...
By Robert Alexander
Senior Crime & Court Reporter
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
A new federal court filing shows fewer Republican state attorneys general have joined a legal effort defending President Donald Trump’s latest use of the National Guard—this time in Chicago—than supported a similar deployment in Washington, D.C., weeks earlier.
Four Republican attorneys general signed the D.C. brief but did not sign the Illinois one. They were: Stephen Cox of Alaska, Drew Wrigley of North Dakota, Dave Yost of Ohio, and Jason Miyares of Virginia.
Newsweek contacted the absent AG offices for comment via email on Thursday.
Read More on U.S.
Why It Matters
The significance of the new Illinois filing isn’t what’s in it, but who’s missing from it. Their omission marks the first visible crack in what had been a united GOP front defending Trump’s expansive view of presidential power.
While the two filings use nearly identical legal arguments, the smaller roster suggests that some Republican legal officers are unwilling to endorse federal troops entering a state that didn’t request them, exposing quiet unease within the party’s legal ranks over the limits of Trump’s authority.
...
What To Know
The amicus brief filed October 8 in State of Illinois v. Trump lists 18 Republican attorneys general led by Iowa’s Brenna Bird, joined by officials from Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota, Texas, and West Virginia.
By contrast, the earlier D.C. brief, filed September 16, carried 22 signatures—including those from Alaska, North Dakota, Ohio and Virginia—all missing from the Chicago version.
The briefs themselves are largely the same, both arguing that Trump acted lawfully under 10 U.S.C. §12406, which allows a president to federalize state Guard troops to “execute the laws of the United States.”
But while Trump’s D.C. action took place in the federally controlled capital, the Chicago deployment reaches into a state that explicitly opposes it.
That legal and political distinction appears to have been enough to deter several GOP attorneys general from signing on.
Legal analysts said the differences likely reflect caution rather than open dissent.
“D.C.’s unique because it has a unique relationship with the federal government … including its National Guard, which … reports to the president,” said Scott R. Anderson, Brookings in a podcast on September 4, 2025.
While Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson have condemned the federal deployment, calling it unconstitutional, according to Politico.
The Justice Department is expected to file its response to Illinois’s motion for a restraining order in the coming days, setting up the first court test of whether a president can use the National Guard inside a state over local objections.
For now, the missing signatures — more than the filings themselves — tell the story: even among Trump’s Republican allies, support for his most aggressive uses of executive power may no longer be unanimous.
What People Are Saying
Senator Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) expressed internal GOP concern over precedent, saying: “I worry about someday a Democrat president sending troops or National Guard from New York, California, Oregon, Washington state to North Carolina. I think it’s bad precedent,” and later during a Senate hearing, Tillis pressed Attorney General Pam Bondi on the use of the Guard, asking on October 7: “Is this deployment of the National Guard a part of an emerging best practice that I just don’t get yet?”
Legal scholar Elizabeth Goitein criticized Trump’s cross-state trooper deployment as unlawful on October, 7, 2025, saying: “Trump’s attempt to deploy California National Guard members to Oregon is a ‘clear violation of the law’ and a flagrant attempt to circumvent the judge’s weekend ruling.”
What Happens Next
The Illinois case now heads toward a ruling on whether Donald Trump can continue deploying the National Guard in Chicago while the courts review its legality. The Justice Department will file its response to Illinois’s request for a temporary restraining order, followed by a hearing before Judge April Perry that could quickly move to the Seventh Circuit on appeal.
Additional states may weigh in with new amicus briefs, and both Congress and governors are expected to debate the limits of federal authority over state-controlled Guard units.
The outcome will determine not only whether Trump’s order stands but also how far a president can go in using military power within the states—a question now dividing even Republican attorneys general.
Correction 10/9/25 5:39 p.m. ET: This article has been updated to reflect that the current attorney general for Alaska is Stephen J. Cox.
Correction, 05/27/26, 4:58 a.m. ET: A previous version of this article incorrectly referred to Donald Trump as “former president.” He was president at the time in question. The article has been updated.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines