Federal Troops in American Cities: A Controversial Intervention
The Trump administration's federal intervention in U.S. cities, involving National Guard deployments, faces criticism and legal challenges. Governors in Illinois and Oregon oppose sending troops, while legal actions question presidential authority. Federal enforcement activities raise concerns over racial profiling and civil rights violations amidst heightened tensions across major cities.

- Country:
- United States
The Trump administration's decision to deploy federal troops in several U.S. cities has sparked significant controversy and legal action. Democratic governors in Illinois and Oregon have raised objections, arguing the move infringes upon state sovereignty and exacerbates tensions. Despite these challenges, federal agents have been active in cities, including Chicago and Portland.
In Chicago, the presence of federal agents has aroused public anxiety, with reports of racial profiling and aggressive tactics. The Department of Homeland Security has confirmed incidents involving confrontations between agents and civilians, further raising concerns about civil liberties. In Portland, a federal judge temporarily blocked troop deployments, citing concerns over government overreach.
Meanwhile, in Memphis, a federal law enforcement task force initiated by the Trump administration has led to numerous arrests, yet the approach continues to face public scrutiny. As cities debate the role of federal intervention, the broader implications for civil rights and state sovereignty remain under intense discussion.
(With inputs from agencies.)
ALSO READ
Federal Judge Blocks Trump's National Guard Deployment in Portland
Portland's Legal Showdown: Judge Blocks National Guard Deployment
Federal Judge Halts Trump's Portland Troop Deployment Amid Legal Battle
Federal Judge Blocks Trump's Portland National Guard Deployment
Tensions Escalate in Chicago as Border Patrol Confronts Protesters