Pritzker to Trump: 'Illinois is NOT a place you can conquer... period.'

in the armed forces put their lives on the line to protect the hard-fought freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and they protect our democracy. Every president in modern history has understood the gravity and seriousness of deploying troops abroad and in very rare and urgent occasions at home. Every president has carefully weighed the costs of separating service members the most important and every president except one. Amid Donald Trump and Stephen Miller's ongoing effort to deploy troops in Illinois, I convened a group of former military generals,

rear admirals and veterans to hear their perspectives on this uncalled for, unprecedented and unlawful move. They are here with me today. Major General William L. Enyart, the Illinois National Guard Charles Lucky, Rear Admiral Michael Smith, who is also the CEO of National Security Leaders for America, and Janessa Goldbeck, a veteran and CEO of the VetVoice Foundation. I want to thank you, all of them, for their time

and for their continued service to this nation. This group has served across the various branches of the military and represent a broad spectrum of expertise. They are not here on behalf of a party or political agenda. They are here out of a commitment to our country. With their combined wealth of experience,

I have been hearing from them about what this power grab means for our state, for our country, and for our brave men and women in uniform. What the likely long-term consequences will be of the escalation for our military. One thing is evident. This effort to deploy troops in American cities is not normal.

There is no rational justification for such a deployment. It is a breach of the most fundamental values and customs that our armed forces operate on. That is why there is such little precedent in our history for federalizing and deploying National Guard troops and other military onto American streets. Other presidents have used this power incredibly sparingly, and there's a good reason for that. In 1965, Lyndon B. Johnson federalized the Alabama National Guard and sent additional backup to protect Martin Luther King and civil

rights leaders peacefully marching to Montgomery. In 1992, at the request of the California governor and mayor of Los Angeles, President George H.W. Bush agreed to activate the National Guard and provide additional support to local law enforcement during the widespread riots following the killing of Rodney King. But now, in 2025, President Trump says he wants to go to war with Chicago, use it and our people as a training ground, and is sending military troops against the wishes of its

people in order to punish his political opponents. One of these instances is not like the others. And to Stephen Miller, who is pulling the strings for Donald Trump, Illinois is not a place you can conquer. And our people are not your subjects.

Period. Past presidents have understood the gravity of the decision that they were making. This president is deciding to take National Guard members away from their families and communities. These are citizen soldiers who signed up to serve their country in times of need. They have lives and loved ones that they're being pulled away from.

A classroom of kids is missing their teacher. A hospital department full of patients is missing their nurse. So many children are missing their parent. All because Donald Trump wants to punish people who didn't vote for him and to threaten his political opponents and to carry out his agenda of chaos to justify his actions. Past presidents have understood the mission and purpose of the National Guard to come

to the aid of our communities in times of urgent crisis or to be sent abroad to defend our nation. Anyone claiming that there is a rebellion or insurrection in Chicago is not telling the truth. I want to make an important distinction. No person could be faulted for believing that the U.S. military is already patrolling our streets. It feels that way already. Masked federal agents from ICE and CBP are on the ground terrorizing our communities with tear gas and rubber bullets, and some are wearing camouflage uniforms that could

easily be mistaken for the military. It is Trump and Miller's agents who are operating like his own personal secret police, harassing civilians, tear gassing communities, arresting journalists, and grabbing people on the street to ask them for their papers based on the color of their skin. This is intentional. Chaos, confusion, and destabilization are the means.

Eroding our democratic institutions is his end goal. Trump is looking to cause mayhem and lay the foundation for actions far more craven. Today he is trying to make us comfortable with masked agents or troops on our streets. Tomorrow he's looking to leverage his power, take advantage of our elections, and scare people away from voting. He wants to create the perception of chaos in order to further consolidate his power.

He's hoping to blur the lines between his masked federal agents and members of the National Guard and active duty military. We cannot let that happen. We cannot accept any of this as normal and we cannot remain silent. We must continue to call this what it is, a dangerous, a dangerous power grab that

echoes the rise of authoritarianism and authoritarian regimes throughout world history. I'm grateful to have clarity given by the retired generals, rear and veterans who have served Illinois to join us at the podium. General. Thank you Governor. Good morning. Governor Pritzker, I thank you for that kind introduction. I'm here today with two other generals and one admiral. Now we brought the admiral along because Chicago of course sits on Lake Michigan and we thought it would be useful to have a sailor. But seriously, we represent over 300 other like-minded admirals and generals who belong

to an organization called National Security Leaders for America. NSL4A is a nonpartisan, not-for-profit organization, and we strongly support the governor's efforts to stop the misuse of our military members against our fellow Americans. As the governor indicated, I served as Illinois' National Guard Adjutant General, or the commander for those of you who don't speak National Guardese. I come from a proud family of veterans. Between my father, my brother, and myself, we served nearly 64 years in the military. Between my brother and I, one or both of us served in the military from 1969 until 2012.

Now during my term as Adjutant General, which was the last five years of my career from 2007 to 2012, we had the largest ever combat deployment of the Illinois National Guard since World War II when we sent the 33rd Infantry Brigade Combat Team to Afghanistan. We were in combat. The Illinois National Guard had soldiers and airmen

in combat 365 days a year, 24 hours a day for the entire time that I served as the Adjutant General. In fact, for more than 20 years, the Illinois National Guard had soldiers and airmen in combat in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places. That's an incredible record. And the National Guard has never been held in higher esteem in this country because of the track record that we have established serving our nation not only in combat but also in times of natural disaster.

You know we took an oath to the Constitution of this great nation and that's why I'm here today. It is imperative that we as citizens, not just as officers, but as citizens stand up to the overreach of the federal government today in Illinois, in California, and elsewhere. Our National Guard members joined and served to defend our nation, to respond to natural disasters.

They are not policemen. They are not political pawns. They are sons and daughters, husbands and wives. They're teachers, farmers, mechanics, carpenters, and students. They deserve to be treated with the respect that they have earned for volunteering to put their lives on the line for our country and our communities. They should not be treated as props for political theater. You know, the number that I've heard for the Los Angeles

deployment 4,000 National Guardsmen for 60 days is 120 million dollars. So that's a real cost. That's a cost to the American taxpayer. But there are hidden costs, costs that the governor alluded to, costs to the individual soldier, to the families, to the communities, to the employers. A typical

private first class, that's a low-ranking enlisted person, makes about $91 a day when they're on active duty. That's about 11 bucks an hour. If you're flipping burgers here in Chicago, you make $15 an hour or more. So these young soldiers are paying a financial penalty.

And what about the cost to the family? They're not there to go to that soccer family? They're not there to go to that soccer game, they're not there to help with that homework, they're not there to make sure the car gets serviced. All of the myriad tasks that we all perform in our civilian lives. And these are, after all, part-time soldiers. They're not full-time soldiers. They signed up to be part-time soldiers, not part-time policemen.

There's the cost to the community. Those educators, ministers, lawyers, whatever their job title is, they're not there in the community to attend those Kiwanis Club meetings or the Lions Club or to go to the PTA meetings. There's also the impact on the soldiers as soldiers and on their units. I call those costs the three R's,

recruiting, retention, and readiness. Recruiting because if you're a young soldier and you're making less money sitting in Washington DC than you would at home and you're picking up trash or putting mulch out on the flower beds at the Washington Monument, that's not what you signed up for. The soldiers and airmen that I served with loved being called up for natural disasters.

They loved it. They loved being out there in that hot sun, sweating on the Mississippi River, chasing ticks off and eating MREs in the field. Why did they love it? They loved it because it was what they signed up to do. Help their communities, help their friends,

help their neighbors. They felt a sense of accomplishment. Do you feel that sense of accomplishment when your video flashes up on the screen at home and your soldier is there picking up trash in Washington, D.C.? How many families are going to support a soldier's desire to re-enlist when that's what they're

seen doing? How many employers? What's the impact on the employers? When you're a soldier, you know, when that soldier's gone, you are required by law, as an employer, to give them their job back when they get back. You have to cover that soldier's job. So you're either paying other employees overtime

or you're hiring temporary workers or you're doing the work yourself, whatever it is you're doing to cover for that soldier, you turn on the television set when you get home at night and here is your soldier spreading mulch in Washington, D.C DC as a political problem. As

an employer you got to hire him back right? But that next employee you hire doesn't have to be a guardsman does it? That's an impact that's an impact on military readiness. In terms of so we're gonna have that adverse impact on recruiting because that soldier who's out there picking up trash in Washington that's a big part of the Recruiting readiness, retention. Let's talk about readiness for a second. Every day that a soldier spends sitting in Washington DC or Los Angeles guarding a building is a day they are not training for their job. Their job as a soldier, whether that soldier is in a trucking company or an infantry company or

flying an airplane, if they're in this type of mobilization, they are not gaining readiness. They're not being prepared to be a soldier to deploy in the defense of this nation. So the three R's, recruiting, readiness, and retention. And this applies to the entire military. We're not just talking about the National Guard, but as a National Guard adjutant general, I feel a special expertise to talk about that. And as the governor mentioned, I'm very concerned as a soldier, as a retired soldier, I'm very concerned about these ICE agents walking

down Michigan Avenue dressed in combat fatigues, wearing combat boots just like the ones I wore, just like the ones I still have in my basement in case the governor needs me. The average citizen is not going to know the difference between a National Guardsman and an active-duty soldier from the 10th Mountain Division or a Marine from Camp Pendleton. They all look alike. They're not going to know the difference. But I would tell you what the difference is. The difference is

that these ICE agents are not trained soldiers. They're not trained soldiers and they don't show the discipline that soldiers do. They don't obey the same rules of engagement that soldiers do. It offends me as a soldier that we have ICE agents, I think the modern term is co-splaying, I would say pretending to be soldiers. They're not soldiers.

And it is a smirch on the National Guard's reputation for them to be wearing the same uniform that we are. Thank you for your attention.

And General Manor.

Thank you, Governor, for the opportunity to stand here with you and to stand up for what is right. I served for 36 years in the U.S. Army as a regular officer and as a citizen soldier in the National Guard. Like General Inyart, I also come from a family who has served our nation in combat. From my father who served in Vietnam as a 30 year career soldier, to my son who completed a 22 year career as a combat search and

rescue pilot in the Air Force saving lives in Afghanistan. We made the commitment and sacrifice of a combined 88 years of service to our fellow Americans to all of you. For my first assignment in the 82nd Airborne Division as a young Airborne Ranger platoon leader, through being the Deputy Commanding General of 3rd U.S. Army, responsible for the lives of tens of thousands of men and women in combat in Iraq, Afghanistan, and

across the Middle East, to being the number two general officer in the National Guard Bureau in the Pentagon, responsible for over 450,000 citizen soldiers and airmen in all 54 states and territories and the District of Columbia. I have seen the very best of Americans. No matter what their color, their gender, their religion, or national origin, all that ever mattered is their ability to do their job. We and our fellow veterans are proud to have served all of you and to have served our nation.

Our military is one of the most respected institutions in the United States. The National Guard has two missions. First, it is trained, equipped, and organized to defend our nation as a strategic reserve from foreign threats overseas. And second, to serve as a capability to governors

to help save lives in times of natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes, tornadoes, or hurricanes, and to assist as mayors may ask to temporarily augment local capabilities for special events such as the Super Bowl or the Olympics or things in that manner. Our military and National Guard are designed for combat, not for community policing. Soldiers are trained to eliminate threats, not to de-escalate tensions or protect constitutional rights during protests. When we blur that line, we risk turning our own streets into battlefields

and our citizens into potential enemies. The use of the military by this administration in Los Angeles, Memphis, and possibly Chicago is inappropriate, it's dangerous, and it is a clear and present danger to the security of our nation. It is un-American. History warns us of this danger. The Posse Comitandus Act of 1878 was created precisely

to prevent the military from enforcing domestic law because our founders understood that freedom cannot thrive under the shadow of military control. Civilian police, accountable to local communities and bound by civil law, are the right tools for maintaining order, not troops and tanks. If we truly want safe and peaceful cities, we should invest in stronger

communities, better policing standards, and more trust between citizens and local law enforcement, not the presence of armed forces meant for war. America's strength comes not from fear or force, but from the principles of liberty and self-governance. Let's protect those principles by keeping the military where it belongs, defending the nation, not policing its people. I stand here today speaking resolutely, not only as a retired soldier, but also as a father

and father-in-law of my daughter and her husband and my three-year-old grandson who are residents of this wonderful city. Thank you Governor for demonstrating the courage to stand up for what is right, not only for the millions of citizens of the city of Chicago and the great state of Illinois, but for my own family as well. So thank you.

Governor. Thank you, sir. Appreciate you.

Good morning. My name is Janessa Goldbeck, and I served as a combat engineer officer in the United States Marine Corps. Today, I lead VetVoice Foundation, which is a national, nonpartisan nonprofit representing more than 2 million veterans, military family members, and supporters from all walks of life and all backgrounds. We empower veterans and military families

to engage in public life and defend the democratic values we swore an oath to uphold. Over the past year, we've grown increasingly alarmed about the growing politicization of the military. We've actively pushed back in the courts through policy advocacy and by preparing elected officials to preserve the apolitical character of our armed forces.

Today, I'm honored to stand here alongside Governor Pritzker and these esteemed retired general officers to voice a principled objection grounded in history, the Constitution, and the hard-earned experience of those of us who have worn the uniform, an objection to the Trump administration's attempt to deploy National Guard into the city of Chicago. Deploying military forces into American cities when there is no widespread unrest, no breakdown of local law enforcement, and against the wishes of local leaders and local police is an extraordinary and dangerous breach of long-standing

democratic norms, a reckless precedent that threatens both our systems of government and undermines public trust in our armed forces. It also risks doing harm to the very people who serve in uniform. The troops that are being told to deploy are not faceless. They are our neighbors, mostly young men and women from middle and working class families. Many of them are first or second generation Americans.

In their civilian lives, they are the EMTs who respond when your child can't breathe, the linemen who restore power after a storm, the nurses who pull double shifts in county hospitals, the police officers and firefighters who keep our neighborhoods safe. When they take off the National Guard uniform, they go home to take care of their kids, coach Little League, and volunteer at their churches. Pulling them out of their communities for what amounts to a political stunt doesn't just disrupt readiness,

it leaves holes in our local safety nets. It means fewer first responders on the job. It means missed paychecks, missed birthdays, and missed moments that can never be replaced. It is a betrayal of the dual mission of our National Guard that our National Guard

serve to protect both state and nation. There's also a significant impact to readiness and morale. Picture a young guardsman, newly trained for disaster relief, homeland support, or overseas deployment. Imagine him arriving in Chicago, ordered into neighborhoods he doesn't know, confronting emotionally fraught scenes, families being ripped apart,

frightened children, communities watching in horror. This is not what he trained for. His ethos was not shaped for inner city checkpoint enforcement. His peers are serving overseas or preparing for hurricane season at home, and yet here he is in a highly charged situation with no clear mission. When the President of the United States places soldiers and airmen into roles that clash

with their identity and values, where they may be viewed not as protectors, but as agents of contention, it damages unit cohesion, it sows doubt, it introduces political fear, hesitation, and mistrust. It harms our operational readiness by pulling the guard away from their real missions, and it puts guardsmen in impossible positions, where one misunderstanding, one wrong move could turn a tense situation into a tragedy. Misusing them in this way risks escalation that puts both service members and civilians in harm's way.

It also risks alienating entire communities, communities whose trust the military may need tomorrow in a crisis. The president has planted the perception that the military is not neutral, not apolitical, not above the fray, but that it is part of his personal political tool set. That perception corrodes recruitment, retention, willingness to serve, and the moral reserve we expect from our armed forces. We must also not lose sight of the human dimension at the heart of this mission. The people being targeted by ICE are not faceless threats.

Many of them are mothers, fathers, workers, veterans, long-standing contributors to our economy and society. Some may have put on the uniform themselves. Others have raised children who serve in uniform today. To treat every immigrant as a threat, to call in the military as if we are facing an invasion, ignores both our shared humanity and the complexity of the immigration system itself. It reduces real people in our communities to targets instead of our neighbors. For those outside of Chicago, take note, because what is happening here could happen anywhere

tomorrow. Once the precedent is set that the president can deploy troops in U.S. cities to enforce immigration law, what stops him from using the same authority to respond to peaceful protests, to deploy the guard outside of polling places during next year's elections. Today we have to draw a line in the sand respectfully, firmly, and without equivocation. This is not normal.

This is not American. And this is not what the military is for. To the soldiers standing by to stand by in Chicago today, you are seen, you are respected, and you deserve better leadership than this. Veterans stand with you, not as partisan instruments, but as guardians of what our country claims to be.

The strength of our democracy is measured not just by how well we defend our borders or respond to foreign threats, but how by how consistently we uphold our constitutional principles here at home. Every American, regardless of party, should be able to agree to this. Our military does not belong to the President. It belongs to the people.

The Guard exists to serve the states and their citizens, not to enforce political loyalty to one man. If we allow the President to turn our military inward, to use it as a weapon against his own citizens, we lose the very thing that makes this country worth defending,

our freedom. Thank you and Semper Fi. Governor Pritzker.

Thank you. Happy to take any questions from members of the media. As I understand it, they are federalized but not deployed because of the courts. If that changes, how does the guard, the guard is supposed to be watching over what the immigration agents are doing. What happens when a guardsman sees an immigration agent

crossing the line? You know, we saw pictures online of an immigration agent with a gun in a Walgreens. What happens then? Is there a risk of confrontation? Does the guard protect that person or are they protecting the public? What is their job?

That's a terrific question. I don't know the answer to that. I don't think anyone knows the answer to that.

And that is going to be a very telling situation.

We —

You are the boss. What would you have said?

You know, the — I want to make sure they can hear you. Sorry. The, you know, the, we have a duty. I want to make sure they can hear you. Oh, sorry. We, excuse me, soldiers have a duty to obey lawful orders. An order that is issued by a superior officer is presumed to be lawful.

So you are putting some of these young soldiers, and this is what we're talking about here, you're putting some of these young soldiers in really an untenable position.

You all remember when President Trump said, shoot them in the legs. All right, that's pretty clearly an unlawful order. You don't just go shooting people in the legs because they're engaging in protected First Amendment discourse. But that young soldier out there who gets

that order, do you really want to put them in the position of having to determine whether it's a lawful order, whether it's a constitutional order? They're not trained for that. Now if you see someone doing something unlawful, soldiers are required to tell superior authorities about it. And we have seen actions in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq where soldiers reported to superior authorities what their fellow soldiers had done in violation of the rules of

engagement and violation of international law and we've seen the Trump administrator, we've seen the president, those soldiers who committed wrongful acts were court-martialed and we've seen the President, those soldiers who committed wrongful acts were court-martialed. And we've seen the current President turn around and commute those sentences or pardon those folks and have them reinstated. I think that that's very problematic. And unfortunately, we may well see this happen. And I think it's going to be incumbent, you know, it's going to – will the courts then

step in? You know, I think the courts are – several of the judges have done a terrific job so far standing up to this administration. But I think that's one of the reasons that we as retired generals are here. We can speak out. We got our First Amendment rights back.

If I were still on active duty, I wouldn't be able to stand here before you and tell you some of these things. Thank you for your question.

Yes.

So if the President is deployed, does they have any chance to protect Latin communities, Latin neighbors?

Well, if they're deployed, they're being deployed by the President of the United States. They've been federalized. So I, we don't know what those orders will be, but I tend to doubt that that is what the Trump administration has in mind, protecting those communities. That doesn't seem to be what they're telling ICE or CBP.

And so I can't imagine they is going to The governor of the BBC in London, if you can. This is clearly a power struggle between a governor

and his state, and a president who takes a different view of how he can exercise his power. So the question for everybody, not just in the United States, but beyond the United States, is who prevails and how.

And if I might just add to that briefly, you compare what's happened or what the president of the United States threatened to jail me to jail. He's threatened in the past to jail the president of the United States threatened to jail me, to jail he's threatened in the past, to jail the governor of California and the mayor of Chicago. So do I think he could carry it that far? Well, he says he would.

Yeah, this is a struggle around the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, which protects states' rights. It's also a struggle, in my view, about protecting the military. The reputation of the military in this country is very, very good. And there were years in the past when it wasn't. But it's very good.

People have enormous respect and admiration for those who are part of our military forces. What the president is now doing has the potential to significantly erode that faith that the American public has. And I think you've heard, you know, the idea that readiness, the idea that our national security is at risk as a result of the American public losing faith, is of great concern to people who've spent their lives, or much of

their lives, leading military troops or serving in the military. So I, too, have that same concern. And of course, I'm focused right now on Illinois National Guard and other National Guard being sent here. But I can speak with I know many members of the Illinois National Guard. They did not ask to be called up for this sort of service to have to stand against their fellow Illinoisans in some fashion, and maybe even be given an unlawful order that they're not sure whether to act upon because they're not

judges or lawyers They're and they're trained for military service and of course to help rescue people in emergencies and not to do this kind of service the- the- the- the- the- the-

The- the- the- the- the- the-

the- the- the- the- the- the- the- the- the- the- the- the- the- the- the- the- the- the- the- the- the- the- the- the- I'm not a governor. I'm not a and Donald Trump, Kristi Noem, Tom Homan, and Gregory Bovino.

Paris.

Q. Governor, can you just explain a little more the circumstance of that $1.4 million?

Those are big winnings. It's a high roller table. Were you gambling with millions and millions of dollars?

I obviously – and I've explained this, or at least we did in a statement, you know, that I went on vacation with my wife with some friends. I was incredibly lucky. You have to be to end up ahead, frankly, going to a casino anywhere. Uh, it was in Las Vegas. Uh, and, uh, I like to play cards. And so you know that I founded a, uh, charitable poker match here in Chicago called the Chicago Poker Challenge that raises millions the- the- charitable poker- match here in Chicago called

the Chicago poker challenge that raises. Millions has raised millions of dollars for the Holocaust museum here- and particularly to stand up for civil rights that's much of

what the Holocaust museum does- and so. Anyway that's that's all I can say about it had had fun, I had fun doing it. I encourage people to come to the state of Illinois and gamble in our casinos here. We have some really lovely places to go.

I just want to clarify.

Olivia and then Mitch.

Thank you. The number that was reported, can you say how much you have lost gambling?

I believe that's a net number. So yeah, but I mean, it was all, you know, it all happened over one trip. And again, it was just, I mean, incredibly lucky. And as you know, most of the time, anybody who's been to a casino, you win. And you know, all of anybody who's played cards

in a casino knows that, you know, you often play for too long and lose whatever it is that you've won. I was fortunate enough to have to leave before that happened. So what was the final hand that made you?

Oh, I don't remember.

Thank you, Mitch.

Governor, the president has publicly

flirted with the idea of invoking the insurrection

act to deploy the guard.

How concerned are you about that,

and how would that affect the state's legal challenge? Well, I believe it to be unlawful and unconstitutional. There is not a rebellion going on. How concerned are you about that and how would that affect the state's legal challenge?

Well I believe it to be unlawful and unconstitutional. There is not a rebellion going on. It's called the Insurrection Act for a reason. There is not an insurrection going on in Chicago. And you've heard him move around his reasons for calling in the National Guard. Think about his first discussion was crime is rampant, Portland is on fire,

you know, he exaggerates everything tremendously and then and said that was the reason. And then, of course, I think there were a few people, must have been in the White House, who told him, actually, you can't call in the National Guard for that in the National Guard. We have local law enforcement, state law enforcement, ICE and CBP are clearly capable of protecting their assets. And so, yeah, I'm concerned, of course, that it doesn't seem like the President of the United States cares much about the Constitution or the laws of the country. He's broken them, well, 34 times. He's been a convicted felon. So he

doesn't much care about the law. So yeah, I am concerned that he will just ignore the law and try to enact the Insurrection Act and use his people who seem to be sycophants to the end to defend him as he's carrying out unlawful acts. Sorry, yeah, I think Sarah in the back. The Press. Kind of a follow-up to that.

On Tuesday, as you know, on the southeast side, ICE agents deployed pepper spray after people threw eggs and rocks.

So do you think that type of scene and chaos just gives the President, for the lack of

a better word, more ammunition to call to invoke the Insurrection Act?

Look, anybody who's protesting and not doing so peacefully, I think that's a very good for the lack of a better word, more ammunition to call to invoke the Insurrection Act?

Look, anybody who's protesting and not doing so peacefully and is committing a crime in doing so shouldn't be, you know, should be held accountable for their acts. But, and you saw this in the decision of a judge this morning in her TRO case that that you know she's seen all the reports as all of us have. They tend they take one small circumstance and they blow it up into as if this is all of Chicago or it's happening everywhere. We have so many peaceful protesters and so many places that people are protesting peacefully in neighborhoods.

You're going to see it on Saturday in Grant Park. And so the idea that there's any justification for people tossing tear gas in the context of people's protests, I think the judge reacted to that properly by ordering that now the federal agents are required to have body cameras on them because they clearly lie about what goes on. You saw this in the case of Silverio who was killed in Franklin Park. You saw this in the case of the woman who was shot in her car. They put out a press release immediately

at Homeland Security that doesn't reflect the truth. And it's hard for us to know right away what the truth is. So it takes us a couple of days. Often it's some of you in the reporter community in the media that discover what the truth is and talk to people who are on the ground.

And then what do you know? It turns out they've been lying all along. to be able to. Talk to people who were on the ground. And then what do you know it turns out they've been lying all along so- I'm glad that the

judges is stepping up doing the right thing- I think we're going to see more cases brought against ice and CBP- and- of course we're gonna continue our effort to keep the military off

of the streets of emergency. And that's typically something utilized during bad weather? Yeah, listen, we would listen to the local leaders in Chicago.

I want to remind everybody, what ICE and CBP are doing and what they're planning to do if they can bring the federalized troops onto the streets is not just in the city of Chicago. And people keep talking about Chicago, and I know it's easy to just say Chicago

and not include all the suburbs and surrounding areas, but this is a very, it's a vast region, at least six million people, you know, in the in and around Chicago, not just in the city of Chicago, and people are being affected at this. You saw the Waukegan City Hall where a young woman came out, you know, she was doing no harm to anybody, a US citizen, she's brown skinned, she was trying to get in her car,

and she was detained, I mean, arrested, taken, put in the back of a car. This is what's happening all across the region, and it's deeply concerning to me. We talk about just Chicago, but it's really happening everywhere around the region, But I think to any, you saw the city of Broadview, mayor, asked for help and we delivered it from

state police and from Cook County Sheriff's Office. We don't see a need for that here and I'm not sure what the circumstances were that caused it in Los Angeles, whether it was the city or the county there, but obviously we listen to local leaders and local law enforcement and back them up when they need our assistance.

Thank you. I'm going to play with. I got a picture of them all standing up there.

It's $78.

$76?

Why? Why?

I wasn't planning on asking, but I was just like, alright, $1.4 million.