2 National Guard Members Say They Would Defy Orders to Deploy to Chicago: ‘This Is Not What We Signed Up To Do’

Two members of the National Guard in Illinois have revealed their stance on potentially being deployed to Chicago as part of President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown. Staff Sgt. Demi Palecek and Capt. Dylan Blaha have both stated that they would refuse orders to deploy to the city, citing their allegiance to their community and their beliefs.

Staff Sgt. Demi Palecek, who is also a state legislative candidate and a Latina guardswoman, expressed her firm stance against being deployed to Chicago. She stated that she would not go against her community members, family, or culture. Palecek emphasized the importance of being on the right side of history during these challenging times.

Capt. Dylan Blaha, who is currently running for Congress in the same district, echoed Palecek’s sentiments by drawing a comparison to the use of the Gestapo in Nazi Germany. He raised concerns about standing by and not taking action against unjust orders, questioning whether compliance would make them complicit in the actions.

Blaha highlighted the oath taken by members of the U.S. military to defend the Constitution and protect the American people, emphasizing that being activated against their own community is not in line with their service commitments. The notion of being used as pawns in situations that conflict with their values and beliefs was a driving factor behind their decision to speak out against potential deployments.

President Trump has faced criticism for deploying the National Guard to various cities as part of his immigration and law enforcement strategy. Despite pushback, Trump remains resolute in his decision to use military forces in domestic operations to address issues such as illegal immigration and crime in cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, and Portland.

The deployment of the National Guard raises complex legal and ethical questions regarding the chain of command and the use of military forces within the borders of the United States. The standoff between federal and state authorities over the deployment of troops reflects the tensions surrounding the militarization of law enforcement and the protection of civil liberties.

While federal judges have intervened to delay some deployments of the National Guard, the broader issue of using military forces for domestic law enforcement continues to be a contentious subject. Members of the National Guard like Palecek and Blaha are grappling with the moral dilemmas of following orders that may contradict their values and commitments to their communities.

The willingness of National Guard members to defy orders that they perceive as unlawful or unjust underscores the complexities of balancing military service with personal convictions. The potential consequences, including court-martial, discharge, or imprisonment, add another layer of risk for those who choose to take a stand against orders that go against their principles.

As debates around the role of the military in domestic affairs intensify, individuals like Palecek and Blaha exemplify the internal struggles faced by service members when confronted with conflicting loyalties. Their courage in speaking out against orders that they believe are contrary to their values serves as a reminder of the diverse perspectives within the armed forces and the ongoing challenges of upholding integrity in times of crisis.