One of President Donald Trump’s most controversial moves in 2025 was his deployment of the National Guard to several major U.S. cities to provide security for federal buildings, public places and around law enforcement operations, including deportation operations.

While popular in some areas, Trump’s deployments were met with fierce resistance in some cities, especially in jurisdictions with «sanctuary» laws shielding immigrants from federal authorities. In some particularly controversial instances, the president went around Democratic governors by federalizing the National Guard or deploying troops from friendly states to blue cities.

In 2025, Trump deployed the National Guard to Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, the Chicago area, Memphis and New Orleans.

Here are the cities where residents may see National Guard troops on their streets in 2026.

WHERE THE TRUMP ADMIN’S COURT FIGHT OVER DC NATIONAL GUARD STANDS IN WAKE OF SHOOTING

Chicago

Despite a setback in the form of a Christmas week Supreme Court ruling denying a request to proceed with immediately deploying the National Guard to Chicago, the White House told Fox News Digital that the Trump administration plans to keep working «day in and day out to safeguard the American public.»

«The President promised the American people he would work tirelessly to enforce our immigration laws and protect federal personnel from violent rioters. He activated the National Guard to protect federal law enforcement officers and to ensure rioters did not destroy federal buildings and property,» White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement. «Nothing in today’s ruling detracts from that core agenda.»

With that being said, the Trump administration is likely to continue pushing for National Guard troops to be allowed into Chicago and the legal case is still ongoing.

St. Louis

While announcing a National Guard deployment to Memphis on Sept. 15, Trump hinted at sending troops to the Gateway City, saying, «We have to save St. Louis.»

While speaking with reporters in the Oval Office about the Memphis deployment, Trump said, «We’ll get to St. Louis also.»

The president grouped St. Louis in with Memphis and Chicago as a city suffering from high violent crime and strained local law enforcement, needing federal assistance to restore order.

According to the FBI’s most recent annual crime report, compiled for cities with 50,000+ residents and released in August, St. Louis ranks among the highest in violent crime rates nationally.

TRUMP CALLS CHICAGO ‘OUT OF CONTROL’ AFTER TRAIN ATTACK LEFT WOMAN CRITICALLY BURNED

National Guard are seen after reports of two National Guard soldiers shot near the White House in Washington, Wednesday, Nov. 26, 2025.  (Evan Vucci/AP Photo)

New York

While announcing his temporary federal takeover of D.C. in August, Trump suggested he may also intervene in New York, saying, «We have other cities that are very bad. New York has a problem.»

Trump also said, «I’m going to look at New York in a little while.»

At the same time, Trump voiced, «I hope they do a self-clean-up.» He expressed, however, that the rise to power of socialist now Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani may necessitate a deployment to «straighten out the city.»

The president has since met with Mamdani in the Oval Office, in a highly publicized meeting in which the two appeared to have worked through their differences. Trump predicted that Mamdani would be a «great mayor.»

«We have one thing in common,» said Trump. «We want this city of ours that we love to do very well.»

Despite this, the possibility of a National Guard deployment to New York remains should the city begin to spiral out of control under Mamdani’s leadership.

PAM BONDI SAYS TRUMP ‘ABSOLUTELY’ HAS AUTHORITY TO INVOKE INSURRECTION ACT TO CURB CHICAGO CRIME

President Donald Trump met with New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani for the first time in the Oval Office in November.  (Jim Watson / AFP via Getty Images)

Baltimore

Trump also said that he would send the National Guard to Baltimore to «quickly clean up the crime» if Maryland Democratic Gov. Wes Moore were to say he needs help.

Moore had earlier invited Trump to attend a public safety walk in the crime-ridden city in September, saying in an Aug. 21 letter that the event would provide an opportunity to «discuss strategies for effective public safety policy.»

«As President, I would much prefer that he clean up this crime disaster before I go there for a walk,» Trump wrote in a Truth Social post. 

He accused Moore of having a poor record on crime, «unless he fudges his figures on crime like many of the other Blue States are doing.»

Trump added that he did not appreciate the tone of Moore’s invitation.

«But if Wes Moore needs help, like Gavin Newscum did in L.A., I will send in the «troops,» which is being done in nearby DC, and quickly clean up the crime,» Trump wrote. He added that Baltimore ranks among the worst cities in the United States for crime and murder.

THE ICIEST MOMENTS OF 2025: THE 5 POLITICAL FEUDS THAT FROZE WASHINGTON

California National Guard members stand in formation during the protest in Los Angeles, California on June 14, 2025.  (David Pashaee/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images)

California cities

Led by Democratic, pro-sanctuary politicians, America’s most populous state has stood firmly opposed to much of the Trump administration’s actions. California Gov. Gavin Newsom was a fierce critic of Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles over the summer despite ongoing unrest and anti-ICE riots in the city.

Despite the pushback, Trump has signaled his willingness to send the National Guard back to Los Angeles as well as to Oakland and San Francisco.

«We have other cities also that are bad. Very bad,» said the president. «You look at Los Angeles, how bad it is.»

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Addressing crime, Trump has said, «Then you have, of course, Baltimore and Oakland. We don’t even mention that anymore. They are so far gone. We are not going to let that happen. We are not going to lose our cities over this.»

Trump also said, «Look at what the Democrats have done to San Francisco. They’ve destroyed it. We can clean that up, too, we’ll clean that one up, too.»

Fox News Digital’s Amanda Macias contributed to this report.

Preguntas sobre la salud del presidente

Un visible moretón en la mano derecha de Donald Trump, en una imagen de agosto. Foto: REUTERS

President Donald Trump spent the first year of his second White House term signing a torrent of executive orders aimed at delivering on several major policy priorities, including slashing federal agency budgets and staffing, implementing a hard-line immigration crackdown and invoking emergency authority to impose steep tariffs on nearly every U.S. trading partner.

The pace of Trump’s executive actions has far outstripped that of his predecessors, allowing the administration to move quickly on campaign promises. But the blitz has also triggered a wave of lawsuits seeking to block or pause many of the orders, setting up a high-stakes confrontation over the limits of presidential power under Article II and when courts can — or should — intervene.

Lawsuits have challenged Trump’s most sweeping and consequential executive orders, ranging from a ban on birthright citizenship and transgender service members in the military to the legality of sweeping, DOGE-led government cuts and the president’s ability to «federalize» and deploy thousands of National Guard troops.

FEDERAL JUDGE BLOCKS TRUMP’S BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP BAN FOR ALL INFANTS, TESTING LOWER COURT POWERS

Many of those questions remain unresolved. Only a few legal fights tied to Trump’s second-term agenda have reached final resolution, a point legal experts say is critical as the administration presses forward with its broader agenda.

Trump allies have argued the president is merely exercising his powers as commander in chief. 

Critics counter that the flurry of early executive actions warrants an additional level of legal scrutiny, and judges have raced to review a crushing wave of cases and lawsuits filed in response.

WINS:

Limits on nationwide injunctions

In June 2025, the Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration 6-3 in Trump v. CASA, a closely watched case centered on the power of district courts to issue so-called universal or nationwide injunctions blocking a president’s executive orders. 

Though the case ostensibly focused on birthright citizenship, arguments narrowly focused on the authority of lower courts’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions and did not wade into the legality of Trump’s order, which served as the legal pretext for the case. The decision had sweeping national implications, ultimately affecting the more than 310 federal lawsuits that had been filed at the time challenging Trump’s orders signed in his second presidential term.

Justices on the high court ultimately sided with U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer, who had argued to the court that universal injunctions exceeded lower courts’ Article III powers under the Constitution, telling justices that the injunctions «transgress the traditional bounds of equitable authority,» and «create a host of practical problems.»

The Supreme Court largely agreed. Justices ruled that plaintiffs seeking nationwide relief must file their lawsuits as class action challenges. This prompted a flurry of action from plaintiffs in the weeks and months that followed as they raced to amend and refile relevant complaints to lower courts.

Firing independent agency heads 

The Supreme Court also signaled openness to expanding presidential authority over independent agencies.

Earlier in 2025, the justices granted Trump’s request to pause lower-court orders reinstating two Democratic appointees — National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) member Gwynne Wilcox and Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) member Cathy Harris, two Democrat appointees who were abruptly terminated by the Trump administration. It also suggested the Supreme Court is poised to pare back a 90-year-old precedent in Humphrey’s Executor, a 1935 ruling that prohibits certain heads of multi-member, congressionally created federal regulatory agencies from being fired without cause.

It is not the only issue in which the justices appeared inclined to side with Trump administration officials and either overturn or pare back Humphrey’s protections.

In December, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter, a similar case centered on Trump’s attempt to fire a member of the Federal Trade Commission without cause. Justices seemed likely to allow the firing to proceed and to weaken Humphrey’s protections for similarly situated federal employees, though the extent that justices will move to dilute an already watered-down court ruling remains unclear.

The high court will also review another case centered on Trump’s ability to remove Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook early in 2026.

SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS REINS IN SOTOMAYOR AFTER REPEATED INTERRUPTIONS

Supreme Court Justices attend the 60th inaugural ceremony Jan. 20, 2025, at the Capitol in Washington, D.C. (Ricky Carioti /The Washington Post via Getty Images)

LOSSES:

Tariffs 

While it’s rarely helpful to speculate on how the Supreme Court might rule on a certain case, court watchers and legal experts overwhelmingly reached a similar consensus after listening to oral arguments in Learning Resources v. Trump, the case centered on Trump’s use of an emergency wartime law to enact his sweeping tariff plan. 

At issue in the case is Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to enact his steep 10% tariffs on most imports. The IEEPA law gives the president broad economic powers in the event of a national emergency tied to foreign threats. But it’s unclear if such conditions exist, as voiced by liberal and conservative justices in their review of the case earlier in 2025.

Several justices also noted that the statute does not explicitly reference tariffs or taxes, a point that loomed large during oral arguments.

A ruling against the administration would deliver a major blow to Trump’s signature economic policy. 

Court watchers and legal experts said after arguments that a Trump administration win could be more difficult than expected, though each cautioned it is hard to draw conclusions from roughly two hours of oral arguments, a fraction of the total time justices spend reviewing a case.

Jonathan Turley, a law professor and Fox News contributor, said in a blog post that the justices «were skeptical and uncomfortable with the claim of authority, and the odds still favored the challengers.»

«However, there is a real chance of a fractured decision that could still produce an effective win for the administration,» Turley added.

Brent Skorup, a legal fellow at the CATO Institute, told Fox News Digital in an emailed statement that members of the court seemed uncomfortable with expanding presidential power over tariffs.

«Most justices appeared attentive to the risks of deferring to a president’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute and the executive branch ‘discovering’ new powers in old statutes,» Skorup said.

‘LIFE OR DEATH’: SUPREME COURT WEIGHS TRUMP TARIFF POWERS IN BLOCKBUSTER CASE

President Donald Trump signs an executive order at the White House Dec. 15, 2025, in Washington, D.C. Trump has signed more executive orders in 2025 than he did in all four years of his first presidency combined. (Getty Images) (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Birthright citizenship

The Supreme Court has agreed to review Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship, one of the most legally consequential actions of his second term.

At issue is an executive order Trump signed on his first day back in office that would deny automatic U.S. citizenship to most children born to illegal immigrant parents or parents with temporary legal status, a sweeping change critics say would upend roughly 150 years of constitutional precedent.

The order immediately sparked a flurry of lawsuits in 2025 filed by dozens of U.S. states and immigrants’ rights groups. Opponents have also argued that the effort is an unconstitutional and «unprecedented» one that would threaten some 150,000 children in the U.S. born annually to parents of noncitizens and an estimated 4.4 million American-born children under 18 who are living with an illegal immigrant parent, according to data from the Pew Research Center. 

To date, no court has sided with the Trump administration’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment, though multiple district courts have blocked the order from taking force.

While it’s unclear how the high court might rule, the lower court rulings suggest the Trump administration might face a steep uphill battle in arguing the case before the Supreme Court in early 2026.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP 

The court said in early December it will hold oral arguments in the case in 2026, between February and April, with a ruling expected by the end of June.