The National Guard From Selma to Chicago: Who Controls Our Streets?

In the history of the United States, it’s rare for a president to send the National Guard into a state without the governor’s consent. The Constitution and the Insurrection Act make it possible, but the threshold is high—intended for moments when states are either unwilling or unable to protect the constitutional rights of their people or to enforce federal law.

In modern times, there are only two clear examples of this happening. And the difference between them is telling.

1965 – Johnson in Alabama

It was the height of the Civil Rights Movement. In Selma, Alabama, peaceful marchers demanding the right to vote were being brutally beaten by state troopers and local law enforcement. Governor George Wallace openly defied federal court orders to protect them.

President Lyndon B. Johnson invoked the 14th Amendment and the Insurrection Act, federalizing the Alabama National Guard without the governor’s consent. His goal was clear: to protect citizens’ constitutional rights and ensure the Selma-to-Montgomery march could proceed without more bloodshed.

This was exactly the kind of situation the law envisioned—when a state was actively denying its own citizens their rights and federal intervention was the only way to stop the abuse.

2025 – Trump in California

Sixty years later, the same legal authority was used again, but under very different circumstances. In June 2025, President Donald Trump sent roughly 2,000 California National Guard troops into Los Angeles, alongside hundreds of U.S. Marines, without Governor Gavin Newsom’s approval.

The stated reason was to quell unrest following a federal immigration raid. But crime in Los Angeles was already falling, and California had both local police and its own National Guard responding. There was no breakdown of government functions and no systemic denial of constitutional rights. Legal scholars called the move a stretch of the Insurrection Act—and possibly unconstitutional—because the threshold of “impracticable to enforce the laws” was not met.

Why Chicago Could Be Next

Now, Trump is threatening to send the National Guard to Chicago, along with other majority-Black cities like Baltimore, Oakland, and New York. The justification? He claims these cities are “disasters” plagued by out-of-control crime.

But the data tells a different story. In Chicago, murders are down 31% and shootings down 37% in the first seven months of 2025. In Washington, D.C.—which Trump already sent troops into—violent crime has dropped by 26%. Crime is also trending downward in other cities on his list.

Local officials, including Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker, say there’s no legal basis for federal troop deployment here. The state and city are actively enforcing the law, and there is no rebellion, insurrection, or constitutional crisis. That means the usual conditions for invoking the Insurrection Act simply aren’t present.

The Pattern

Look closely and a pattern emerges. The cities Trump has singled out share certain traits:

• Large Black populations
  
• Black mayors or progressive leadership
  
• Symbolic importance in American politics and culture
  

Critics argue this isn’t about crime—it’s about undermining Black-led local governments and projecting a “law-and-order” image to his political base. It’s also about setting a precedent: once you normalize sending federal forces into cities against the will of local leaders, it becomes easier to do it again.

SIDEBAR: The Insurrection Act – What It Says and How It Fits Each Case

The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255) is the law that allows a president to deploy the National Guard or federal troops inside the United States.

Normally, under the Posse Comitatus Act, the military can’t enforce domestic law—but the Insurrection Act creates narrow exceptions.

Three Key Provisions

1. Section 251 – At the state’s request: President can act if the state legislature or governor asks for help.
   
2. Section 252 – Without the state’s request: President can act if unlawful obstructions or rebellion make it impracticable to enforce U.S. law through normal means.
   
3. Section 253 – To protect constitutional rights: President can act if a state is denying a group of people their constitutional rights and refuses or fails to protect those rights.
   

Case Comparison

Bottom line:

• 1965 – Clear, legal, and moral case for intervention.
  
• 2025 LA – Weak legal justification, questionable motive.
  
• Chicago threat – No legal basis, strong political overtones.
  

What This Could Look Like

From my own travels, I know what a heavy federal presence feels like. Years ago, in San Miguel de Allende, Mexico—a city filled with U.S. expats—I saw two forms of policing. The local officers knew the community. They were approachable. But then there were the federales: mounted on horses, carrying AR-style rifles, dressed in immaculate uniforms with braid and medals. They were intimidating, and for good reason. They didn’t answer to the local mayor or the people who lived there—they answered only to the national government.

If federal forces take to the streets of Chicago under questionable legal authority, it could look and feel the same. You’d have two tiers of law enforcement: local officers accountable to the community, and federal troops accountable only to Washington.

The Bigger Question

This is about more than one city. If Chicago is targeted, other large, majority-Black cities could follow. And each time, the idea of federal occupation becomes more “normal.”

The history is clear. In 1965, federal power was used to protect rights. In 2025, it’s being positioned to control cities—even when those cities are already policing themselves effectively.

So the question isn’t just whether Trump can do this under the law. The question is:
Do we wait until they arrive, or do we speak up now?