Oregon stopped Trump (for a while) why hasn’t Illinois stopped trump?

situation as best as can be pieced together from current reporting and legal context:

🟢 Oregon’s Case: “Stopped Trump (for a while)”

Oregon successfully pushed back because the deployment was federalized but without proper coordination or justification under the Insurrection Act.

• The governor controls the state’s National Guard unless it’s formally federalized (under Title 10).

• When Trump tried to use federal forces or redirect out-of-state Guardsmen into Oregon cities (like Portland), Governor Tina Kotek invoked state sovereignty and filed injunctions arguing there was no domestic “insurrection” or request for aid.

• A federal judge temporarily blocked the deployment, citing both Posse Comitatus and 10 U.S.C. § 12304(b) violations (use of Guard forces without consent of the host state).

Essentially, Oregon had a legal foothold and a state leadership willing to go to court fast.

🔴 Illinois’s Case: “Why it hasn’t (yet) stopped Trump”

Illinois’ situation is trickier — and more recent.

• The Texas National Guard troops arriving in Chicago are technically operating under Texas state orders, not federal activation (Title 32 status). That means they’re still under Governor Abbott’s command, not Trump’s.

• Because of that distinction, Trump’s administration can claim it’s simply “supporting” Abbott’s anti-crime initiative, not directly deploying federal troops.

• Governor J.B. Pritzker (Illinois) has condemned the action as unlawful and politically motivated, but the legal grounds are narrower. Illinois can’t directly order Texas troops out — it has to file in federal court, arguing that Abbott’s deployment violates the Constitution’s Compact Clause (Article I, § 10) by acting as a “foreign power” without congressional consent.

• Pritzker’s legal team is reportedly preparing such a case, but until an injunction is granted, the troops can remain — though they have no policing authority.

In short:

• Oregon fought a federal overreach.

• Illinois is facing a state-to-state intrusion that hides behind the thin veneer of “cooperative security.”
  The courts have to sort that one out — and they move slower than governors can act.

⚖️ Broader Implication

What we’re seeing is Trump testing the boundaries of federal and state authority — especially around security, immigration, and public order — by using sympathetic governors (Abbott, DeSantis, etc.) as surrogates. It’s a coordinated experiment in soft federalization: testing what he can get away with without signing a single national order.