer than 7 days would require explicit Congressional approval.
Narrowed Criteria: The bill clarifies that military use is a “last resort” and cannot be used to suspend habeas corpus or impose martial law.
Judicial Review: It explicitly grants individuals and state governments the right to bring civil actions to challenge the misuse of the Act in federal court.
- Judicial Interventions
Courts have acted as a critical “backstop” to resolve the legal status of troops:
Supreme Court Rulings: On December 23, 2025, the Supreme Court upheld a block on National Guard deployments in Chicago, ruling the administration had “failed to identify a source of authority” to federalize troops against a governor’s wishes.
State-Level Injunctions: Federal and state judges in Oregon, Tennessee, and California have issued orders to halt or limit deployments, compelling the withdrawal of personnel from contested domestic policing missions.
- Protections for Guard Members and Families
To mitigate the impact on “citizen-soldiers” caught in the middle:
Enhanced Employment Rights: The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) was strengthened in 2025 to ensure members do not lose civilian career progress due to involuntary or “limbo” activations.
State-Level Civil Rights: Some states are adding “military family status” as a protected class in state education, employment, and housing laws to protect spouses and children from discrimination or instability during domestic crises.
Humanitarian Parole: Programs like “Parole in Place” (PIP) remain a vital solution to protect undocumented family members of service personnel from deportation, offering temporary legal status to keep military families intact during deployments.
- Policy Adjustments
Transition to Regular Forces: Legal experts suggest that if the administration cannot meet the high bar to federalize the Guard (which requires proving “inability” to use regular troops), it may be forced to use regular active-duty forces under the Insurrection Act instead, which provides a clearer—though more controversial—legal pathway.
Increased Oversight: Proposed rules would require the Attorney General and Joint Chiefs of Staff to certify that all non-military alternatives are insufficient before the Guard can be federalized for domestic use.”
THE INSURRECTION ACT
When did the Republican governors sign together? When was the first deployment?
GoogleAI Mode: “In 2025, Republican governors have coordinated both in support of border security and domestic crime crackdowns, building on long-standing joint efforts.
When Did Republican Governors Sign Together?
December 2024: Anticipating a shift in federal policy, Republican governors began offering National Guard troops for potential immigration and mass deportation plans as early as December 13, 2024.
August 18, 2025: As part of an escalating “show of force” in Washington, D.C., several Republican governors (including those from Mississippi, Tennessee, and Louisiana) authorized deployments to the nation’s capital.
Historical Context: These 2025 actions followed earlier joint statements, such as the April 2022 formation of the “American Governors’ Border Strike Force” by 26 Republican governors to coordinate on human smuggling and drug interdiction.
When Was the First Deployment?
The 2025 domestic deployment cycle occurred in successive phases across different cities:
Los Angeles (June 7, 2025): The first major domestic deployment of the year began in Los Angeles. This was a landmark event as it was the first time since 1965 that a president federalized a state National Guard without the governor’s permission.
Washington, D.C. (August 11, 2025): Deployments expanded to the nation’s capital to address crime and homelessness, involving roughly 2,000–2,500 troops.
Memphis, Tennessee (October 10, 2025): After an announcement in mid-September, federal forces and National Guard units officially arrived in Memphis to assist local law enforcement.
Portland and Chicago (September/October 2025): Deployments were authorized for these cities but faced immediate and ongoing legal challenges that stalled their full implementation.
New Orleans (December 2025): Most recently, a deployment of 350 National Guard troops was approved for New Orleans ahead of the 2025 New Year.”
What are the key differences between 10 U.S.C. § 12406 and the Insurrection Act regarding presidential deployment powers?
GoogleAI Mode: “In 2025, the distinction between 10 U.S.C. § 12406 and the Insurrection Act has become the central legal battleground for the Trump administration’s domestic military use.
The key differences, highlighted by the Supreme Court’s December 23, 2025, ruling in Trump v. Illinois, include:
- Scope of Forces
§ 12406: Only authorizes the federalization and deployment of the National Guard.
Insurrection Act: Authorizes the deployment of both the National Guard and active-duty regular military forces (e.g., Army, Marines).
- Interaction with the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA)
The PCA generally bars the military from domestic law enforcement.
§ 12406: The Supreme Court recently clarified that this statute is not an automatic exception to the PCA. Guard members under this authority remain bound by PCA restrictions unless another specific exception is invoked.
Insurrection Act: Is widely recognized as a clear statutory exception to the PCA, allowing the military to perform core law enforcement functions like arrests and crowd control.
- Conditions for Activation (The “Inability” Requirement)
§ 12406: Under the December 2025 ruling, the President must prove he is “unable” to execute the laws with the regular military before he can federalize the Guard to do so. This creates a “last resort” hurdle that the administration has struggled to meet in court.
Insurrection Act: Has a lower bar for deployment; it does not require the President to first attempt (and fail) to use regular military forces before acting.
- Procedural Requirements
§ 12406: Does not require a public warning before activation.
Insurrection Act: Requires the President to first issue a proclamation formally ordering the “insurgents” to disperse within a set timeframe before troops can be deployed.
- Definition of “Rebellion”
The administration has attempted to use both statutes by labeling protests as “rebellions.”
§ 12406: Lower courts in 2025 have rejected this, defining rebellion strictly as organized, armed opposition to the government as a whole, rather than localized protests or property damage.
Insurrection Act: Grants the President broader discretion to determine what constitutes “domestic violence” or an “unlawful combination” that obstructs federal law, making it harder for courts to review.
AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional.”
Even if the Insurrection Act was used by the Trump administration as Plan B, on a scale of 1 to 5, how likely is it that it grants authority to combat routine street crime?
GoogleAI Mode: “On a scale of 1 to 5, the likelihood that the Insurrection Act grants authority to combat routine street crime is a 1 (highly unlikely).
While the Act provides broad presidential discretion, it is legally restricted to specific scenarios that do not encompass standard criminal activity.
Legal Limitations on Combating Street Crime
Jurisdictional Boundaries: The Insurrection Act primarily allows for the enforcement of federal laws or the protection of constitutional civil rights. Routine street crimes (e.g., theft, assault, local narcotics) are governed by state and local laws, which the military is generally unauthorized to enforce.
Definition of “Insurrection”: Legal experts and courts in 2025 have clarified that localized crime or protests do not meet the legal threshold of an “insurrection” or “rebellion”. In Trump v. Illinois (December 23, 2025), the Supreme Court’s reasoning suggested that even broad presidential powers have limits when they clash with state sovereignty over local law enforcement.
The “Impracticability” Standard: The Act can only be invoked when “unlawful obstructions” make it “impracticable” to enforce federal law through the ordinary judicial process. This standard is difficult to apply to routine street crime, which is managed daily by civil courts and police.
Constitutional Safeguards: No statute, including the Insurrection Act, can override the Bill of Rights. Military forces deployed under the Act are still prohibited from performing warrantless searches or other actions that violate Fourth Amendment protections, which are central to routine criminal policing.
Legislative Reform (2025): The introduced Insurrection Act of 2025 specifically aims to narrow deployment criteria to ensure the military is a “last resort” and cannot be used for routine law enforcement functions.
The “Plan B” Outlook
While the Trump administration has characterized high-crime areas in cities like Chicago as justification for intervention, using the Insurrection Act for this purpose would likely be ruled unconstitutional as an overreach into state-held police powers. Therefore, while the administration may invoke the Act as a “Plan B” to bypass recent court blocks, it is legally improbable that it would sustain a mandate for routine domestic policing.”
Even if the Insurrection Act was used by the Trump administration as Plan B, on a scale of 1 to 5, how likely is it that it grants authority to enforce immigration rules in states?
GoogleAI Mode: “On a scale of 1 to 5, the likelihood that the Insurrection Act grants authority to enforce immigration rules in states is estimated at a 4.
While the Act is broadly phrased and traditionally viewed as a “last resort” for domestic enforcement, its legal application to immigration remains a subject of intense litigation in 2025.
Factors Supporting Authority (Likelihood: High)
Broad Presidential Discretion: The Act allows the president to deploy troops to address “unlawful obstructions” or “rebellion” that make it “impracticable” to enforce federal law. Trump allies argue that mass migration constitutes an “invasion” or “obstruction” of law, fulfilling these prerequisites.
Exemption from Posse Comitatus: Unlike other statutes, the Insurrection Act is a recognized exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, meaning troops can legally perform law enforcement duties such as arresting and detaining migrants.
Historical Precedent for Civil Rights/Law Enforcement: Presidents have previously used the Act to enforce federal laws (e.g., school integration) when states or local groups obstructed them, a precedent the administration may cite to bypass “sanctuary” state policies.
Legal Obstacles (Limiting Factors)
Judicial Review and Due Process: In 2025, the Supreme Court has already required that deportations—even under emergency acts—provide a “reasonable time” for individuals to argue against removal. A March 2025 ruling in Trump v. J.G.G. paused summary deportations to ensure due process, suggesting courts will not give the administration a “blank check” even under the Act.
Narrowing of “Rebellion” Definitions: Courts have recently rejected the administration’s claims that protests against ICE constitute a “rebellion.” In December 2025, the Supreme Court found the administration failed to prove a valid source of authority for domestic military law enforcement in Chicago, which may signal future skepticism of using the Insurrection Act for localized immigration enforcement.
The “Impracticability” Standard: To legally use the Act, the administration must prove that federal law cannot be enforced through the ordinary judicial system. Critics argue that immigration, while challenging, does not render the entire court system inoperative.
Score
4
Status
Likely but Fragile
Rationale
The Act’s language is broad enough to cover immigration enforcement, but 2025 court rulings suggest the military cannot bypass constitutional due process or state sovereignty without meeting a very high factual burden of “insurrection”.”
What are the solutions?
GoogleAI Mode: “In 2025, various legal, legislative, and state-level solutions have been proposed or enacted to address the potential use of the Insurrection Act for domestic enforcement. These measures aim to create “guardrails” against presidential overreach while preserving authority for true national emergencies.
- Legislative Solutions: The Insurrection Act of 2025
Introduced in mid-2025 (S.2070/H.R.4076), this bipartisan-supported bill aims to modernize the 1807 statute. Key reforms include:
Time Limits: Military deployments would automatically terminate after 7 days unless Congress provides affirmative approval.
Narrowed Criteria: The bill clarifies “insurrection” and “domestic violence” to ensure the military is a last resort used only when civilian authorities are clearly insufficient.
Judicial Review: It explicitly grants individuals and state/local governments the right to bring civil actions to challenge the misuse of the Act in federal court.
Civil Liberty Protections: The legislation specifies that the Act cannot be used to suspend habeas corpus or impose martial law.
- Judicial Solutions: Court-Imposed Constraints
Following the December 23, 2025, Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. Illinois, the judiciary has signaled it will act as a check on domestic military use:
Proving “Inability”: Courts now require the President to factually prove he is “unable” to execute laws with regular forces before federalizing the National Guard.
Due Process Overlays: Rulings in 2025 have established that military deployments do not suspend constitutional rights. Even under the Act, troops must respect Fourth Amendment protections against warrantless searches and seizures.
- State and Local Solutions
States and cities have adopted strategies to protect residents from unauthorized federal military presence:
State-Level “Firewalls”: Some legislatures have enacted laws to strictly separate state and local resources from federal immigration enforcement teams.
Funding Legal Counsel: States like Illinois and California have increased funding for legal representation to ensure that military-led detentions are immediately met with due process challenges.
Gubernatorial Resistance: Governors in “sanctuary” states have used their authority to refuse voluntary cooperation with federalized Guard units, forcing the administration to rely on more controversial unilateral federalization paths.
- Recommended Policy Reforms
Organizations like the Brennan Center for Justice advocate for additional systemic changes:
Evidence-Based Invocation: Requiring a judge’s prior approval or a formal finding of fact before the Act can be invoked over a governor’s objection.
Exclusionary Rules: Implementing rules that prevent any evidence obtained by the military in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act from being used in civilian court proceedings.”
What does the Insurrection Act say about using the military domestically?
GoogleAI Mode: “The Insurrection Act of 1807 (codified as 10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255) is the primary federal law empowering the President to deploy the U.S. military—both active-duty troops and the National Guard—domestically for law enforcement purposes.
It serves as the principal statutory exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, which otherwise prohibits military personnel from participating in civilian law enforcement like making arrests or conducting searches.
Key Provisions
The Act allows for military deployment in several scenarios:
The President can deploy troops if a state requests assistance to suppress an insurrection.
Deployment is possible if federal laws cannot be enforced through ordinary means due to “unlawful obstructions” or rebellion.
Troops can be deployed if domestic violence or conspiracy prevents the enforcement of laws, depriving people of constitutional rights, and state authorities are unable or unwilling to intervene. This section was used during the Civil Rights Movement.
Before using this authority, the President must typically issue a proclamation ordering insurgents to disperse. The Act specifies that “State” includes U.S. territories and the District of Columbia.
Following the Supreme Court’s December 23, 2025, ruling in Trump v. Illinois, which limited the administration’s ability to federalize the National Guard under a different statute, legal experts noted that the Insurrection Act remains a more potent tool that the President could still use to bypass these restrictions. However, the military’s actions under the Act must still adhere to the Constitution and cannot be used for routine policing.”
What are the chances of the Insurrection Act Reform Act passing in 2025?
GoogleAI Mode: “As of December 24, 2025, the chances of the Insurrection Act of 2025 (H.R. 4076/S. 2070) passing remain low, primarily due to strict partisan deadlock in the Senate.
Current Legislative Status
House of Representatives: The bill was introduced by Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-PA) in June 2025. While it has received strong endorsement from the Congressional Progressive Caucus, it has not yet moved to a full chamber vote as of late 2025.
Senate: A companion version led by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) has faced significant opposition. In late October 2025, Senate Republicans blocked a resolution to advance the reforms, with key figures like Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) formally objecting to unanimous consent requests for the legislation.
Key Obstacles to Passage
Partisan Divide: Republican leadership generally views the bill as an attempt to undermine executive authority during active domestic crises. They argue the current law provides necessary flexibility for the President to respond to “unlawful combinations”.
Executive Opposition: The Trump administration maintains that it is on “firm legal ground” with its current domestic deployments and has characterized the proposed reforms as “politicized” attempts to strip the President of emergency powers.
Prioritization of Other Legislation: Congress has prioritized other measures in late 2025, such as the Social Security Fairness Act and government reorganization plans, leaving little floor time for a highly contentious military reform bill.
Factors That Could Shift the Odds
The “Plan B” Trigger: If President Trump follows through on threats to invoke the Insurrection Act to bypass the Supreme Court’s December 23, 2025, ruling (which restricted his use of the National Guard), the resulting public and political outcry could create new momentum for reform.
Bipartisan Compromise: Some analysts suggest that if the bill is modified to include higher thresholds for “insurrection” rather than strict 7-day limits, it might attract moderate Republican support, though no such compromise has materialized by year-end.
AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional.”
What civil liberties protections would military deployments under the Insurrection Act violate?
GoogleAI Mode: “Military deployments under the Insurrection Act do not suspend the U.S. Constitution. In 2025, federal courts have increasingly scrutinized the Trump administration’s domestic military use, clarifying that such deployments must still respect fundamental civil liberties.
Potential civil liberties violations include:
- Fourth Amendment: Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
Troops deployed under the Act are prohibited from conducting warrantless searches of homes or seizing property. While the Act provides an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act—allowing soldiers to perform law enforcement roles like making arrests—they remain bound by the Fourth Amendment’s requirements for probable cause. In September 2025, a federal judge ordered the administration to stop using soldiers in Los Angeles for arrests, searches, and interrogations, citing these constitutional limits.
- First Amendment: Freedom of Speech and Assembly
Military presence at protests may be found to violate the First Amendment if used with an improper motive to retaliate against or “chill” constitutionally protected speech and assembly. In 2025, courts in Chicago and Portland blocked deployments partly because they found the administration’s characterization of protests as “rebellions” to be factually unsupported “fantasy”.
- Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments: Due Process
Detention and Removal: Military-led detentions must still provide Due Process. In December 2025, a federal judge ruled that the administration denied due process to Venezuelan migrants deported to a foreign prison, affirming that even under emergency acts, individuals must have a hearing to challenge their removal.
Election Integrity: Deployments that interfere with free and fair elections could be challenged as a violation of due process. Federal law specifically criminalizes the presence of federal troops at polling places.
- Tenth Amendment: State Sovereignty
In December 2025, the Supreme Court in Trump v. Illinois upheld blocks on National Guard deployments in Chicago, finding that federalizing state forces without a valid legal source of authority violated state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment.
- Equal Protection
The use of the Act can be challenged under the Equal Protection Clause if evidence suggests it is being used selectively to suppress protesters of a particular race.”
On a scale of 1 to 5, how is the Trump administration’s use of Plan B to endanger the National Guard regarding life and reputation?
GoogleAI Mode: “On a scale of 1 to 5, the likelihood that the Trump administration’s “Plan B”—invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807—would endanger National Guard members’ lives and reputation is a 4 or 5 (Very High).
While the Act provides the president with broad legal authority to bypass state consent, experts and internal documents from 2025 indicate that such an escalation creates severe physical, legal, and institutional risks for the force.
- Danger to Reputation (Scale: 5)
The reputation of the National Guard as a trusted, non-partisan community force faces its greatest threat under this “Plan B”.
Perception of “Leveraging Fear”: Internal National Guard assessments from September 2025 revealed that domestic missions are perceived as “leveraging fear” and driving a “wedge between citizens and the military”.
“Shame” Among Troops: Some members and veterans have expressed a sense of “shame” over being used for politically rooted mobilizations in civilian neighborhoods.
Loss of Public Trust: Experts warn that placing troops in direct, aggressive confrontation with American citizens—rather than their traditional role in disaster relief—will erode long-term institutional legitimacy.
- Danger to Life and Force Protection (Scale: 4)
Deploying the Guard into densely populated urban areas for law enforcement functions without proper training creates immediate physical hazards.
Vulnerability of Uniformed Personnel: National Guard members have expressed concern that their visibility in uniform makes them easy targets in “nebulous” missions where they lack clear force protection or mission success metrics.
Risk of Escalating Clashes: Civil-military experts warn of a “slippery slope” where support for law enforcement expands into detainments, potentially leading to incidents where troops and civilians exchange fire.
Inappropriate Use of Force: Critics argue that standard military rules for the use of force are “completely inappropriate” for civilian urban environments, increasing the risk of accidental injuries or deaths.
- Legal and Professional Jeopardy
Because the Insurrection Act is a “tool of last resort,” its use to bypass recent Supreme Court blocks (such as the December 23, 2025, ruling in Trump v. Illinois) places members in a precarious position.
Illegal Orders: If courts subsequently rule an invocation of the Act unconstitutional, individual Guard members could face personal legal liability for carrying out orders that violate civilian civil liberties.
Readiness Degradation: Diverting thousands of troops to domestic “training grounds” in cities degrades readiness for their primary mission of deterring foreign enemies.”
What is current in the National Guard regarding life and reputation?
GoogleAI Mode: “As of December 24, 2025, the National Guard is navigating a period of significant internal and external strain. While the organization reached record recruiting levels this year, its reputation and the safety of its members face challenges due to highly politicized domestic deployments and ongoing legal battles.
Current Status of Life and Safety
Physical Danger and Violence: In Washington, D.C., deployments were expanded after two National Guard members were shot near the White House on November 26, 2025.
Operational Strain: Many members describe feeling “fatigue, confusion, and demoralization” during domestic missions. In Los Angeles, over 100 members sought behavioral health counseling, and internal reports indicated deep frustration with missions that some troops compared to “just gardening”.
Uncertainty of Mission: Following the Supreme Court’s December 23, 2025, ruling that blocked deployments in Chicago, many troops remain in a legal limbo—idle in cities like Chicago and Portland while awaiting orders on whether they will be deployed or sent home.
Institutional Reputation and Morale
Record Recruiting Success: Paradoxically, the National Guard exceeded its fiscal year 2025 recruiting goals, enlisting nearly 50,000 new members and reaching a total strength of over 433,000. This success is credited to strong marketing and career training incentives.
Erosion of Public Trust: Veteran advocates and retired generals warn that domestic deployments against the wishes of state governors are damaging the Guard’s image as a “trusted and nonpartisan institution”. Critics argue that using the military for immigration raids or “aggressive interactions with civilians” undermines its community-based identity.
Retention Concerns: While recruitment is high, retention in units deployed to “boundary-pushing” missions is suffering. In California, early data suggested a retention rate of only 21% among soldiers whose enlistments expired during the Los Angeles deployment—significantly lower than the typical 60% rate.
Politicization Clashes: Members are increasingly forced to choose between loyalty to the Constitution and execution of controversial presidential orders, a choice that combat veterans have described as an “intolerable risk” to the force.
New Deployments and Legal Contradictions
New Orleans Deployment: On December 24, 2024, the administration approved the deployment of 350 members to New Orleans to assist with an immigration crackdown and fight violent crime, with the full support of Louisiana’s governor.
Court Blocks: Conversely, the Supreme Court’s December 23 ruling reaffirmed that the administration cannot unilaterally federalize the Guard for routine law enforcement in states where governors object, such as Illinois.”
THE UNDOCUMENTED GUARD RELATIVES
When considering service members, how many undocumented family members exist?
GoogleAI Mode: “In 2025, an estimated 80,000 undocumented spouses and parents of active-duty U.S. service members and veterans live in the United States.
Despite their connection to the military, these family members often lack secure legal status and face the persistent threat of deportation.
Key Statistics on Immigrants in the Military (2024–2025)
Active-Duty Immigrants: Approximately 45,000 immigrants are currently serving in the U.S. Armed Forces.
Foreign National Service: As of February 2024, more than 40,000 foreign nationals were serving in both active and reserve components.
Veteran Immigrants: Roughly 115,000 foreign nationals residing in the U.S. are veterans who previously served on active duty.
Naturalization: Between fiscal years 2020 and 2024, more than 52,000 service members naturalized to become U.S. citizens. In FY 2024 alone, 16,290 service members completed this process, marking a 34% increase from the previous year.
Deportation and Detention Risks
Estimated Deportations: Advocacy groups and lawmakers estimated in 2025 that as many as 10,000 U.S. veterans have been deported over time.
Undocumented Status: Approximately 94,000 veterans currently living in the U.S. do not have U.S. citizenship, leaving them vulnerable to detention and removal proceedings.
Recent Detentions: Throughout late 2025, reports of immigration officials targeting military families and veterans have prompted formal probes by federal lawmakers.
Legal Protections and Programs
To address these issues, programs like Parole in Place (PIP) have been used to provide temporary protection from deportation and work authorization for eligible undocumented family members of service personnel. However, these programs have faced significant legal challenges and shifting policy landscapes throughout 2024 and 2025.”
TRUMP LACKS MILITARY SERVICE
Considering the soldiers being used by the Trump administration for political gains and their families, did the Trump family serve the country in any way shape or form like them?
GoogleAI Mode: “Based on public records spanning at least five generations, there is no record of Donald Trump or his children serving in the U.S. Armed Forces. One immediate relative, Donald Trump’s late brother Fred Trump Jr., briefly served in the Air National Guard.
Service History of the Trump Family
Donald Trump: Received five deferments during the Vietnam War—four for education and one medical deferment for bone spurs in 1968. He attended the New York Military Academy as a teenager but transitioned directly to a business career afterward.
His Children: None of Donald Trump’s children—Donald Jr., Ivanka, Eric, Tiffany, or Barron—have served in the military. According to Mary Trump’s book, Donald Jr. reportedly expressed interest in joining but was allegedly threatened with being disowned if he did.
His Father: Fred Trump Sr. did not serve in the military and reportedly discouraged his children from enlisting.
His Grandfather: Friedrich Trump emigrated from Germany to the United States in 1885, a move historians believe was intended to avoid mandatory military conscription in the Bavarian Army.
Comparison to Other Families
This pattern of non-service over five generations has been noted by critics as a contrast to other modern presidential families, such as the Bidens (Beau Biden served in Iraq) and both Bush families. Donald Trump has stated he “always felt that I was in the military” because of his time at a military-themed prep school, though he has also acknowledged “regret” for not serving while describing avoiding STDs in the 1990s as his “personal Vietnam”.”
I am emotionally on a breaking point over military families missing loved ones during the holidays. Please, simplify Trump’s position on military service. STDs and Vietnam?
GoogleAI Mode: “It is understandable that the combination of holiday separation and the current “legal limbo” of domestic deployments is causing significant emotional distress. In 2025, while thousands of National Guard members remain separated from their families due to contested orders, Donald Trump’s own history with military service remains a point of intense public debate.
To simplify his position and the specific comments you referenced:
The “Personal Vietnam” (STDs)
Donald Trump has famously compared his social life in the 1990s to the dangers faced by soldiers in the Vietnam War.
The Analogy: In multiple interviews with Howard Stern (most notably in 1997), Trump stated that navigating the dating scene in New York and avoiding sexually transmitted diseases was his “personal Vietnam”.
The Quote: He told Stern, “I feel like a great and very brave soldier,” specifically equating the risk of contracting an STD to the “equivalent of a soldier going over to Vietnam”.
Context: These remarks were made decades after he received medical deferments that prevented him from being drafted into the actual conflict.
Vietnam War Record (Bone Spurs)
Despite being of draft age during the height of the Vietnam War, Trump did not serve in the military.
Five Deferments: He received four student deferments while in college and one medical deferment in 1968 after being diagnosed with bone spurs in his heels.
The Controversy: The diagnosis was made by a podiatrist who rented an office from Trump’s father, Fred Trump Sr. The doctor’s daughters later claimed the diagnosis was a “favor” to the elder Trump to help his son avoid the draft. Trump has stated he cannot recall the doctor’s name and that the condition “healed up” over time without surgery.
View on the War: Trump has described himself as “never a fan” of the Vietnam War and stated he “would have been honored” to serve in a different conflict.
Trump Family Military Tradition
The lack of military service is a multi-generational pattern in the Trump family.
Five Generations: There is no record of military service for Donald Trump, his father, his siblings, or any of his five children (Don Jr., Ivanka, Eric, Tiffany, or Barron).
Historical Origin: The family’s arrival in the U.S. is tied to this theme; Trump’s grandfather, Friedrich Trump, emigrated from Germany in 1885 to avoid mandatory military service in the Bavarian Army and later lost his German citizenship because of it.
Current Context (December 2025)
While thousands of service members are currently in a “legal limbo” away from their families this Christmas, the Trump administration has introduced a $1,776 “Warrior Dividend” bonus for nearly 1.5 million service members as a gesture of holiday appreciation. This contrast—between financial bonuses and the emotional toll of “boundary-pushing” domestic deployments—is at the heart of the current national tension.”
THE WARRIOR DIVIDEND
Where did the “Warrior Dividend” come from? Is it possible that it was taken from another?
GoogleAI Mode: “The term “Warrior Dividend” was a name created by the Trump administration for a one-time $1,776 payment to eligible U.S. service members in December 2025.
Origin of the “Warrior Dividend”
The concept was a rebranding of existing funds and was not a new source of money as initially suggested.
Source of the name: President Trump and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth dubbed the payment the “warrior dividend” as a symbolic tribute to the year the U.S. was founded, 1776, and the nation’s upcoming 250th anniversary.
Source of the funds: While President Trump suggested the money came from tariff revenues, the funds actually originated from a congressionally-approved military housing supplement. Congress had previously appropriated $2.9 billion for the Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) as part of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” passed in July 2025. Defense leadership then directed approximately $2.6 billion of this existing housing money to be distributed as the one-time payment.
Taken From Another Concept?
Yes, the “Warrior Dividend” was essentially taken from a different, previously approved funding source: the military’s housing allowance budget. It was not a new or separate “dividend” as the name might imply, but rather a repurposing and rebranding of an existing congressional appropriation. The funds were intended to help service members with off-base housing costs, but were instead used for this one-time bonus.”
What’s the political significance of calling it the ‘Warrior Dividend’?
GoogleAI Mode: “The name “Warrior Dividend” carries significant political significance, primarily as a powerful public relations tool to frame the one-time payment as a personal gift from the President and a symbolic tribute to the nation’s founding, while also masking the true source of the funds.
Political Messaging & Symbolism
Patriotism & Symbolism: The amount, $1,776, was a direct and potent symbol of the year of U.S. independence, designed to evoke strong patriotic feelings and commemorate the nation’s upcoming 250th anniversary. The term “warrior” appeals directly to the military community’s sense of duty and honor.
Personal Largesse: By announcing the payment himself and calling it a “dividend,” President Trump framed the money as a personal act of generosity or an earned share of the nation’s “profits” (which he attributed to tariffs), rather than a standard government process or an existing entitlement. This positioning created a sense of transactional loyalty, suggesting the payment was a benefit bestowed from the executive branch.
Timing: The payment was strategically timed to arrive just before Christmas, maximizing positive reception during the holiday season and reinforcing the image of a holiday gift from the President.
Addressing Criticism and Budgetary Maneuvering
Funding Deception: The name served to obscure that the funds were actually repurposed from existing, congressionally-approved military housing allowances (BAH), not new tariff revenue as initially suggested. This allowed the administration to appear to be creating a new benefit without a new congressional appropriation, a point that drew criticism from political analysts and media outlets.
Quality of Life Narrative: Administration officials, including Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, used the term as part of a broader public narrative about improving the quality of life and morale for troops and their families, even as critics argued the one-time nature of the payment actually undermined long-term housing support needs.
In essence, the name “Warrior Dividend” was a calculated political branding exercise designed to generate goodwill, assert executive control over military benefits, and deflect potential criticism regarding the actual source of the funds and their long-term impact on service members’ financial well-being.”
How did service members react to the Warrior Dividend and its funding?
GoogleAI Mode: “Service members and veterans had mixed reactions to the $1,776 “Warrior Dividend,” largely depending on their understanding of its funding source.
Varied Reactions
Positive Reactions: Many service members were happy to receive the unexpected payment, especially right before Christmas, seeing it as a welcome and needed financial boost. Some individuals felt it was a positive policy decision to give the money directly to the troops instead of letting it “disappear into projects or overhead”. A servicewoman noted that those in government housing received the bonus in addition to their regular housing allowance (BAH) being paid, meaning they received extra money they wouldn’t have seen otherwise.
Negative Reactions: Others criticized the payment as a “publicity stunt,” an “insult,” or a “shameless bribe” when they learned it was repurposed from the military’s housing allowance fund. Critics argued that the money was intended for long-term housing support and repairs, and redirecting it for a one-time, lump sum payment would actually harm service members in high-cost areas or those living in poor on-base housing conditions in the long run. Veterans, in particular, often viewed the flashy gesture with skepticism, joking that it felt like a “steak and lobster deployment dinner,” an omen often preceding bad news or cuts.
Core of the Controversy
The primary issue stemmed from the discrepancy between the administration’s claim that the money came from tariff revenues and the reality that it was reallocated from existing congressionally approved housing funds. This led to confusion and accusations of deception, fueling the negative reactions and debate across social media and within the military community.”
On a scale of 1 to 5, how likely is it that Trump and his “war secretary” Pete intended to fool service members with their “Warrior Dividend?”
GoogleAI Mode: “Determining the exact “intent” of political leaders is subjective, but the rollout of the “Warrior Dividend” in December 2025 has been characterized by many analysts, critics, and service members as a deliberate rebranding exercise.
On a scale of 1 to 5—where 1 is an honest misunderstanding and 5 is a calculated effort to mislead—critics would point to a 4 or 5 based on the following documented discrepancies:
- Misleading Funding Claims
In his December 17 address, President Trump explicitly linked the $1,776 payments to his administration’s tariffs, stating, “We made a lot more money than anybody thought because of tariffs”.
The Reality: Treasury and Defense officials later confirmed the money came exclusively from the $2.9 billion Congress already appropriated in July 2025 for the Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) under the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”.
The Deception: Tariff revenue flows into the general Treasury and cannot be unilaterally spent by the President on military bonuses without further Congressional approval.
- Repurposing Existing Benefits
The administration marketed the “dividend” as a “spontaneous windfall” or a “special gift”.
The Reality: It was a reallocation of funds meant to address long-term military housing shortages and high rental costs.
The Impact: By opting for a one-time flat check of $1,776 instead of the planned long-term BAH adjustments, critics argue that service members in high-cost-of-living areas (HCOL) were actually shortchanged compared to what they would have received under the original congressional plan.
- Secretary Hegseth’s Role
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth framed the move as an “unwavering commitment” and a “direct investment” that had “never happened before”.
The Reality: While Hegseth described it as a “new modern meaning” for 1776, it was functionally an administrative order to payout $2.6 billion of the $2.9 billion already sitting in the housing supplement fund.
The Deception: Hegseth’s department initially stayed silent on the tariff claims, only clarifying the source as “BAH supplements” after investigative reports from Defense One and others.
Summary of Perspectives
Supporters: See it as a 4/5 for brilliance, arguing that the President successfully used executive discretion to put cash directly into the pockets of 1.45 million troops before Christmas.
Critics: See it as a 5/5 for deception, calling it a “budgeting sleight-of-hand” and a “propaganda scam” that took money service members were “already set to receive” and branded it as a personal gift.”
World Peace 