Trump Administration Live Updates: Supreme Court Refuses to Allow National Guard Deployment in Chicago

The ruling, by Magistrate Judge Amy Potter, also said FEMA could not arbitrarily shorten the window in which states could use the emergency grants or money awarded through another program focused on investments in homeland security. The administration had sought to shorten the three-year grants to a single year.

A group of 11 states filed the lawsuit last month: Michigan, Oregon, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, New Mexico, Wisconsin and Kentucky.

Judge Potter, who was appointed to the bench by district court judges in September, found that the Trump administration went beyond the legal framework around the grant programs in adding the new requirements of the states, and violated the federal Administrative Procedure Act.

Trump administration officials could not immediately be reached for comment on the ruling. In October, a FEMA spokesman, Daniel Llargues, said that the agency had enacted the policy “to prevent fraud and abuse.”

It was the second federal ruling in two weeks against the Trump administration and in favor of states arguing that the government was illegally limiting their access to funds to prepare for disasters.

A federal judge in Massachusetts ruled earlier this month that the Trump administration could not unilaterally cancel a grant program that helps state and local governments pay for projects that make communities more resilient to extreme weather events and other disasters.

State and local leaders have said the new grant requirements and limitations and program cancellations have significantly slowed recovery efforts after disasters and could impede disaster preparations.

The five include Thierry Breton, a former member of the European Commission whom the under secretary of state for public diplomacy, Sarah B. Rogers, called “a mastermind” of the Digital Services Act, a European law meant to oversee harmful or manipulative content online.

The European Union imposed its first penalty under the law this month, leveling a $140 million fine against X for practices that misled users, obscured advertisers and denied researchers access to internal practices — not, as Mr. Musk claimed, for refusing to censor content.

The others are prominent researchers with nonpartisan, nongovernment organizations in Europe that have fought disinformation, hate speech and other harmful content online. Mr. Rubio said in a statement that those targeted “have led organized efforts to coerce American platforms to censor, demonetize and suppress American viewpoints they oppose.”

“These radical activists and weaponized NGOs have advanced censorship crackdowns by foreign states — in each case targeting American speakers and American companies,” he added.

The statement underscored the administration’s close alignment with the biggest platforms, whose executives threw their support behind President Trump and have openly urged his administration to push back on European regulations that could force them to do more to regulate harmful content.

Even before Mr. Trump's second inauguration, the platforms began significantly reducing efforts to moderate content online, led by Mr. Musk, who claims to be a free speech absolutist.

The travel bans stunned experts who have tracked disinformation. They said the administration was basing the restrictions on the belief that what some Republicans have called a “censorship industrial complex” inside the government had colluded with researchers and social media companies to censor conservative Americans.

A federal lawsuit based on that claim, brought by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, reached the Supreme Court last year, but the court dismissed it on the grounds that the plaintiffs could not demonstrate any government actions that caused them harm.

Even so, since Mr. Trump’s return to the White House in January, he and his aides have vilified efforts to fight disinformation and other manipulative content online. They have issued executive orders, dismantled federal departments that monitored such content and cut funding for any research that touches on its prevalence.

“They’re not doing this because they have any evidence of censorship — they lost a Supreme Court case that made those claims,” said Nina Jankowicz, the head of the American Sunlight Project, an advocacy group that fights online disinformation. “They’re doing this because the group of researchers and advocates have stood up to liars like Donald Trump and the platforms that enable them.”

Mr. Rubio cited the State Department’s authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act to deny entry to anyone who “would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.”

The five Europeans also include Imran Ahmed, the chief executive of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, which Mr. Musk sued in 2023 after the organization documented a rise in hate speech on Twitter following his acquisition of the platform. A court dismissed the lawsuit last year as a violation of the right to free speech that Mr. Musk claims to champion.

The restriction could amount to deportation for Mr. Ahmed, who recently settled in the United States with his family. He could not be immediately reached for comment.

The others, according to a series of posts on X by Ms. Rogers, are Clare Melford, who leads the British-based Global Disinformation Index, and Anna-Lena von Hodenberg and Josephine Ballon, both leaders of HateAid, a group based in Germany. Ms. Rogers cited an interview that Ms. Ballon gave on CBS’s “60 Minutes” in which she said, “Free speech needs boundaries.”

In a statement, the Global Disinformation Index denounced the travel ban as “an authoritarian attack on free speech and an egregious act of government censorship.” Referring to the administration officials, the statement added, “Their actions today are immoral, unlawful and un-American.”

Mr. Breton wrote on X on Tuesday evening, “Is McCarthy’s witch hunt back?”

Ms. von Hodenberg and Ms. Ballon, in a joint statement, called the travel ban “an act of repression by a government that is increasingly disregarding the rule of law and trying to silence its critics by any means necessary.”

“This marks a new escalation: The U.S. government is clearly questioning European sovereignty,” they added.

The others did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Nora Benavidez, senior counsel at Free Press, an American organization that seeks to protect digital rights and privacy, called the announcement “chilling and unconstitutional.” She said the administration was silencing its critics in the name of protecting free speech.

The C-17s flew to Puerto Rico from bases in New Mexico, Illinois, Vermont, Florida, Arizona, Utah, Washington State and Japan. It was unclear how many troops or other equipment were transported aboard those flights. Defense officials declined to comment.

The United States Central Command has said that some 15,000 troops are already deployed in the Caribbean, one of the country’s largest naval deployments in recent years. On Monday, Mr. Trump called it a “massive armada” and said that he was planning action on land in Venezuela “soon.”

The Wall Street Journal reported earlier on Tuesday that the United States has also recently moved special-operations aircraft to the Caribbean.

Mr. Trump in August secretly signed a directive to the Pentagon to begin using military force against certain Latin American drug cartels that his administration has deemed terrorist organizations. Since then, more than 100 people have been killed in a series of more than two dozen boat strikes.

Legal and military experts have raised questions about the legality of the administration’s military campaign. Congress has not authorized the strikes, nor has it declared a war on Venezuela.

“We know how to make cities safe, and the National Guard complements cities that are having high crime problems,” Mr. Landry said, speaking on Fox News. Sharing a clip of the appearance on social media, he added that the troops would be there to “ensure safety during the busiest season in the city.”

The announcement came just minutes after the Supreme Court refused to allow President Trump to deploy hundreds of National Guard troops in the Chicago area over the objection of Illinois officials. The president has been similarly blocked from deploying federalized Guard troops to Portland, Ore.

In the case of New Orleans, the deployment of National Guard troops was embraced by the Louisiana governor, and the Tuesday announcement came months after Mr. Landry, a Republican, first wrote to Mr. Trump asking him to sign off on sending them to the city. While Mr. Landry can dispatch the Guard without presidential input, authorization from the administration allows the federal government to help cover the expenses.

Sean Parnell, a Pentagon spokesman, confirmed in a statement that Mr. Hegseth had authorized the deployment through Feb. 28. Mr. Landry will retain control.

The troops will join Border Patrol agents who have already been in the city since early December as part of a federal crackdown on undocumented immigration. And their scheduled arrival before New Year’s Eve means they are set to be there for the one-year anniversary of the New Year’s Day terrorist attack on Bourbon Street, where a man drove a truck into a crowd and killed 14 people, and remain through the annual Carnival parades that mark the celebration of Mardi Gras.

New Orleans has long been on Mr. Trump’s radar; he floated the possibility of sending in the National Guard in early September. Mr. Landry has also suggested sending troops to other cities, including Baton Rouge, the state capital, or Shreveport, in the northwestern corner of the state, but focused only on New Orleans in his announcement Tuesday.

“Like in past years, including last year, we appreciate the support provided by our federal and state public safety partners to increase the visibility of security assets during major events,” said Helena Moreno, the mayor-elect of New Orleans, in a statement. She added that she had been assured that the deployment “comes at no cost to the City and plays an important role in strengthening public safety.

The deployment of both the National Guard and Border Patrol in New Orleans highlights how deeply the administration and Republicans have tied their concerns about crime with broader complaints about illegal immigration, particularly in Democratic-led cities. But data shows that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans.

Trump administration officials have said that their focus is on arresting people who have violent criminal records or are accused of more serious offenses, especially if they are undocumented. Some conservatives have argued strict immigration enforcement could have prevented crimes committed by someone in the country illegally.

But in cities across the country, there have also been reports of arrests for more minor offenses and of U.S. citizens or people in the country legally being detained.

In New Orleans, the existing Border Patrol agents will most likely continue to execute the brunt of law enforcement actions, for which they have faced criticism for their aggressive tactics.

Federalized National Guard troops elsewhere in the country have not had the ability to arrest people or execute warrants, playing more of a supporting role to federal immigration agents. But the optics of Guard members in fatigues patrolling near downtown landmarks and tourist areas has prompted some alarm, and litigation. (Some residents and tourists have welcomed their presence, as well as the broader federal investment.)

As in other cities, including in Memphis and Los Angeles, the National Guard deployments have been framed as a way to counter high crime. In New Orleans, crime spiked in New Orleans around the coronavirus pandemic and remains high compared with other cities. But in 2024, local police reported a decrease in crime to prepandemic levels.

National Guard troops have also been dispatched to New Orleans to provide security for other reasons this year. That includes after the New Year’s Day terrorist attack and around the Super Bowl and other major events.

Venezuela’s ports are piling up with tankers filled with oil, as officials fear releasing them into international waters and into the cross hairs of the United States. Tankers bound for Venezuela have turned around midway, shipping data shows. And shipowners are canceling contracts to load crude, the people said.

In the past two weeks, the United States seized one sanctioned tanker carrying oil as it sailed from Venezuela toward Asia. It intercepted another oil vessel that was not under U.S. sanctions. And the U.S. Coast Guard tried to board a third tanker as it was on the way to Venezuela to pick up cargo.

The measures have paralyzed Venezuela’s oil export industry, according to the people and shipping data. Oil accounts for a vast majority of the country’s foreign currency earnings.

To keep the country’s oil wells pumping, the Maduro government is considering borrowing privately owned tanker ships to store the crude until it figures out how to sell the resource, the people said. But that would only go so far.

“This can’t go on for months on end,” said Jim Burkhard, global head of oil crude research for S&P Global Energy, a research firm.

Mr. Maduro is also weighing a more forceful response, the people close to the industry said.

Venezuelan gunboats have started accompanying ships carrying Venezuelan oil and oil-based products, but the escorts appear to stop at the limits of the country’s territorial waters.

The government is considering going further and putting armed soldiers on tankers bound for China, the main importer of Venezuelan oil. Such a move would complicate the U.S. Coast Guard’s attempts to interdict them, but it could also draw Mr. Maduro into a military conflict against an armada of U.S. Navy warships that Mr. Trump has assembled in the Caribbean in recent months.

Mr. Trump has accused Mr. Maduro, without providing evidence, of flooding the United States with drugs and of stealing oil from American firms.

Some industry insiders have described the obstacles facing the Venezuelan oil industry as critical. These challenges are threatening to snuff out its modest recovery after years of economic crisis.

In recent years, Mr. Maduro has quietly abandoned the resource nationalism at the heart of his socialist movement. His officials have handed over oil concessions to dozens of private companies and ceded operational control in joint projects between the state oil company and multinational firms.

These overhauls bore fruit, with oil production ticking up to about 1.1 million barrels per day this year, from about 360,000 barrels in the second half of 2020.

Mr. Trump’s surprise move against Venezuela’s tanker fleet has ended this uptick. Only two tankers carrying crude sold by the Venezuelan state oil company appear to have tried to sail beyond the country’s waters since the seizure of the first vessel, called Skipper, on Dec. 10, according to TankerTrackers.com, which monitors global shipping.

One of those tankers, called Centuries, was flying the Panamanian flag and was intercepted by the U.S. Coast Guard on Saturday, despite the lack of a seizure warrant. U.S. officials are now evaluating if the tanker, whose cargo belongs to an established Chinese trader, has a valid registration in Panama. The whereabouts of the other vessel that TankerTrackers.com identified was unclear on Tuesday.

The Skipper was taken to Texas as the next legal steps were being determined. The Coast Guard tried to intercept another tanker on Saturday, Bella 1, after determining it was not flying a valid national flag. The vessel did not comply and continued sailing.

Ships working in industries under sanctions often use tricks to hide their locations.

Several more tankers have loaded Venezuelan crude in recent weeks, according to people close to the industry. These vessels, however, have been loitering in Venezuelan waters, they said.

The country’s largest private oil operator, Chevron of the United States, has been the exception. The company continued exporting oil from Venezuela in recent weeks under a unique permit that it had obtained from the Trump administration.

Mr. Maduro has pointed to Chevron’s exports to try to claim that the country’s oil industry remains open for business. On Sunday, Venezuelan state television broadcast the departure of Canopus Voyager, the latest tanker carrying crude produced by Chevron to Texas.

“We’re serious people,” Mr. Maduro said in a televised address on Monday. “When we sign a contract in accordance with the Constitution and the law, it is carried out — in rain, thunder and lighting — as is happening with Chevron.”

But Mr. Maduro’s government receives only marginal financial benefit from Chevron’s direct exports. Under the terms of the company’s contract in Venezuela, Chevron keeps half of the roughly 240,000 barrels per day it helps produce in the country, exporting it to refiners on the U.S. Gulf Coast.

The Venezuelan government receives the other half. That oil is becoming increasingly difficult to sell.

In its three-page unsigned ruling against the administration, the court refused to grant the president broad discretion to deploy the military in U.S. cities, citing an 1878 law, which bans the use of the military for domestic policing. It represented a rare departure from recent cases, in which the conservative majority has overwhelmingly sided with Mr. Trump in preliminary tests of presidential power.

At this stage in the litigation, the court said the Trump administration had not shown that the statute at issue “permits the president to federalize the Guard in the exercise of inherent authority to protect federal personnel and property in Illinois.”

Three conservative justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch — noted their objections in lengthy dissents, with Justice Alito writing that “the protection of federal officers from potentially lethal attacks should not be thwarted.”

In response to the ruling, Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, said the president had promised to “work tirelessly to enforce our immigration laws and protect federal personnel from violent rioters.”

She added: “He activated the National Guard to protect federal law enforcement officers, and to ensure rioters did not destroy federal buildings and property. Nothing in today’s ruling detracts from that core agenda.”

Gov. JB Pritzker of Illinois called the ruling a victory for democracy.

“This is an important step in curbing the Trump administration’s consistent abuse of power and slowing Trump’s march toward authoritarianism,” Mr. Pritzker, a Democrat, said in a statement. “The brave men and women of our National Guard should never be used for political theater and deserve to be with their families and communities, especially during the holidays.”

Mayor Brandon Johnson of Chicago said he hoped the Supreme Court’s ruling would shield other cities from unwanted National Guard deployments.

Mr. Trump had also in recent months ordered the National Guard to Portland, Ore.; Los Angeles; and Washington, D.C., also over the objections of state and local leaders. The president’s efforts to use troops for domestic policing prompted legal challenges accusing the Trump administration of exceeding its authority and infringing on traditional state powers over policing. The state-based troops are typically deployed at the request of governors to respond to emergencies in their own states such as natural disasters.

Federal law allows the president to federalize members of the National Guard without the permission of state officials in certain circumstances, notably when there is a “rebellion or danger of a rebellion” against the government or when law enforcement is overwhelmed and cannot execute U.S. law.

Federal courts around the country have generally said the conditions do not exist to allow Mr. Trump to federalize Guard troops. Judges overseeing cases from Los Angeles and Portland halted troop mobilizations. With legal uncertainty hanging over the deployments, the Pentagon decided in November to withdraw hundreds of out-of-state soldiers from Illinois and Oregon, while keeping hundreds of other local troops activated. An appeals court in Washington has separately allowed troops to remain in the nation’s capital while litigation continues, citing the city’s unique status as a federal district.

The court battles came amid street protests against the Guard and violence in Washington, where a targeted attack on two National Guard members on Nov. 26 left one dead and another seriously injured.

At issue in the case in Chicago and a similar matter in Portland are competing accounts of the protests set off by the enforcement sweeps, which the administration characterized as violent and coordinated and which local officials — and some lower court judges — said did not amount to a rebellion.

The court took more than two months to rule on the emergency application. Before issuing its order, the justices took the unusual step in October of asking the parties to address the meaning of a specific key section of the statute. To federalize the National Guard, the president must determine that he is “unable with the regular forces” to execute U.S. laws. The justices asked whether “regular forces” meant the military or civilian law enforcement.

The Trump administration responded that “regular forces” referred to civilian law enforcement such as federal immigration agents. As a result, the administration said it should be permitted to unilaterally deploy the National Guard because federal agents were overwhelmed.

The office of Attorney General Kwame Raoul of Illinois, a Democrat, countered that the term referred to the full-time professional military and said the justices should deny the president’s request on that basis, because he had not tried to use the standing military, nor could he under the law.

In its order on Tuesday, the majority agreed with Illinois officials that the term “regular forces” most likely referred to the U.S. military. To call in the Guard, the president must first determine that he is “unable” with the help of the military to execute U.S. laws — and for that reason, the court said he could likely take such a step only in the rare situations where he would be legally allowed to call in the military in the first place to execute the law.

“Such circumstances are exceptional,” the majority said, because of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which makes it illegal to use federal troops for domestic policing under normal circumstances.

“At this preliminary stage, the Government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois,” the majority wrote in the unsigned order.

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote separately to say he agreed with the majority’s decision to deny the administration’s request, but on narrower grounds. The majority, he wrote, was too quick to cut off options for the president by suggesting that he could not federalize the National Guard even if he found he was struggling to protect federal personnel and property.

In a 16-page dissent, Justice Alito criticized his colleagues for resolving an issue the parties had not initially explored in their filings.

“There is no basis for rejecting the president’s determination that he was unable to execute the federal immigration laws,” Justice Alito wrote, joined by Justice Thomas.

Justice Gorsuch wrote a separate dissent saying he that would have sided with the administration based on the statements from federal law enforcement officials and that such “weighty questions” deserved a full airing and should not be decided on an emergency basis.

The administration sought to station National Guard troops from Texas and Illinois outside an Immigration and Customs Enforcement processing center in Broadview, Ill., a Chicago suburb where protesters have gathered.

A district court judge and an ideologically diverse appeals court panel in the Chicago litigation blocked the deployment, finding insufficient evidence that the demonstrations had significantly impeded the ability of federal officers to execute immigration laws. They noted that federal facilities had remained open and that immigration arrests and deportations had continued at a rapid clip.

The Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court and asserted that its decision to federalize and deploy the Guard was not subject to court review. Even if it were, Justice Department lawyers said, the “prolonged, coordinated, violent resistance” by protesters interfered with law enforcement’s ability to do its job and justified the deployment.

D. John Sauer, the solicitor general, told the justices in a court filing that agents could engage in even greater enforcement of immigration laws were they not operating under threat and that the protests posed “unacceptable risks” to their safety.

Lawyers for Illinois told the justices in their brief that an “unnecessary deployment” of troops would “escalate tensions and undermine the ordinary law enforcement activities of state and local entities.”

“No protest activity in Illinois has rendered the president unable to execute federal law,” Mr. Raoul and lawyers for the City of Chicago said in their filing. They noted that the crackdown on immigration has continued with nearly 3,000 people arrested since the end of October.

State and local officials were bolstered by a bipartisan group of more than two dozen former governors and a group of former high-ranking U.S. military leaders, who expressed deep concerns in separate filings to the justices about the president’s actions.

Ernesto Londoño and Zolan Kanno-Youngs contributed reporting.

The collection activities are “conducted only after student and parent borrowers have been provided sufficient notice and opportunity to repay their loans,” according to the email, which was unsigned.

The announcement comes as many Americans are already struggling financially, and the cost of living is top of mind. The wage garnishing could compound the effects on lower-income families contending with a stressed economy, employment concerns and health care premiums that are set to rise for millions of people.

The email did not contain any details about the nature of the garnishment, such as how much would be deducted from wages, but according to the government’s student aid website, up to 15 percent of a borrower’s take-home pay can be withheld. The government typically directs employers to withhold a certain amount, similar to a payroll tax.

A borrower should be sent a notice of the government’s intent 30 days before the seizure begins, according to the website, StudentAid.gov.

The administration ended a five-year reprieve on student loan repayments in May, paving the way for forced collections — meaning tax refunds and other federal payments, like Social Security, could be withheld and applied toward debt payments.

That move ushered in the end of pandemic-era relief that began in March 2020, when payments were paused. More than 9 percent of total student debt reported between July and September was more than 90 days delinquent or in default, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. In April, only one-third of the 38 million Americans who owed money for college or graduate school and should have been making payments actually were, according to government data.

“It’s going to be more painful as you move down the income distribution,” said Michael Roberts, a professor of finance at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. But, he added, borrowers have to contend with the fact that they did take out money, even as government policies allowed many to put the loans at the back of their minds.

After several extensions by the Biden administration, payments resumed in October 2023, but borrowers were not penalized for defaulting until last year. About five million borrowers are in default, and millions more are expected to be close to missing payments.

The government had signaled this year that it would send notices that could lead to the garnishing of a portion of a borrower’s paycheck. Being in collections and in default can damage credit scores.

The government garnished wages before the pandemic pause, said Betsy Mayotte, president of the Institute of Student Loan Advisors, which provides free advice for borrowers. But the 2020 collections pause was the first she was aware of, she said, and that may make the deductions more shocking for people who have not had to pay for years.

“There’s a lot of defaulted borrowers that think that there was a mistake made somewhere along the line, or the Department of Education forgot about them,” Ms. Mayotte said. “I think this is going to catch a lot of them off guard.”

The first day after a missed payment, a loan becomes delinquent. After a certain amount of time in delinquency, usually 270 days, the loan is considered in default — the kind of loan determines the time period. If someone defaults on a federal student loan, the entire balance becomes due immediately. Then the loan holder can begin collections, including on wages.

But there are options to reorganize the defaulted loans, including consolidation or rehabilitation, which requires making a certain number of consecutive payments determined by the holder.

Often, people who default on debt owe the smallest amounts, said Constantine Yannelis, an economics professor at the University of Cambridge who researches U.S. student loans.

“They’re often dropouts or they went to two-year, for-profit colleges, and people who spent many, many years in schools, like doctors or lawyers, have very low default rates,” he said.

This year, millions of borrowers saw their credit scores drop after the pause on penalties was lifted. If someone does not earn an income, the government can take the person to court. But, practically speaking, a borrower’s credit score will plummet.

Dr. Yannelis added that a common reason people default was that they were not aware of the repayment options. There are plans that allow borrowers to pay 10 percent of their income rather than having 15 percent garnished, for example.

The whiplash policy changes around the time of the pandemic were “a terrible thing from a borrower-welfare perspective,” Dr. Yannelis said. “Policy uncertainty is really terrible for borrowers.”

The decision to punt on additional tariffs, at least for now, comes as the Trump administration is trying to maintain a truce with China after a devastating trade spat earlier this year. In April, President Trump raised tariffs on China, only to have Beijing respond by cutting off exports of vital minerals and ceasing purchases of American soybeans. China later promised to restore its mineral exports as part of a trade truce that also saw the United States lower tariffs.

The trade investigation on semiconductors was started in the final months of the Biden administration. It focused on China’s production of older-model semiconductors, which are widely used in smartphones, cars, dishwashers, refrigerators, weaponry and telecommunications networks.

Republicans and Democrats have grown concerned in recent years that the United States’ growing dependence on these products could pose a national security threat. China has invested heavily in the production of older kinds of semiconductors, making it difficult for U.S. factories making similar products to stay in business.

Mr. Trump has proposed imposing other tariffs on semiconductor imports as part of a national-security-related legal provision known as Section 232. While those tariffs were originally expected to be announced over the summer, administration officials have been weighing how to issue the levies so that they encourage U.S. manufacturing and do not disrupt ties with China.

It is not yet clear how the administration will rule on such a measure, but analysts have said that Beijing could view tariffs on its products as an affront. Other actions directed at China have proceeded. On Monday, the Federal Communications Commission announced a ban on the sale of new foreign-made drones in the United States, while earlier this month the United States carried out a large arms sale to Taiwan, the self-governing island that China claims as its own.

Sara Schuman, a former U.S. trade official who is now managing director at Beacon Global Strategies, said that Beijing was “very sensitive” about U.S. actions targeted at China or Chinese companies, but that actions intended to build up American industrial capacity that were not explicitly targeted at China would not raise the same level of concern.

“The administration seems to be threading this needle right now by moving forward with global actions in which China is just one of the countries impacted,” she said.

Ukraine’s military command said in a statement that it had ordered troops to pull back “in order to preserve the lives of our soldiers and the combat capability of the units.”

The announcement came just a few hours after President Volodymyr Zelensky said that Ukrainian negotiators had returned from talks in the United States and delivered a detailed report about the outcome of their meetings with U.S. officials. Several “draft documents,” which include security guarantees for Ukraine, have been prepared, he wrote on social media, adding that Kyiv would continue working constructively in the process.

Mr. Zelensky has said the latest peace proposal discussed with the United States looked “quite solid,” while hinting that obstacles remain in the talks.

“There are certain things we are not prepared to accept,” Mr. Zelensky wrote late Monday on social media about the peace proposals. “And there are things — of that I am sure — that the Russians are not prepared to accept, either.”

One of the main obstacles is control over territory in eastern Donetsk. Russia is demanding that Ukraine surrender the roughly one-quarter of the region Kyiv still holds there to end hostilities, a demand Kyiv had rejected.

But relentless Russian attacks in the area have placed Ukraine under increased pressure. Moscow’s troops now appear close to capturing two cities in Donetsk — Pokrovsk and Myrnohrad. And Siversk’s fall would facilitate Russian attacks on two other cities — Sloviansk and Kramatorsk — that form Ukraine’s last main defensive belt in the area.

In recent weeks, the Kremlin has shown a willingness to continue the war unabated. Overnight on Tuesday, Russia attacked Ukraine’s energy sector and civilian buildings with more than 650 drones and dozens of missiles, according to the Ukrainian authorities.

At least three people were killed in the attacks, including a 4-year-old child in the Zhytomyr region, west of Kyiv, according to the Ukrainian authorities.

Yulia Svyrydenko, Ukraine’s prime minister, said that “energy facilities in western regions of Ukraine were hit the hardest.” And the country’s energy ministry said that least three regions — Rivne, Ternopil and Khmelnytskyi — were completely without power. Six other regions suffered power outages, and power cuts were introduced across the country, the ministry said in a statement.

The assault, in the midst of negotiations aimed at ending the war, “sends an extremely clear signal about Russia’s priorities,” Mr. Zelensky said on Tuesday morning.

“Every Russian strike against Ukraine and the intense Russian assaults on the front line prove that Ukraine’s commitment to ending the war far exceeds Russia’s, and this must be addressed by stepping up global pressure on the aggressor,” he said.

As it negotiates a possible peace deal through American mediation, Ukraine has been seeking ironclad security guarantees to prevent Russia from attacking again once peace is achieved. On Monday, Mr. Zelensky outlined a package discussed with the United States that would include keeping Ukraine’s army at a peacetime strength of 800,000 troops, with funding from Western partners; membership in the European Union; European military support; and bilateral security guarantees from the United States.

Mr. Zelensky said European military support would come from the so-called Coalition of the Willing, a group of about 30 countries that have committed to strengthening Ukraine’s postwar security by contributing to its defenses in the air, on land and at sea. That could include the deployment of European forces in Ukraine.

Russia has long opposed the presence of any Western troops in Ukraine, portraying it as a red line in peace talks. Moscow has also sought limits on the size of the Ukrainian military. An earlier peace proposal drafted by the United States and Russia suggested capping the size of the Ukrainian Army at 600,000 troops.

Cassandra Vinograd contributed reporting.

Democrats in Illinois said the law was a necessary response to an immigration crackdown in Chicago that has led to thousands of arrests and clashes between residents and federal agents.

The federal lawsuit, filed in the Southern District of Illinois, is the latest legal action by the Trump administration against states that have sought to limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. The Justice Department sued California in November over two state laws that bar federal law enforcement officers from wearing face coverings and require them to display their identification during operations.

On Monday, the Justice Department said in a statement that the Illinois law was an illegal attempt to regulate the federal government, and that it placed immigration agents in physical harm and at financial risk. A person found to have violated the law would be liable for at least $10,000 in damages.

“Threatening officers with ruinous liability and even punitive damages for executing federal law and for simply protecting their identities and their families also chills the enforcement of federal law and compromises sensitive law enforcement operations,” the Justice Department said.

Mr. Pritzker’s office said in a statement on Tuesday that “the Trump administration’s masked agents are not targeting the ‘worst of the worst’ — they are harassing and detaining law-abiding U.S. citizens and Black and Brown people at day cares hospitals, and courthouses.

“This new law reflects our belief that no one is above the law, regardless of their position or authority,” the statement said.

Lawmakers in other states have also experimented with allowing private residents to enforce the law through lawsuits. In Texas, a law allows residents to sue medical providers who violate the state’s abortion restrictions.

Earlier this month, Democratic lawmakers in New York introduced legislation that would bar federal agents from detaining, without a warrant, anyone attending a hearing at an immigration court.

California lawmakers have proposed, but have not enacted, similar expansions of civil liability for federal officers.