Governor Pritzker’s statement stressed that the integrity of the National Governors Association depends on its willingness to defend state authority, regardless of which political party occupies the White House. “If NGA leadership chooses to remain silent,” he wrote, “Illinois will have no choice but to withdraw from the organization.” He urged fellow governors to stand together, saying, “Principled leadership must prevail over political calculation.”
He also underscored that the men and women serving in the National Guard “should never be used as political props,” calling on governors to “unequivocally denounce any attempt to override state leadership and undermine democratic governance.”
The NGA, composed of both Republican and Democratic governors, has historically refrained from taking sides in partisan disputes but has occasionally spoken out on national matters affecting state interests. Just days before the controversy, the organization’s chair, Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt, and vice chair, Maryland Governor Wes Moore, issued a bipartisan appeal to Congress to avoid a federal government shutdown.
The latest dispute stems from the Trump administration’s decision earlier this year to federalize state National Guard units and deploy them to multiple cities, including Los Angeles, Chicago, Memphis, and Washington, D.C., in response to civil unrest following immigration raids.
A federal court ruling in Oregon recently blocked the administration’s attempt to send additional troops to Portland, citing a lack of evidence of significant unrest. The same decision prohibited further deployments from California and Texas.
Despite the judicial setback, President Trump defended his actions, stating that Republican-led states were supportive and ready to contribute personnel if needed. “Every one of them is willing to offer whatever we need,” he said.
As debate over the scope of federal authority intensifies, Newsom and Pritzker’s challenge highlights a growing divide between state and federal leadership—a struggle that could redefine the boundaries of state sovereignty in modern American governance.
