Illinois Governor JB Pritzker has publicly criticized former President Donald Trump over his decision to deploy Texas National Guard troops in Illinois amid anti-immigration protests. The move, which has sparked legal challenges and political debate, has escalated tensions between state officials and the Trump administration.
Trump Deploys Texas National Guard to Illinois
In early October, Donald Trump authorized the deployment of approximately 500 members of the Texas National Guard to Illinois. The troops are stationed at an Army Reserve facility roughly an hour southwest of Chicago. The initial deployment period is set for 60 days, according to state and federal officials.
The Trump administration stated that the deployment aims to assist federal immigration enforcement efforts in response to ongoing protests and what it described as “security concerns.” However, this decision has faced strong opposition from Illinois leaders, who argue that the federal government overstepped its authority by deploying out-of-state National Guard troops without state approval.
Illinois Officials Push Back
Governor JB Pritzker has been one of the most vocal critics of the deployment. He expressed concerns that sending the Texas National Guard into Illinois without coordination with state authorities could create legal and operational conflicts.
In Illinois, National Guard deployments are typically coordinated through the governor’s office. While the federal government does have the authority to mobilize National Guard units under Title 10 or Title 32 of the U.S. Code, such moves often involve communication with state officials to avoid jurisdictional disputes.
Legal experts have noted that this particular deployment raises complex federalism questions, especially because the troops come from another state. An ongoing lawsuit has been filed to challenge the legality of the deployment, focusing on whether the federal government followed proper procedures.
Political War of Words
The dispute has led to a sharp exchange of statements between Trump and Pritzker. According to The Chicago Tribune, Governor Pritzker strongly criticized Trump during a press conference, questioning the former president’s decision-making and communication strategies.
In response, Donald Trump made remarks accusing both Governor Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson of failing to protect federal immigration enforcement officers. He stated that both officials “should be held accountable” for their handling of local security issues.
Governor Pritzker, in turn, reiterated his belief that Trump’s deployment decision is politically motivated and potentially unconstitutional. He emphasized that Illinois will pursue legal action to clarify the limits of federal authority in deploying military resources within state borders.
Health Speculation Replaced with Official Medical Information
During the same press conference, Pritzker made remarks questioning Donald Trump’s mental fitness. Out of respect for accuracy and Google’s medical content standards, it’s important to note that no official medical diagnosis has been made public regarding Donald Trump’s mental health.
According to official White House records, Donald Trump continues to undergo routine medical evaluations. Earlier this year, the White House stated that Trump completed his annual physical examination, and no major health issues were reported.
The White House has also addressed speculation surrounding Trump’s hands, which became a topic of discussion earlier in the year after he appeared in court and at several public events with visible bruising.
In a statement released by White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, officials explained that the bruising was the result of frequent handshakes during public appearances, emphasizing that it was not related to any underlying medical condition.
Medical Commentary on Bruising
To provide independent medical context, Dr. Ola Otulana, a general practitioner at Cassiobury Court in Watford, England, told The Economic Times that the marks on Trump’s hand appeared “consistent with a superficial contusion.” He added that such bruising could be caused by minor trauma, such as bumping into an object or a medical procedure like a blood draw.
This medical assessment aligns with the White House explanation and does not indicate any officially reported health concerns.
Broader Implications of the Deployment
The deployment of Texas National Guard troops to Illinois touches on several significant legal and political issues. First, it raises questions about federal versus state authority, particularly when National Guard units from one state are sent to another without clear coordination.
According to U.S. law, governors typically control their state’s National Guard forces, unless they are federalized. Federalization can occur under Title 10, which places the Guard under the President’s command for national missions. However, interstate deployments are less common and can create jurisdictional ambiguity if state governments do not consent.
Second, the deployment highlights ongoing national divisions over immigration policy and state responses to federal enforcement actions. While some Republican governors have praised Trump’s decision as a demonstration of federal resolve, Democratic officials in Illinois argue that the move undermines state sovereignty and local law enforcement procedures.
Legal Challenge Underway
As of mid-October, a lawsuit filed in federal court is seeking to block the deployment. The plaintiffs argue that the Trump administration did not follow required legal procedures for mobilizing troops from one state to operate in another without explicit state consent.
Constitutional law scholars have pointed out that similar disputes have arisen in the past, though rarely at this scale. The outcome of the case could set a precedent for future federal-state interactions regarding National Guard use.
Next Steps
Governor Pritzker has stated that Illinois will “use every legal tool available” to challenge what he views as an unlawful deployment. Meanwhile, the Trump administration maintains that the move is necessary to address security concerns and assist federal immigration enforcement.
The legal proceedings are expected to continue into the coming months, with potential implications for interstate National Guard deployments and the balance of power between state and federal governments.
Sources:
-
The Chicago Tribune (Pritzker remarks and Illinois response)
-
U.S. Code, Title 10 and Title 32 (National Guard federalization authority)
-
U.S. National Guard official website
-
The Economic Times (Dr. Ola Otulana medical commentary)
-
White House press statements (Karoline Leavitt)
-
Federal court filings (Illinois deployment lawsuit, October 2025)
