¶ Overview
In 2025, Brian Strickland supported Trump’s decision to deploy federal forces against Los Angeles residents amid ICE raids and protests.
In December 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Trump did not have the authority to deploy National Guard troops in Chicago. Despite this ruling, Trump suggested he would “not hesitate to deploy troops in the future.” The Trump administration faced repeated legal challenges for overstepping its authority in deploying federal forces without the consent of governors and mayors across several American cities. In January 2026, Minnesota and Illinois sued the Trump administration over its deployment of federal agents to the Twin Cities and Chicago for immigration operations, arguing the unprecedented deployment of federal officers was a “federal invasion” and unconstitutional violation of the Tenth Amendment.
¶ Brian Strickland Would Allow Trump To Overstep His Authority And Deploy Federal Forces Against Georgians
¶ Strickland Said He Supported Trump’s Decision To Deploy Federal Forces Against Los Angeles Residents
2025: Strickland Said He Supported Trump’s Decision To Deploy Federal Forces Against Los Angeles Residents Amid ICE Raids And Protests. According to Brian Strickland’s Twitter, “When public officials respond to violent protest with appeasement, we get chaos and public endangerment — like we saw all over the country in 2020. As Attorney General, I wouldn’t allow this in Georgia, and Trump is right to protect Californians if their government won’t. #gapol”
[Twitter, @StricklandForGA, 6/9/25]
¶ The U.S. Supreme Court Ruled Trump Did Not Have The Authority To Deploy The National Guard To Chicago, But Trump Suggested He Would “Not Hesitate To Deploy Troops In The Future”
¶ December 2025: The U.S. Supreme Court Ruled Trump Did Not Have The Authority To Send National Guard Troops To Chicago, Which Undermined Trump’s Deployment Of National Guard Troops To Other Cities
December 2025: The U.S. Supreme Court Ruled Trump Did Not Have The Authority To Send National Guard Troops To Chicago For Domestic Law Enforcement, Prompting Trump To Withdraw National Guard Troops From Several U.S. Cities. According to BBC, “US President Donald Trump has said he is withdrawing National Guard troops from several US cities, including Chicago and Los Angeles, after a Supreme Court ruling last week undermined his authority to use troops for policing. ‘We will come back, perhaps in a much different and stronger form, when crime begins to soar again,’ Trump wrote on Truth Social on New Year's Eve. Earlier on Tuesday, the Trump administration withdrew its legal attempts to keep control of troops deployed in LA. Last week, the Supreme Court ruled that Trump could not use troops in Chicago for domestic law enforcement. […] The Supreme Court ruled last week in Trump v Illinois that the president did not have the authority to send troops into Chicago.” [BBC, 12/31/25]
- Although The Supreme Court Ruling Specified Trump Did Not Have The Authority To Federalize Illinois Guard Troops In Chicago, Legal Experts Argued The Ruling “Undermined Trump’s Attempted Deployment In Portland And His Active Deployment In Los Angeles.” According to Democracy Docket, “A majority of the justices agreed with a district court’s finding that Trump did not have the authority to invoke an archaic and rarely used law to federalize Illinois Guard soldiers for the Windy City deployment. Though the Supreme Court’s decision was limited to Chicago, legal experts noted that the ruling undermined Trump’s attempted deployment in Portland and his active deployment in Los Angeles, which has been ongoing since early June.” [Democracy Docket, 12/31/25]
- The U.S. Supreme Court Rejected The Trump Administration’s Invocation Of Insurrection Act-Like Powers To Deploy National Guard Troops Under Title 10, Ruling That Trump Lacked The Authority To Federalize Illinois Guard Troops Since “Regular Forces” In The Law Meant The U.S. Military, Not Law Enforcement Officials. According to Democracy Docket, “Through his National Guard deployments, Trump attempted to claim Insurrection Act-like powers using a separate statute, 10 U.S.C. 12406 (Title 10). Title 10 allows the president to take control of state Guard troops when the country faces foreign invasion, when the U.S. government faces rebellion or when the president is unable to execute laws with ‘regular forces.’ In defending the deployments, the Department of Justice (DOJ) claimed that courts couldn’t review Trump’s authority to federalize Guard troops, that Guard deployments could last as long as the president deemed necessary and that those troops could enforce laws. Last week, the Supreme Court largely rejected those arguments. It said Trump lacked authority to federalize Illinois Guard troops under Title 10 because the term ‘regular forces’ in the law referred to the traditional forces of the U.S. military and not, as the DOJ claimed, law enforcement officials. Because Trump never attempted to enforce laws with the traditional military — which would require invocation of the Insurrection Act — Trump couldn’t federalize Guard troops for a deployment in Chicago, the court determined.” [Democracy Docket, 12/31/25]
¶ Trump “Suggested His Administration Would Not Hesitate To Deploy Troops In The Future”
In Announcing His Withdrawal Of National Guard Troops In Several Cities After The U.S. Supreme Court Ruled He Could Not Deploy Troops Into Chicago Over Illinois Officials’ Objections, Trump “Suggested His Administration Would Not Hesitate To Deploy Troops In The Future.” According to the New York Times, “President Trump said on Wednesday that he would abandon, for now, efforts to deploy the National Guard in Chicago, Los Angeles and Portland, Ore. The decision comes after the Supreme Court ruled last week that Mr. Trump could not deploy troops in the Chicago area over the objections of Illinois officials. The president’s announcement made no mention of the ruling, but he suggested his administration would not hesitate to deploy troops in the future. ‘We will come back, perhaps in a much different and stronger form, when crime begins to soar again — Only a question of time,’ he wrote on Truth Social.” [New York Times, 12/31/25]
¶ 2025: The Trump Administration Faced Legal Challenges Over His Authority To Deploy National Guard Troops After He Deployed Federal Forces To Democratic-Run Cities Without The Consent Of Governors
2025: The Trump Administration Faced Several Legal Challenges Over His Authority To Deploy National Guard Troops After He Deployed Federal Forces To Democratic-Run Cities, Which Critics Claimed Was An “Authoritarian” Overreach. According to BBC, “Trump's decision to order the deployment of National Guard troops to Democratic-run cities set off a series of legal cases challenging his authority to do so. The troops are normally under the authority of state governors. […] Trump has said the troops are needed to enforce the law and crack down on crime and illegal immigration. Critics deny that the troops are necessary, and accuse Trump of attempting an ‘authoritarian’ crackdown, which threatens democracy.” [BBC, 12/31/25]
- Trump’s Deployment Of The National Guard Without The Consent Of Governors Was One Of Trump’s “Most Audacious Attempts To Test The Limits Of His Power,” And It Was “Something No President Had Attempted Since The Civil Rights Era.” According to the New York Times, “But it signaled a significant retreat, at least for the moment, in one of the president’s most audacious attempts to test the limits of his power. Although the National Guard remains deployed in Washington, D.C., New Orleans and Memphis, Mr. Trump’s decision means that he will no longer be trying to send Guard members to states where governors have objected to them, something no president had attempted since the civil rights era.” [New York Times, 12/31/25]
¶ The Trump Administration Faced Legal Challenges After Deploying Federal Forces For Immigration Operations In Cities, Which Minnesota And Illinois Argued Was A “Federal Invasion”
¶ Minnesota And Illinois Sued The Trump Administration Over The Deployment Of Federal Forces, Arguing They Were Violating The Tenth Amendment
January 2026: Minnesota And Illinois Sued The Trump Administration Over The Deployment Of Federal Forces, Arguing They Were Violating The Tenth Amendment, Which Protected State Sovereignty. According to Politico, “The state of Minnesota and the municipal governments of Minneapolis and St. Paul filed a lawsuit on Monday seeking to block the Department of Homeland Security from executing a planned surge of federal immigration officers to the Twin Cities. […] Earlier on Monday, Illinois officials filed a similar lawsuit seeking to block the Trump administration from conducting immigration enforcement in the state. Immigration agents have been conducting large-scale enforcement actions in Chicago for months. Both lawsuits argued the Trump administration is violating the Tenth Amendment, which protects the sovereignty of states. In a statement, DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin criticized the legal argument used by both states.” [Politico, 1/12/26]
¶ The State Of Minnesota And The Twin Cities Sued The Trump Administration, Alleging An “Unprecedented Federal Immigration Operation In The State Is ‘A Federal Invasion’”
January 2026: The State Of Minnesota And The Twin Cities Sued The Trump Administration, Alleging An “Unprecedented Federal Immigration Operation In The State Is ‘A Federal Invasion.’” According to CNN, “The state of Minnesota and the Twin Cities are suing the Trump administration, arguing the unprecedented federal immigration operation in the state is ‘a federal invasion,’ and seeking a court order halting the crackdown, according to a lawsuit filed Monday.” [CNN, 1/12/26]
- After An ICE Agent Killed A Woman In Minneapolis, Minnesota Officials Filed A Lawsuit Against The Trump Administration To Remove ICE Agents And Argue That Trump’s Deployment Of Additional ICE Agents Was Unconstitutional. According to Politico, “Minnesota officials are suing to block the deployment of thousands of immigration officers in the state, furthering the division between local officials and the federal government following the killing of a Minneapolis woman by an ICE agent last week. The state of Minnesota and the municipal governments of Minneapolis and St. Paul filed a lawsuit on Monday seeking to block the Department of Homeland Security from executing a planned surge of federal immigration officers to the Twin Cities. The lawsuit asks a judge to issue an injunction removing immigration agents immediately, and argues that Trump’s deployment of additional immigration officers violates the Constitution.” [Politico, 1/12/26]
- The Trump Administration Announced They Planned To Send “Hundreds More” Federal Agents To Minneapolis To Support ICE Agents. According to the New York Times, “The Trump administration will send ‘hundreds more’ federal agents to Minneapolis ‘today and tomorrow’ to support the work of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, said on Sunday, days after an ICE agent shot and killed a woman there.” [New York Times, 1/11/26]
- Minnesota’s Lawsuit Sought To Ban Federal Agents From “Threatening To Use Physical Force Or Brandishing Weapons Against People Who Are Not Subject To An Immigration Arrest,” While Also Mandating Visible Identification, Active Body Cameras, And The Removal Of Masks. According to Reuters, “The Minnesota lawsuit seeks to ban U.S. officers from threatening to use physical force or brandishing weapons against people who are not subject to an immigration arrest while also requiring federal officers to wear visible identification, activate body-worn cameras and remove masks that conceal their faces.” [Reuters, 1/13/26]
¶ The State Of Illinois And The City Of Chicago Sued The Trump Administration, Claiming The Department Of Homeland Security “Terrorized Residents In ‘Organized Bombardment’”
January 2026: The State Of Illinois And The City Of Chicago Sued The Trump Administration, Claiming The Department Of Homeland Security “Terrorized Residents In ‘Organized Bombardment.’” According to CNN, “The suit was filed shortly after Illinois and the city of Chicago also sued the Trump administration, alleging the Department of Homeland Security has terrorized residents in ‘organized bombardment.’ Both suits argue the federal government is violating the Tenth Amendment.” [CNN, 1/12/26]
- Immigration Agents Had Been “Conducting Large-Scale Enforcement Actions In Chicago For Months.” According to Politico, “Earlier on Monday, Illinois officials filed a similar lawsuit seeking to block the Trump administration from conducting immigration enforcement in the state. Immigration agents have been conducting large-scale enforcement actions in Chicago for months.” [Politico, 1/12/26]
- Illinois’ Lawsuit Sought To Halt U.S. Customs And Border Protection From Conducting Civil Immigration Enforcement While Also Curbing The “Use Of Tear Gas, Trespassing On Private Property And The Concealing Of License Plates.” According to Reuters, “Illinois filed a similar federal lawsuit against the Trump administration on Monday over what Democratic Governor JB Pritzker called DHS's ‘dangerous use of force.’ The Illinois lawsuit asks the court to block U.S. Customs and Border Protection from conducting civil immigration enforcement in the state while seeking to curb tactics such as the use of tear gas, trespassing on private property and the concealing of license plates to mask official operations.” [Reuters, 1/13/26]