.RGB., CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons
President Trump’s recent federalization of Washington, D.C.’s police force and deployment of the National Guard is being presented as a model for other cities. During a Cabinet meeting on July 8, 2025, Trump stated, “We have tremendous power at the White House to run places when we have to,” but opponents argue that legal and political constraints make similar moves in places like New York and Chicago unlikely.
Whether a New York “takeover” would be unconstitutional depends on how the term “takeover” is defined. The federal government has broad powers it can legally exercise, even if never used before, powers opponents might label it a “takeover” but which could still fall well within the law.
Beginning with the deployment of federal troops and the National Guard in California, and later in Washington, D.C., Trump has acted within the law. Under federal authority, a president can deploy National Guard troops for law enforcement with cooperation from state leaders or under specific legal justifications.
Blue states are expected to resist, but in states that cooperate, or under “Title 32” authority, Guardsmen could take on law enforcement roles. In D.C., which is under federal jurisdiction, the Guard will primarily support the newly federalized police rather than directly conduct policing.
While large-scale immigration raids and support operations against protests could expand in Democrat-run cities, sustained National Guard deployments there would likely face court challenges. However, that does not mean Trump cannot do them. The executive can proceed first and defend later, especially following the Supreme Court’s recent 6-3 ruling limiting federal judges’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions. This decision significantly strengthens executive power, allowing actions to move forward while litigation unfolds.
Enforcing court orders against the executive branch is inherently complex because judges have no direct power to compel compliance. As Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky explains, “the hard truth for those looking to the courts to rein in the Trump administration is that the Constitution gives judges no power to compel compliance with their rulings, it is the executive branch that ultimately enforces judicial orders.”
History shows this limitation clearly. In Worcester v. Georgia (1832) and Ex parte Merryman (1861), presidents simply declined to enforce Supreme Court decisions, despite arguments that they were legally obligated to do so. Ultimately, whether a court’s order is carried out depends on the willingness of the president and federal authorities to act.
Constitutional experts such as Elizabeth Goitein of the Brennan Center for Justice argue that city “takeovers” would “pretty clearly be unconstitutional,” citing the 10th Amendment, which reserves powers not explicitly granted to the federal government to the states. Still, the Trump administration has several lawful tools short of a direct takeover.
These include withholding federal funds, New York City alone depends on $7.4 billion in federal funding for fiscal year 2026, deploying federal law enforcement or the National Guard, and using federal lawsuits, targeted investigations, executive orders, congressionally passed laws, agency regulations, and grant clawbacks to exert pressure.
Getting back to the constitutional authority of the executive, Section 252 provides that “whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings,” he may act.
Section 253 goes further, stating that “the President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.”
The Supreme Court decided early on that this determination is for the President alone to make. In Martin v. Mott (1827), the Court ruled that “the authority to decide whether [an exigency requiring the militia to be called out] has arisen belongs exclusively to the President.”
The Court stated: “Whenever a statute gives a discretionary power to any person to be exercised by him upon his own opinion of certain facts, it is a sound rule of construction that the statute constitutes him the sole and exclusive judge of the existence of those facts”
In plain terms, this means the President has the sole authority to decide when a crisis, such as a rebellion, riot, or major breakdown of order, makes it impossible for normal courts and law enforcement to function effectively. Once he makes that determination, he can deploy the military, National Guard, or any other resources he deems necessary to restore order. The Supreme Court has affirmed that this decision rests entirely with the President at the moment it’s made, and neither Congress nor the courts can override it in real time.
As with many legal debates, this issue hinges on definitions. The Constitution contains no definition of what constitutes a federal “takeover” of state or local government, nor does it explicitly prohibit federal intervention or control over them. The Insurrection Act similarly leaves critical terms, such as “insurrection,” “rebellion,” and “domestic violence,” undefined.
Instead, it uses broad language like “impracticable” and “considers necessary,” granting presidents almost unlimited discretion to decide when and how to act. This lack of precise definitions gives the executive branch wide latitude to determine when intervention is justified.
It is unfathomable that these are the legal hoops the president must jump through to ensure the border is secure, illegal aliens are deported, and citizens can walk the streets at night without being mugged, beaten, robbed, or killed. It is even more mind-boggling that any mayor or governor would fight against such policies.
The post Opponents Say Trump’s Proposed Federal Takeover of NYC Would Be Unconstitutional – But That’s Not Necessarily True appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.