deployment

A few months into President Trump’s second term, federal appeals court Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III — a conservative appointee of President Reagan — issued a scathing opinion denouncing what he found to be the Trump administration’s unlawful removal of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to his native El Salvador, despite a previous court order barring it.

“The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order. Further, it claims in essence that because it has rid itself of custody that there is nothing that can be done,” Wilkinson wrote. “This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.”

Two months later, U.S. District Judge William G. Young, also a Reagan appointee, ripped into the Trump administration from the bench for its unprecedented decision to terminate hundreds of National Institutes of Health grants based on their perceived nexus to diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.

Young ruled the cuts were “arbitrary and capricious” and therefore illegal. But he also said there was a “darker aspect” to the case that he had an “unflinching obligation” to call out — that the administration’s actions amounted to “racial discrimination and discrimination against America’s LGBTQ community.”

“I’ve sat on this bench now for 40 years. I’ve never seen government racial discrimination like this,” Young said, explaining a decision the Supreme Court later reversed. “Have we fallen so low? Have we no shame?”

In the year since an aggrieved and combative Trump returned to the White House, his administration has strained the American legal system by testing and rejecting laws and other long-standing policies and defending those actions by arguing the president has a broad scope of authority under the U.S. Constitution.

Administration officials and Justice Department attorneys have argued that the executive branch is essentially the president’s to bend to his will. They have argued its employees are his to fire, its funds his to spend and its enforcement powers — to retaliate against his enemies, blast alleged drug-runners out of international waters or detain anyone agents believe looks, sounds and labors like a foreigner — all but unrestrained.

The approach has repeatedly been met by frustrated federal judges issuing repudiations of the administration’s actions, but also grave warnings about a broader threat they see to American jurisprudence and democracy.

When questioning administration attorneys in court, in stern written rulings at the district and appellate levels and in blistering dissents at the Supreme Court — which has often backed the administration, particularly with temporary orders on its emergency docket — federal judges have used remarkably strong language to call out what they see as a startling disregard for the rule of law.

Legal critics, including more than a hundred former federal and state judges, have decried Trump’s attacks on individual judges and law firms, “deeply inappropriate” nominations to the bench, “unlawful” appointments of unconfirmed and inexperienced U.S. attorneys and targeting of his political opponents for prosecution based on weak allegations of years-old mortgage fraud.

In response, Trump and his supporters have articulated their own concerns with the legal system, accusing judges of siding with progressive groups to cement a liberal federal agenda despite the nation voting Trump back into office. Trump has labeled judges “lunatics” and called for at least one’s impeachment, which drew a rare rebuke from Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

After District Judge Brian E. Murphy temporarily blocked the administration from deporting eight men to South Sudan — a nation to which they had no connection, and which has a record of human rights abuses — Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer, the administration’s top litigator, called the order “a lawless act of defiance” that ignored a recent Supreme Court ruling.

After District Judge James E. Boasberg began pursuing a criminal contempt investigation into the actions of senior administration officials who continued flights deporting Venezuelan nationals to a notorious Salvadoran prison despite Boasberg having previously ordered the planes turned back to the U.S., government attorneys said it portended a “circus” that threatened the separation of powers.

While more measured than the nation’s coarse political rhetoric, the legal exchanges have nonetheless been stunning by judicial standards — a sign of boiling anger among judges, rising indignation among administration officials and a wide gulf between them as to the limits of their respective legal powers.

“These judges, these Democrat activist judges, are the ones who are 100% at fault,” said Mike Davis, a prominent Republican lawyer and Trump ally who advocates for sweeping executive authority. “They are taking the country to the cliff.”

The judges “see — and have articulated — an unprecedented threat to democracy,” said UC Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky. “They really are sounding the alarm.”

“What the American people should be deeply concerned about is the rampant increase in judicial activism from radical left-wing judges,” said Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson. “If this trend continues it threatens to undermine the rule-of-law for all future presidencies.”

“Regardless of which side you’re on on these issues, the lasting impact is that people mistrust the courts and, quite frankly, do not understand the role that a strong, independent judiciary plays in the rule of law, in our democracy and in our economy,” said John A. Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers. “That is very, very troubling to anybody who looks at this with a shred of objectivity.”

California in the fight

Last month, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta announced his office’s 50th lawsuit against the Trump administration — an average of about one lawsuit per week since Trump’s inauguration.

The litigation has challenged a range of Trump administration policies, including his executive order purporting to end birthright citizenship for the U.S.-born children of many immigrants; his unilateral imposition of stiff tariffs around the world; the administration’s attempt to slash trillions of dollars in federal funding from states, and its deployment of National Guard troops to American cities.

The battles have produced some of the year’s most eye-popping legal exchanges.

In June, Judge Charles R. Breyer ruled against the Trump administration’s decision to federalize and deploy California National Guard troops in Los Angeles, after days of protest over immigration enforcement.

An attorney for the administration had argued that federal law gave Trump such authority in instances of domestic “rebellion” or when the president is unable to execute the nation’s laws with regular forces, and said the court had no authority to question Trump’s decisions.

But Breyer wasn’t buying it, ruling Trump’s authority was “of course limited.”

“I mean, that’s the difference between a constitutional government and King George,” he said from the bench. “This country was founded in response to a monarchy. And the Constitution is a document of limitations — frequent limitations — and enunciation of rights.”

Francesca Gessner, Bonta’s acting chief deputy, said she took Breyer’s remarks as his way of telling Trump and his administration that “we don’t have kings in America” — which she said was “really remarkable to watch” in an American courtroom.

“I remember just sitting there thinking, wow, he’s right,” Gessner said.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently paused Breyer’s order, allowing the troops to remain in Trump’s control.

In early October, U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut barred the deployment of Oregon National Guard troops to Portland, finding that the conditions on the ground didn’t warrant such militarization. The next day, both Oregon and California asked her to expand that ruling to include California National Guard troops, after the Trump administration sent them to Portland in lieu of Oregon’s troops.

Before issuing a second restraining order barring deployments of any National Guard troops in Oregon, a frustrated Immergut laid into the Justice Department attorney defending the administration. “You’re an officer of the court,” she said. “Aren’t defendants simply circumventing my order, which relies on the conditions in Portland?”

More recently, the Supreme Court ruled against the Trump administration in a similar case out of Chicago, finding the administration lacked any legal justification for Guard deployments there. Trump subsequently announced he was pulling troops out of Chicago, Los Angeles and other Democratic-led cities, with California and other states that had resisted claiming a major victory.

Bonta said he’s been pleased to see judges pushing back against the president’s power grabs, including by using sharp language that makes their alarm clear.

“Generally, courts and judges are tempered and restrained,” Bonta said. “The statements that you’re seeing from them are carefully chosen to be commensurate with the extreme nature of the moment — the actions of the Trump administration that are so unlawful.”

Jackson, the White House spokesperson, and other Trump administration officials defended their actions to The Times, including by citing wins before the Supreme Court.

Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said the Justice Department “has spent the past year righting the wrongs of the previous administration” and “working tirelessly to successfully advance President Trump’s agenda and keep Americans safe.”

Sauer said it has won rulings “on key priorities of this administration, including stopping nationwide injunctions from lower courts, defending ICE’s ability to carry out law enforcement duties, and removing dangerous illegal aliens from our country,” and that those decisions “respect the role” of the courts, Trump’s “constitutional authority” and the “rule of law.”

‘Imperial executive’ or ‘imperial judiciary’?

Just after taking office, Trump said he was ending birthright citizenship. California and others sued, and several lower court judges blocked the order with nationwide or “universal” injunctions — with one calling it “blatantly unconstitutional.”

In response, the Trump administration filed an emergency petition with the Supreme Court challenging the ability of district court judges to issue such sweeping injunctions. In June, the high court largely sided with the administration, ruling 6 to 3 that many such injunctions likely exceed the lower courts’ authority.

Trump’s policy remains on hold based on other litigation. But the case laid bare a stark divide on the high court.

In her opinion for the conservative majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that universal injunctions were not used in early English and U.S. history, and that while the president has a “duty to follow the law,” the judiciary “does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation.”

In a dissent joined by fellow Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that enforcement of Trump’s order against even a single U.S.-born child would be an “assault on our constitutional order,” and that Barrett’s opinion was “not just egregiously wrong, it is also a travesty of law.”

Jackson, in her own dissent, wrote that the majority opinion created “a zone of lawlessness within which the Executive has the prerogative to take or leave the law as it wishes, and where individuals who would otherwise be entitled to the law’s protection become subject to the Executive’s whims instead.”

As a result, the president’s allies will fare well, the “wealthy and the well connected” will be able to hire lawyers and go to court to defend their rights, and the poor will have no such relief, Jackson wrote — creating a tiered system of justice “eerily echoing history’s horrors.”

In a footnote, she cited “The Dual State” by Jewish lawyer and writer Ernst Fraenkel, about Adolf Hitler creating a similar system in Germany.

Barrett accused Jackson of pursuing a “startling line of attack” that unconstitutionally aggrandized the powers of judges at the expense of the executive. “Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”

Jackson questioned why the majority saw a “power grab” by the courts instead of by “a presumably lawless Executive choosing to act in a manner that flouts the plain text of the Constitution.”

What’s ahead?

Legal observers across the political spectrum said they see danger in the tumult.

“I never have been so afraid, or imagined being so afraid, for the future of democracy as I am right now,” Chemerinsky said.

He said Trump is “continually violating the Constitution and laws” in unprecedented ways to increase his own power and diminish the power of the other branches of government, and neither Republicans in Congress nor Trump’s cabinet are doing anything to stop him.

While the Supreme Court has also showed great deference to Trump, Chemerinsky said he is hoping it will begin reaffirming legal boundaries for him.

“Is the court just going to be a rubber stamp for Trump, or, at least in some areas, is it going to be a check?” he said.

Davis said Trump has faced “unprecedented, unrelenting lawfare from his Democrat opponents” for years, but now has “a broad electoral mandate to lead” and must be allowed to exercise his powers under Article II of the Constitution.

“These Democrat activist judges need to get the hell out of his way, because if they don’t, the federal judiciary is gonna lose its legitimacy,” Davis said. “And once it loses its legitimacy, it loses everything.”

Bonta said the Constitution is being “stress tested,” but he thinks it’s been “a good year for the rule of law” overall, thanks to lower court judges standing up to the administration’s excesses. “They have courage. They are doing their job.”

Day, of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said Trump “believes he is putting the country on the right path” and wants judges to get out of his way, while many Democrats feel “we’re going entirely in the wrong direction and that the Supreme Court is against them and bowing to the wishes of the executive.”

His advice to both, he said, is to keep faith in the nation’s legal system — which “is not very efficient, but was designed to work in the long run.”

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky (L), French President Emmanuel Macron (C) and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer take part in the signing of the declaration on deploying post-ceasefire force in Ukraine during the Coalition of the Willing summit at the Elysee Palace in Paris on Tuesday. Facing questions from the British Parliament, Starmer said Wednesday lawmakers would have the ability to vote on such a deployment should a peace deal be signed. Photo courtesy Ukrainian President Office | License Photo

Jan. 7 (UPI) — British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said Wednesday Parliament would be able to debate and vote on whether to deploy troops to Ukraine on a peacekeeping mission.

Speaking to members of Parliament, Starmer said any action involving British troops deploying to Ukraine would be “in accordance with our military plans” and require parliamentary approval.

On Tuesday, Starmer, along with French President Emmanuel Macron signed a trilateral agreement with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, opening the door for the two countries to deploy troops to Ukraine after it signs a peace agreement with Russia.

Starmer told members of Parliament that the leaders “made real progress on security guarantees, which are vital for securing a just and lasting peace.”

“We will set out the details in a statement at the earliest opportunity. I will keep the house updated as the situation develops, and were troops to be deployed under the declaration signed, I would put that matter to the house for a vote.”

His comments were in response to Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, who questioned why Starmer hadn’t made a full statement to the House of Commons on the issue, The Guardian reported. She said she welcomed the prime minister’s efforts on peace in Ukraine, but she found it “astonishing” that he wasn’t making a full statement to lawmakers.

“No prime minister, Labour or Conservative, has failed to make a statement to the house in person after committing to the deployment of British troops,” she said. “His comments about making a statement in due course, quite frankly, are not good enough.”

Starmer responded that he wasn’t required to make a statement to Parliament because the agreement he signed Tuesday fell under previously existing military plans.

He also declined to specify how many British troops would be deployed should a peace deal be reached, the BBC reported.

PARIS — Ukraine’s allies met Tuesday in Paris for key talks that could help determine the country’s security after any potential peace deal is reached with Russia.

But prospects for progress are uncertain: The Trump administration’s focus is shifting to Venezuela while U.S. suggestions of a Greenland takeover are causing tension with Europe, and Moscow shows no signs of budging from its demands in its nearly 4-year-old invasion.

Before the U.S. capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, French President Emmanuel Macron had expressed optimism about the latest gathering of what has been dubbed the “coalition of the willing. They have been exploring for months how to deter any future Russian aggression should it agree to stop fighting Ukraine.

In a Dec. 31 address, Macron said that allies would “make concrete commitments” at the meeting “to protect Ukraine and ensure a just and lasting peace.”

Macron’s office said an unprecedented number of officials will attend in person, with 35 participants including 27 heads of state and government. The U.S. envoys, Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, met with Macron at the Elysee presidential palace for preparatory talks ahead of the gathering.

Moscow has revealed few details of its stance in the U.S.-led peace negotiations. Officials have reaffirmed Russia’s demands and have insisted there can be no ceasefire until a comprehensive settlement is agreed. The Kremlin has ruled out any deployment of troops from NATO countries on Ukrainian soil.

A series of meetings on the summit’s sidelines illustrated the intensity of the diplomatic effort and the complexity of its moving parts.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky met with Macron ahead of the summit. French, British and Ukrainian military chiefs also met, with NATO’s top commander, U.S. Gen. Alexus G. Grynkewich, participating in talks that France’s army chief said focused on implementing security guarantees. Army chiefs from other coalition nations joined by video.

A news conference including Zelensky, Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz was planned later in the day.

Macron’s office said the U.S. delegation was initially set to be led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, but he changed his plans after the U.S. military intervention in Venezuela.

Trump on Sunday renewed his call for the U.S. to take control of Greenland, a strategic, mineral-rich Arctic island.

The leaders of France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and the U.K. on Tuesday joined Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen in defending Greenland’s sovereignty in the wake of Trump’s comments about the self-governing territory of the kingdom of Denmark.

But the continent also needs U.S. military might to back up Ukrainian security guarantees and ward off Russia’s territorial ambitions. That could require a delicate diplomatic balancing act in Paris.

Participants are seeking concrete outcomes on five key priorities once fighting ends: ways to monitor a ceasefire; support for Ukraine’s armed forces; deployment of a multinational force on land, at sea and in the air; commitments in case of more Russian aggression; and long-term defense cooperation with Ukraine.

But whether that’s still achievable Tuesday isn’t so clear now, after the U.S. military operation targeting Maduro in Venezuela.

Ukraine seeks firm guarantees from Washington of military and other support seen as crucial to securing similar commitments from other allies. Kyiv has been wary of any ceasefire that it fears could provide time for Russia to regroup and attack again.

Recent progress in talks

Witkoff had indicated progress in talks about protecting and reassuring Ukraine. In a Dec. 31 post, he said “productive” discussions with him, Rubio and Kushner on the U.S. side and, on the other, national security advisers of Britain, France, Germany and Ukraine had focused on “strengthening security guarantees and developing effective deconfliction mechanisms to help end the war and ensure it does not restart.”

France, which with the U.K. has coordinated the multinational effort to shore up a possible peace plan, has given only broad-brush details about its scope. It says Ukraine’s first line of defense against a Russian resumption of war would be the Ukrainian military and that the coalition intends to strengthen it with training, weaponry and other support.

Macron has also spoken of European forces potentially being deployed away from Ukraine’s front lines to help deter future Russian aggression.

Important details unfinalized

Zelensky said during the weekend that potential European troop deployments still face hurdles, important details have not been finalized, and “not everyone is ready” to commit forces.

He noted that many countries would need approval from their lawmakers even if leaders agreed on military support for Ukraine. But he recognized that support could come in forms other than troops, such as “through weapons, technologies and intelligence.”

Zelensky said deployments in Ukraine by Britain and France, Western Europe’s only nuclear-armed nations, would be “essential.”

“Speaking frankly as president, even the very existence of the coalition depends on whether certain countries are ready to step up their presence,” he said. “If they are not ready at all, then it is not really a ‘coalition of the willing.’”

Leicester and Corbet write for the Associated Press. Volodymyr Yurchuk in Kyiv, Ukraine, contributed to this report.

SACRAMENTO — The Trump administration backed off its effort to block a court order returning control of National Guard troops in Los Angeles to California Gov. Gavin Newsom.

In a brief filing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on Tuesday, Justice Department lawyers said they no longer oppose lifting a partial administrative stay and formally withdrew their request to keep the troops under federal control while the appeal proceeds.

The move follows the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last week in Trump v. Illinois, which cast new doubt on the administration’s legal theory for using the National Guard in domestic law enforcement operations. Tuesday’s filing with the appeals court does not concede the merits of California’s case brought by Newsom, but it removes a major procedural obstacle to enforcing the lower court’s ruling.

In the filing, federal lawyers said they “do not oppose lifting of the partial administrative stay and hereby respectfully withdraw their motion for a stay pending appeal.”

“This admission by Trump and his occult cabinet members means this illegal intimidation tactic will finally come to an end,” Newsom wrote on X, adding that he is looking forward to the 9th Circuit making an official ruling that would return the California National Guard to state service.

The decision could mark a turning point in a contentious legal fight over Trump’s use of state National Guard troops, which the president said was necessary to quell unrest over immigration enforcement. Justice Department lawyers had argued in court that once federalized, Guard troops could remain under the president’s command indefinitely and that courts had no authority to review their deployment.

Court records show roughly 300 California troops remain under federal control, including 100 of whom were still active in Los Angeles as of earlier this month. In mid-December, video reviewed by The Times showed dozens of troops under Trump’s command quietly leaving the Roybal Federal Building downtown in the middle of the night following an appellate court’s order to decamp. That facility had been patrolled by armed soldiers since June.

Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer ruled that the president had illegally seized control of California’s National Guard during protests over immigration enforcement. Breyer ordered that command of the remaining federalized troops be returned to Newsom, rejecting the administration’s argument that once federalized, Guard units could remain under presidential control indefinitely. He warned that such a theory would upend the constitutional balance between state and federal power.

The Los Angeles case is part of a broader, high-stakes legal battle over the president’s authority to deploy armed forces inside U.S. cities. Similar disputes involving Guard deployments in Oregon and Illinois are moving through the courts, with several judges, including conservative appointees, expressing skepticism about claims that such decisions are beyond judicial review.

Members of Congress have also begun scrutinizing the deployments, raising concerns about civil liberties and the growing use of military forces in civilian settings.

Caracas, December 15, 2025 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Venezuelan Armed Forces reiterated their commitment to defend the Caribbean nation’s airspace amid an escalating US military buildup and provocations.

Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino issued a statement Sunday to mark the 47th anniversary of the Venezuelan Integral Airspace Defense Command (CODAI), hailing the system’s “effective and immediate” response capabilities against “imperialist threats.”

“With its modern radars, missile systems and surface-to-air artillery, CODAI has become the vanguard of the country’s defense,” Padrino wrote on social media. The defense minister went on to highlight CODAI’s “technological independence.”

Padrino’s comments occurred amid a large-scale US military buildup in the Caribbean in a self-declared anti-narcotics mission. The Trump administration has repeatedly threatened to launch strikes against purported drug targets inside Venezuelan territory.

After moving their largest US aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford, to the region in November, US forces have likewise ramped up warplane deployments to bases in Puerto Rico. According to reports, the US Navy moved six EA-18G Growler electronic warfare jets to the island’s Roosevelt Roads naval station.

Designed by Boeing, the EA-18G Growlers have advanced capabilities to disrupt and deceive enemy military electronic systems, including air defenses.

Open-access flight tracking websites have shown EA-18G Growlers operating in the Caribbean in recent days.  On Tuesday, F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter jets flew for 40 minutes close to the Gulf of Venezuela in the country’s west. Analysts argued that the warplanes could have been mapping air defense systems spotted in the region days before.

On Friday night, social media users watching flight trackers reported that a Growler, codenamed GRIZZLY2, and a Super Hornet, codenamed RHINO61, were flying over Venezuela’s Los Roques archipelago and continental mainland, respectively. However, the false positions were a consequence of trackers such as Flight Radar 24 extrapolating an aircraft’s position for a limited time after losing signal on the basis of the last measured position and speed.

The Venezuelan government and armed forces have consistently denounced the US military maneuvers, accusing Washington of attempting to fabricate a false flag incident to justify an open conflict.

The US’ increased military activity has also affected commercial aviation. On Sunday, JetBlue denounced that an airplane on a Curaçao-New York had to halt its ascent due to the presence of a US Air Force refueling tanker in its path. Curaçao is 40 miles away from Venezuela’s coast.

US authorities have also issued a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) urging extra caution to planes flying in Venezuela’s Flight Information Region (FIR). For his part, Trump wrote on social media that Venezuela’s airspace should be “considered closed.”

International airlines flying to and from Caracas have suspended their services. Venezuelan companies continue to offer connections to regional destinations including Panama City, Bogotá and Santo Domingo.

ALBA alliance condemns US threats

Amidst the ongoing US military threats and buildup, the Nicolás Maduro government has received diplomatic backing from its main allies. Last week, the Venezuelan leader held phone calls with his Russian, Iranian and Brazilian counterparts to discuss bilateral relations and the threats to peace in the region.

On Sunday, the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA-TCP) held a virtual summit and issued a statement condemning the Trump administration’s declared intentions to enforce the Monroe Doctrine in the hemisphere.

The regional body likewise condemned recent US hostile actions, including the seizure of a tanker carrying Venezuelan crude last week. The US Treasury Department followed by imposing new sanctions, blacklisting shipping companies allegedly involved in transporting Venezuelan oil.

Venezuela’s state oil company denounced a cyberattack targeting its operational capabilities but stated that its effects had been minimized. According to Bloomberg, the reported attack caused loading delays in Venezuela’s main oil terminal.

The White House has justified its military buildup and coercive measures escalation with “narcoterrorism” charges against Maduro and other top Venezuelan officials. However, US agencies have not provided court-tested evidence to back the claims, while reports from specialized agencies have shown Venezuela to play a marginal role in global drug trafficking.

International leaders and foreign policy analysts have stated that Washington’s ultimate goal is regime change to seize control of Venezuela’s natural resources.

Edited by Cira Pascual Marquina in Caracas.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court ruled against President Trump on Tuesday and said he did not have legal authority to deploy the National Guard in Chicago to protect federal immigration agents.

Acting on a 6-3 vote, the justices denied Trump’s appeal and upheld orders from a federal district judge and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that said the president had exaggerated the threat and overstepped his authority.

The decision is a major defeat for Trump and his broad claim that he had the power to deploy military forces in U.S. cities.

In an unsigned order, the court said the Militia Act allows the president to deploy the National Guard only if U.S. military forces were unable to quell violence.

“At this preliminary stage, the Government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois. The President has not invoked a statute that provides an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act,” the court said.

Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had allowed the deployments in Los Angeles and Portland, Ore., after ruling that judges must defer to the president.

But U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled Dec. 10 that the federalized National Guard troops in Los Angeles must be returned to the control of California Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Trump’s lawyers had not claimed in their appeal that the president had the authority to deploy the military for ordinary law enforcement in the city. Instead, they said the Guard troops would be deployed “to protect federal officers and federal property.”

The two sides in the Chicago case, like in Portland, told dramatically different stories about the circumstances leading to Trump’s order.

Democratic officials in Illinois said small groups of protesters objected to the aggressive enforcement tactics used by federal immigration agents. They said police were able to contain the protests, clear the entrances and prevent violence.

By contrast, administration officials described repeated instances of disruption, confrontation and violence in Chicago. They said immigration agents were harassed and blocked from doing their jobs, and they needed the protection the National Guard could supply.

Trump Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer said the president had the authority to deploy the Guard if agents could not enforce the immigration laws.

“Confronted with intolerable risks of harm to federal agents and coordinated, violent opposition to the enforcement of federal law,” Trump called up the National Guard “to defend federal personnel, property, and functions in the face of ongoing violence,” he told the court in an emergency appeal filed in mid-October.

Illinois state lawyers disputed the administration’s account.

“The evidence shows that federal facilities in Illinois remain open, the individuals who have violated the law by attacking federal authorities have been arrested, and enforcement of immigration law in Illinois has only increased in recent weeks,” state Solicitor Gen. Jane Elinor Notz said in response to the administration’s appeal.

The Constitution gives Congress the power “to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.”

The Militia Act of 1903 says the president may call up and deploy the National Guard if he faces an invasion, a rebellion or is “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”

Trump’s lawyers said that referred to police and federal agents. But after taking a closer look, the court concluded it referred to the regular military forces. By that standard, the president’s authority to deploy the National Guard comes only after the military has failed to quell violence.

But on Oct. 29, the justices asked both sides to explain what the law meant when it referred to the “regular forces.”

Until then, both sides had assumed it referred to federal agents and police, not the military.

Trump’s lawyers stuck to their position. They said the law referred to the “civilian forces that regularly execute the laws,” not the military.

If those civilians cannot enforce the law, “there is a strong tradition in this country of favoring the use of the military rather than the standing military to quell domestic disturbances,” they said.

State attorneys for Illinois said the “regular forces” are the “full-time, professional military.” And they said the president could not “even plausibly argue” that the U.S. soldiers were required to enforce the law in Chicago.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and Newsom filed a brief in the Chicago case that warned of the danger of the president using the military in American cities.

“On June 7, for the first time in our Nation’s history, the President invoked [U.S. law] to federalize a State’s National Guard over the objections of the State’s Governor,” they said.

“President Trump and Defense Secretary Hegseth transferred 4,000 members of California’s National Guard — one in three of the Guard’s total active members — to federal control to serve in a civilian law enforcement role on the streets of Los Angeles and other communities in Southern California.”

That has proved to be “the opening salvo in an effort to transform the role of the military in American society,” they said. “At no prior point in our history has the President used the military this way: as his own personal police force, to be deployed for whatever law enforcement missions he deems appropriate.

“What the federal government seeks is a standing army, drawn from state militias, deployed at the direction of the President on a nationwide basis, for civilian law enforcement purposes, for an indefinite period of time,” they said.

The TWZ Newsletter

Weekly insights and analysis on the latest developments in military technology, strategy, and foreign policy.

The first full deployment of the U.S. Army’s new Sentinel A4 air defense radar will be in the area around Washington, D.C., also known as the National Capital Region (NCR). The A4 variant offers a significant boost in capability over preceding versions, especially for spotting and tracking lower and/or slower flying targets like cruise missiles and drones.

An Army officer discussed the capabilities of and plans for the road-mobile Sentinel A4, the formal designation of which is AN/MPQ-64A4, with Secretary Pete Hegseth during a show-and-tell at Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama, this past weekend. Members of the media were also present. Hegseth conducted several engagements in the Huntsville area during his trip, which was primarily centered on a ceremony marking the designation of the arsenal as the new headquarters for U.S. Space Command (SPACECOM).

“The plan is to be in full-rate production [of the Sentinel A4] at the end of FY 26 [Fiscal Year 2026], sir, and our first fielding will be actually in the National Capital Region,” the Army officer told Hegseth, as can be heard in the video below. “In January, we’re sending a Sentinel A4 to the National Capital Region to start that immigration process earlier, so that when it is fielded late next year, we’re ready to go.”

War Sec. Pete Hegseth Visits The New Site For U.S. Space Command Headquarters In Huntsville, Alabama

The officer noted that the Army already has a Sentinel A4 radar in South Korea, representing an early operational capability. The deployment to the Korean Peninsula has already been providing valuable feedback for the planned full fielding of the sensor in the NCR next year. You can read more about what is known about the air defense network already in place in the NCR, which includes National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems (NASAMS) and Avenger air defense systems, as well as a wide array of sensors, in previous TWZ reporting. Existing variants of Sentinel are already regularly used in combination with NASAMS and Avenger.

In terms of the Sentinel A4’s capabilities, “what this radar does is provide 360-degree air surveillance, day or night, [in] adverse weather conditions and the most harsh environments, … [to] identify, track and classify cruise missiles, rotary-wing [aircraft], fixed-wing [aircraft], [and] UAS [uncrewed aerial systems],” the officer explained to Hegseth. It also has the ability to spot and track incoming artillery rockets, shells, and mortar rounds.

Sentinel A4: Bringing Next-Gen Radar Capability to the U.S. Army and Allies

The officer said that many of its more specific capabilities are classified. They did say that it offers a 75 percent increase in detection range over the previous AN/MPQ-64A3, and the ability to track many more targets simultaneously. Much of this is a product of the new active electronically scanned array (AESA) found on the Sentinel A4. As a general rule, AESA radars offer improvements in terms of range, fidelity of tracks, resistance to countermeasures, and overall situational awareness compared to mechanically-scanned types. Depending on how the array itself is configured, AESAs can also perform a much wider array of functions at once.

The Sentinel A4 “does have growth potential,” the Army officer highlighted to Secretary Hegseth during the event. “The current array that you see here is 60 percent populated, but we do have the ability to increase how much is in the array, which allows us to meet future threats.”

That the Sentinel A4’s true operational debut is set to be in the NCR is unsurprising, given the extreme importance of defending the skies over and around Washington, D.C. This is already by far the most heavily monitored and densely defended airspace in the United States.

At the same time, the U.S. military, as a whole, has made no secret of its growing concerns about drone and cruise missile threats, which are very much reflected in the new capabilities found on the new A4 variant of Sentinel.

There has been a particular surge in reported drone incursions over key military facilities and critical non-military infrastructure in the United States in recent years, a trend that is also being observed globally. TWZ has been the first to report on many such incidents. There are questions about the validity of a significant number of these reports, especially given the overlap with claimed sightings of so-called unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAPs; previously referred to more commonly as unidentified flying objects). Still, the threats posed by drones, including small weaponized commercial types, are very real, and are only set to continue to expand in scale and scope, as TWZ has been calling attention to for years.

Cruise missile threats have also long been top of mind for the U.S. military, including in the context of preparing for potential attacks on the U.S. homeland. The increasing fielding of more capable cruise missiles, such as ones with stealthy features and/or hypersonic speeds, among near-peer competitors like China and Russia, as well as smaller adversaries, has further fueled those concerns.

It’s also worth noting that the NCR has seen a number of false alarm air defense scares over the years. Increased detection capability and general improved situational awareness could help with preventing, though not eliminating, such incidents in the future.

All this being said, the aerial threat ecosystem extends beyond the NCR, and the new capabilities offered by the Sentinel A4 radar will be relevant to Army operations globally. The service has plans to significantly expand its overall air defense force structure in the coming years.

It is possible that plans to send the Sentinel A4s to the NCR, specifically, also presage the deployment of other new air defense capabilities to the area. Sentinel radars are a primary sensor for the Army’s new middle-tier Enduring Shield air defense system, which currently uses the AIM-9X Sidewinder as its interceptor. The service is pushing to acquire a second interceptor option for Enduring Shield, primarily to offer increased capability against faster-flying cruise missiles. Overall, the system is analogous to NASAMS in many ways and would be well-suited to the NCR air defense mission.

The Army currently has two Enduring Shield platoons, one in South Korea and one at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington State. The service is hoping to have a battalion’s worth of the systems by Fiscal Year 2027.

In general, the Army sees Enduring Shield as particularly important to reducing the immense strain on its highly in-demand Patriot surface-to-air missile systems. The service has said that Enduring Shield and Patriot could even be fielded together in composite units in the future. TWZ has been calling attention to the worrisome inadequacy of the Army’s Patriot force to meet current operational needs, let alone the requirements of any future high-end figure, for years now.

If nothing else, Army air defenders protecting the skies over and around Washington, D.C., are set to get an important boost in their ability to spot and track threats, especially cruise missiles and drones, in the coming year.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com