deployment

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 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

SEOUL, Dec. 12 (UPI) — North Korean leader Kim Jong Un praised his country’s military modernization efforts as addressing security challenges “effectively and correctly” at a key ruling party meeting, state-run media reported Friday.

Kim said the regime’s push to strengthen defense capabilities was the “exact” direction to ensure North Korea’s security amid shifting geopolitical dynamics, according to the official Korean Central News Agency.

The comments came as the three-day enlarged plenary meeting of the Workers’ Party of Korea’s Central Committee wrapped up on Thursday. The session reviewed this year’s policy implementation results and laid groundwork for a key party congress set for early next year.

During his remarks, the North Korean leader also highlighted the deployment of troops to Russia as a major achievement of the country’s defense strategy.

“The signal military gains made by … the Korean People’s Army in the overseas military operations over the past nearly one year demonstrated to the world the prestige of our army and state,” Kim said.

Pyongyang has provided significant support for Moscow’s war effort in Ukraine, sending thousands of shipping containers of munitions and deploying 15,000 troops to assist Russian forces in the Kursk region, according to Seoul’s National Intelligence Service.

In exchange, experts assess that Russia is transferring advanced military technology to Pyongyang, including assistance with space launch vehicles, reconnaissance satellites and air defense systems.

On Friday, the commander of U.S. Forces Korea warned of the expanding threat posed by North Korea as it deepens military cooperation with Russia.

“Russian-DPRK collaboration is real — it is not a quid pro quo relationship,” Gen. Xavier Brunson said during a webinar.

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is the official name of North Korea.

“There are things we know are happening right now that give me pause as I look at what might face us down the road, whether that be training, or techniques and procedures they’re learning from the front,” Brunson said.

The ruling party’s Ninth Congress, expected in early 2026, is widely expected to outline a new five-year economic plan and recalibrate Pyongyang’s military and foreign policy priorities.

Analysts say that the event may also cement a hard-line posture toward South Korea. In 2024, North Korea officially designated the South as a “hostile state,” according to state media, while Kim publicly rejected the long-held goal of reunification.

A federal judge ruled Wednesday that the Trump administration must immediately end the deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles, the latest legal blow to the president’s embattled efforts to police American streets with armed soldiers.

Senior U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer said in his ruling that command of the remaining 300 federalized National Guard troops must return to Gov. Gavin Newsom, who sued the administration in June after it commandeered thousands of troops to quell protests over immigration enforcement in Los Angeles.

On June 12, Breyer ruled that deployment illegal — a decision that was challenged and ultimately reversed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The court said the esoteric statute Trump invoked to wrest command of the Guard from the governor afforded him “a great level of deference” to determine whether a rebellion was underway in Los Angeles, as the Justice Department claimed at the time.

The same sequence repeated this autumn in Oregon, where 200 California Guard troops were sent to help quash demonstrations outside an ICE facility.

Unlike in California, the Oregon decision was vacated amid claims the Justice Department inflated the number of federal protective personnel it said were detailed to Portland and misrepresented other facts to the court.

The decision is now under review by a larger panel of the 9th Circuit, while the Supreme Court weighs an almost identical challenge to the deployment in Illinois.

In both cases, conservative judicial appointees have signaled skepticism about the president’s authority to order boots on the ground, and to keep troops federalized indefinitely.

“States are not only owed protection by the federal government, they are owed protection from it,” Judge Jay Bybee wrote in a lengthy filing Tuesday in support of the 9th Circuit review. “There is no greater threat to the sovereignty of the states than an assertion of federal control over their domestic affairs.”

The “domestic violence” clause of the Constitution was part of a careful compromise between its framers allowing the president to deploy armed soldiers against citizens “only as a last resort,” the judge argued. The president should be compelled to provide some proof of his claims and the states should be empowered to test it — “particularly in the face of contrary evidence.”

That position earned him a sharp rebuke from the court’s newest member, Trump appointee Judge Eric Tung, who echoed the administration’s claim that its deployments were “unreviewable” by the courts.

A demonstrator interacts with U.S. Marines and National Guard troops standing in line at the entrance of the Metropolitan Detention Center following federal immigration operations in July.

(Etienne Laurent / AFP via Getty Images)

Their exchange reflects a deepening rift on the 9th Circuit, once the most liberal appellate division in the United States.

Trump remade the 9th Circuit in his first term, naming 10 judges to the bench. Those picks were largely curated by Leonard Leo of the libertarian-leaning Federalist Society.

But Leo has since lost favor to Tung’s longtime friend Mike Davis of the Article III Project, whose recommendations tack well to the right of his predecessor, experts said.

Still, infighting on the appellate bench is far from the only hurdle facing Trump’s domestic deployments.

In October, the Supreme Court ordered both the administration and the state of Illinois to address a theory by Georgetown University law professor Martin S. Lederman, who argued the statute only allows presidents to federalize the National Guard after they send in the army.

“If the court wants to rule against Trump on this, that’s the least offensive way,” said Eric J. Segall, a professor at Georgia State College of Law. “It’s a way to avoid all factual determinations for the moment.”

But such a ruling could open the door to even more aggressive military action in the future, he and others warn.

“If the Supreme Court comes in and says, ‘you have to use the active duty military before you can use the National Guard,’ it has the effect of saying everything that happened until now [was illegal],” said David Janovsky from the Project on Government Oversight. “But then you have the prospect of more active duty troops getting deployed.”

Congress, too, is taking a fine-toothed comb to Trump’s troop cases. The Senate Armed Services Committee is set to hear testimony Thursday from military top brass about repeated domestic deployments.

“Across the United States, Donald Trump has illegally deployed our nation’s servicemembers into American cities under unclear and false pretexts and despite the costs to our military and civil rights,” Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) said in a statement announcing the hearing. “The American people and our troops deserve answers.”

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has continued to broaden its claims of executive power in court.

In recent weeks, Department of Justice lawyers have argued that, once federalized, state Guard troops would remain under the president’s command in perpetuity. Breyer called that position “contrary to law” in his ruling Wednesday.

“Defendants’ argument for a president to hold unchecked power to control state troops would wholly upend the federalism that is at the heart of our system of government,” Breyer wrote.

California leaders cheered Wednesday’s ruling as a turning point in what until now has been an uphill legal battle to constrain the president’s use of state troops. The order was set to take effect on Monday, though it was all but certain to be appealed to the 9th Circuit.

“The President deployed these brave men and women against their own communities, removing them from essential public safety operations,” Newsom said in a statement Wednesday morning. “We look forward to all National Guard servicemembers being returned to state service.”

Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta called it “a good day for our democracy and the strength of the rule of law.”

Still, some legal scholars and civil liberties experts warn repeated deployments — and the slogging court battles that attend them — could inure the public to further politicization of the military around the midterms.

“The sense of normalization is probably part of the plan here,” Janovsky said. “Having troops trained for war on the streets of American cities puts everyone at more risk. The more we normalize the blurring of those lines, the higher the risk that troops will be used for inappropriate purposes against the American people.”

Times staff writers Kevin Rector and Jenny Jarvie contributed to this report.