Members of the District of Columbia National Guard next to an M-ATV vehicle scan the area as they patrol outside Union Station, Sunday, Aug. 31, in Washington.
Members of the District of Columbia National Guard next to an M-ATV vehicle scan the area as they patrol outside Union Station, Sunday, Aug. 31, in Washington. (Jose Luis Magana | AP)

President Trump continues to discuss deploying the National Guard to various cities despite the questionable legality of doing so.

On Tuesday, Trump said he would “love to have” Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, a Democrat, call him and request troops, adding that he would “gain respect” for Pritzker if he asked for them. In response, Pritzker said “Let me be clear: The president is begging me to call him, to ask him to do something that we don’t want.”

Speaking in the Oval Office on Wednesday, Trump also floated the idea of deploying troops to New Orleans, where Louisiana’s Republican governor welcomed the idea.

Trump’s comments may be a concession that it is legally easier to deploy the National Guard in states where governors formally ask for help, Georgetown University law professor Stephen Vladeck told Morning Edition.

A federal judge in San Francisco ruled on Tuesday that Trump’s use of National Guard troops in June in response to anti-immigration enforcement protests in Los Angeles was illegal. The ruling only applies in California. After the ruling, Trump said he planned to send troops to Chicago.

President Trump floats deploying National Guard troops to New Orleans

President Trump said the White House is considering whether to deploy National Guard troops to Chicago or a place with a governor who would welcome them, like New Orleans.

Vladeck, who has written about the president’s use of the National Guard on his One First Substack newsletter, says Trump could attempt to deploy troops from Trump friendly states to those that don’t want them — a move that would put the U.S. in “uncharted territory.”

Speaking to NPR’s Michel Martin, Vladeck discussed the president’s options for sending troops to individual states and the likely looming legal fight that awaits.

This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity. 

Interview highlights

Michel Martin: President Trump seems to be asking or trying to pressure Gov. Pritzker into asking Trump to send him the guard. Why would he do that? Is that an acknowledgement that he doesn’t have that the president does not have the authority to send troops where they are not welcome?

Stephen Vladeck: I think at the very least, it is a concession that it’s a lot easier legally for the president to send in troops with a request from the governor. Let’s not forget, Gov. Pritzker has his own National Guard, the Illinois National Guard, that he would be free to deploy if he thought the circumstances warranted. President Trump could invoke some old and not often used authorities — a statute known as the Insurrection Act, for example — to send in troops without the governor’s consent. But I think what he’s really trying to get at is can he actually have his cake and eat it, too? Can he send in troops without using that controversial statute and without the governor’s consent? That’s really the mess that we’re seeing this week.

Martin: So then the president mentioned the possibility of sending guard forces to New Orleans, which Louisiana’s Republican governor seemed to welcome. And that seems to recall something that you wrote about back in 2020 when the president relied upon friendly governors to send troops to Washington, D.C., in the wake of the George Floyd protests. They didn’t stay for long. It was a different situation. D.C. is a legal unicorn, as we know. But what do you make of this shift to more receptive governors?

Vladeck: I think it really gives up the game, Michel, on how empty all of this is. Gov. Landry, like Gov. Pritzker, is the commander in chief of his own state National Guard, the Louisiana National Guard. If there were enough, you know, lawlessness and disorder in New Orleans to justify more than just an ordinary law enforcement response. Gov. Landry doesn’t need President Trump. He can do it himself. And so I think what we’re really seeing is a lot of theater on the part of the Trump administration where he’s trying to look like it is the savior for situations that have far more local, far more legally settled remedies if they actually warrant them.

‘Illegal and costly’: Chicago’s mayor blasts Trump’s threat to deploy National Guard

President Trump suggested he will “straighten out” Chicago next. Mayor Brandon Johnson told NPR that would be “illegal and costly” — but said there are other ways the federal government could help.

Martin: So let’s go back to the Substack. You wrote a lengthy one, and it’s very detailed about what might the legal path be for the president to actually send the National Guard into places where the governors or officials there don’t want them.

Vladeck: So there are two avenues. The first is federalizing the National Guard. It’s what President Trump tried to do in California. What Trump is contemplating is something more obscure. You mentioned the 2020 use of out-of-state National Guard troops in D.C. That was in the context in which they weren’t federalized, in which 11 states just let the president borrow their National Guard troops. And I think the critical point here is that’s where we’d be in uncharted territory if the governor were to try to use that authority to send, for example, the Texas National Guard into a state that didn’t want them.

Martin: Do you think this matter is going to end up before the Supreme Court?

Vladeck: I think the next move is up to President Trump. If he carries through on his threat to send un-federalized National Guard troops from one state into another without that state’s consent, there will definitely be litigation. It will almost certainly end up in the Supreme Court. And that’s a good thing, because the alternative is a face-to-face confrontation.

This digital article was edited by Treye Green. The radio version of this story was edited by HJ Mai and produced by Nia Dumas.

Transcript:

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST:

President Trump continues to talk about deploying National Guard troops to various cities. On Tuesday, he sent a message to Illinois Governor JB Pritzker.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I would love to have Governor Pritzker call me – I’d gain respect for him – and say, we do have a problem. And we’d love you to send in the troops – because you know what? – the people, they have to be protected.

MARTIN: So here’s what Pritzker said about that.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

JB PRITZKER: Let me be clear. The president is begging me to call him to ask him to do something that we don’t want.

MARTIN: So what happens now? Can Trump deploy troops to other cities like he says he will, or at least wants to? And what if governors like Pritzker keep saying no? Let’s ask Stephen Vladeck about this. He’s a professor of law at Georgetown University who has been writing about the legal authority for guard deployments in his One First Substack. Professor Vladeck, thanks so much for joining us.

STEPHEN VLADECK: Thanks, Michel. Great to be with you.

MARTIN: So as we just heard there, President Trump seems to be asking or trying to pressure Governor Pritzker into asking Trump to send in the Guard. Why would he do that? Is that an acknowledgment that the president does not have the authority to send troops where they are not welcome?

VLADECK: I think, at the very least, Michel, it is a concession that it’s a lot easier legally for the president to send in troops with a request from the governor. Michel, let’s not forget, Governor Pritzker has his own National Guard, the Illinois National Guard, that he would be free to deploy if he thought the circumstances warrant it.

President Trump could invoke some old and not often used authorities, a statute known as the Insurrection Act, for example, to send in troops without the governor’s consent. But I think what he’s really trying to get at is, can he actually have his cake and eat it, too? Can he send in troops without using that controversial statute and without the governor’s consent? That’s really the mess that we’re seeing this week.

MARTIN: So then the president mentioned the possibility of sending Guard forces to New Orleans, which Louisiana’s Republican governor seemed to welcome. And that seems to recall something that you wrote about back in 2020 when the president relied upon friendly governors to send troops to Washington, D.C., in the wake of the George Floyd protests. Now, you know, obviously, they didn’t stay for long. It was a different situation. D.C. is a legal unicorn, as we know. But what do you make of this shift to more receptive governors?

VLADECK: I think it really gives up the game, Michel, on how empty all of this is. You know, Governor Landry, like Governor Pritzker, is the commander-in-chief of his own state National Guard, the Louisiana National Guard. If there were enough, you know, lawlessness and disorder in New Orleans to justify more than just an ordinary law enforcement response, Governor Landry doesn’t need President Trump. He can do it himself. And so I think what we’re really seeing, Michel, is a lot of theater on the part of the Trump administration, where it’s trying to look like it is the savior for situations that have far more local, far more legally settled remedies if they actually warrant them.

MARTIN: So let’s go back to the Substack. You wrote a lengthy one. And it’s very, sort of, interesting and very detailed about what might the legal path be for the president to actually send the National Guard into places that people don’t want them, or the governors, the officials there don’t want them.

VLADECK: Right. So there are two avenues, Michel. So the first is one we talked about briefly a couple minutes ago, which is federalizing the National Guard, so what President Trump tried to do in California. You know, he just got slapped down on Tuesday by a federal judge in San Francisco. What Trump is contemplating, Michel, is something more obscure.

You mentioned the 2020 use of out-of-state National Guard troops in D.C. Michel, that was in a context in which they weren’t federalized, in which 11 states just let the president borrow their National Guard troops. And I think the critical point here is that’s where we’d be in uncharted territory, if the governor were to try to use that authority to send, for example, the Texas National Guard into a state that didn’t want them.

MARTIN: Before I let you go, just briefly, do you think this matter is going to end up before the Supreme Court?

VLADECK: I think the next move is up to President Trump. If he carries through on his threat to send un-federalized National Guard troops from one state into another without that state’s consent, there will definitely be litigation.

MARTIN: Yeah.

VLADECK: It will almost certainly end up in the Supreme Court. And that’s a good thing because the alternative is a face-to-face confrontation.

MARTIN: That’s Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown University, and this is NPR News.