Trump orders Texas National Guard deployment to Illinois amid political tensions
- Governor JB Pritzker criticized President Trump's order to deploy Texas National Guard members to Illinois, highlighting that he was not consulted beforehand.
- Pritzker referred to the situation as 'Trump's Invasion,' stressing the political implications of using military troops in state affairs.
- The deployment has sparked significant controversy, raising questions about federal and state authority in managing civil unrest.
In early October 2025, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker expressed his concerns over President Donald Trump's decision to deploy 400 members of the Texas National Guard to Illinois as part of a broader operation that also includes Oregon. Pritzker cited an official communication from the federal government regarding this deployment and criticized it as an unprecedented political maneuver. He stated that he was not consulted or informed prior to this action, labeling it 'Trump's Invasion' and suggesting that it violates the sovereignty of Illinois. According to him, the president's actions are tantamount to using military forces for political purposes, which he believes undermines the integrity of the National Guard troops. This federal action followed an ultimatum given to Pritzker by the Trump administration, which implied that Illinois National Guard troops would be federalized if he did not call them up himself. This ultimatum was presented in context of rising tensions and protests that have arisen in Illinois, particularly in Broadview, where clashes between demonstrators and federal agents were reported in recent weeks. Pritzker has been outspoken against these developments, calling for his Texas counterpart, Governor Greg Abbott, to reject the federal deployment and emphasizing that state troops should not be manipulated for political gains. The memo from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth indicated that the federal government sees a necessity for the deployment to manage civil unrest, a characterization that local leadership disputes. The community reaction is mixed, with some viewing the deployment as necessary for law and order, while many others see it as an intrusion into state authority and governance. The situation remains fluid, with heightened emotions on both sides regarding Trump’s approach to controlling what he calls rising lawlessness and the local government’s struggle to maintain order without federal military involvement. Stakeholders across the political spectrum are now urging a dialogue on the role and limits of federal powers in state affairs, suggesting that this incident could lead to more substantial discussions on federalism and state sovereignty in the U.S.