Government shutdown forces 33,000 National Guard members to work without pay, creating training delays that threaten emergency readiness.

The conflicts over President Donald Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to Illinois and Oregon hinge on a question as old as the Constitution itself: Where does federal power end and state authority begin?

As some judges challenge the Trump administration's representation of conditions on the ground, the legal and political stakes of the debate are multiplying.

Over the objections of local and state officials, armed National Guards members are now appearing in places civilians frequent. They are walking down pedestrian streets in Washington, D.C., and they have patrolled outside the Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in Los Angeles and outside a Memphis landmark.

A three-judge panel appeared skeptical of the Trump administration’s arguments that the president has judicially un-reviewable power when it comes to the deployment of the National Guard on the streets of Los Angeles.

Experts say immigration agents have more latitude to be destructive than National Guard—with fewer avenues for San Francisco to push back.

With the stated purpose of reducing crime and supporting deportation initiatives, President Donald Trump has sent National Guard troops to the streets of several American cities. So far, the National Guard has been deployed in Chicago,

The new bill in New York would allow the state attorney general to sue for a court order blocking a guard deployment if another state attempted to send troops without authorization. That wouldn’t include cases where the guard has been formally federalized, according to News 10.

President Donald Trump’s attempts to deploy the military in Democratic-led cities over the objections of mayors and governors have brought a head-spinning array of court challenges and overlapping rul