closed school into a workforce training hub.

>> First off tonight, Illinois officials say they haven't gotten any communication from the Trump administration after reports that it may use a local naval base to House National Guard troops or federal immigration agents.

The Sun-Times has reported the administration is considering the Naval Station Great Lakes in suburban North Chicago.

Governor JB Pritzker says his office hasn't received any calls from the White House or federal officials regarding the matter.

It's the latest development as President Donald Trump has threatened to send troops into Chicago to address crime despite data showing violent crime is down in the city.

Joining us to discuss all that and more is Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul Attorney general, thank you for joining us.

Thank you for having me.

So let's start with the possible National Guard deployment, Governor JB Pritzker and other public officials, including yourself gathered earlier this week to denounce the threat.

Here is what Pritzker had to say.

>> This is not about fighting crime.

This is about Donald Trump searching for any justification to deploy the military in a blue city in a blue state to try and intimidate his political rivals.

>> Ad, what laws might the president invoked to accomplish this?

>> Well, thing is a framework through deposit comment.

I'd say has to win.

The president can federalize the National Guard.

The either have to be a invasion.

Rebellion from within or ability to.

Enforce a federal law because of inadequate resources through regular means and none of those circumstances exist to guards, too, dealing with crime in Chicago.

We have continuous great work in collaboration with federal law enforcement agencies, including the FBI, the DEA, ATF, Secret Service agents.

I and if the president wanted contribute to fighting crime in Chicago, he could enhance those collab are already existing collaboration between local, state and federal law enforcement with more resources and start cutting resources from police departments from victim services and from community violence.

Interruption.

>> So the National Guard currently deployed in Washington, D.C., as we know which the federal government has jurisdiction over.

But the president's administration is currently facing a legal challenge out of California after he deployed the National Guard there to La Governor Pritzker has told the president he will see him in court over this issue is there legal recourse before we get to the point of of the National Guard being here or does it have to wait until after the president issued his order?

>> it's all fact, depending on a day-to-day basis on what is said, what is ordered, what is it explicitly Putin orders?

It's difficult to react to.

That is varying statements from the president.

So it's it's a bit premature.

As I sit here talking to you this evening is that there's no preemptive act that I would take right now.

But certainly if those conditions are not met, that I laid out for your the card is sent into the city to do policing, for instance.

You know, that might trigger legal action.

>> what do you say to Chicagoans who would welcome National Guard here to help address crime?

>> Well, what I would say to them is that the National Guard is not rain crime fighting.

I spoke to you about agencies and the federal government who are trained to do so.

We have a tremendous partnership with the ATF and the tremendous ATF special agent in charge and they have a crime gun intelligence center.

They've been partnering with my office with the Chicago Police Department.

We've got a great superintendent superintendents Snelling with the state police and with the Cook County Sheriff's offices as well as other local law enforcement agencies.

Those a collaboration, depend upon constant communication and the one team concept and their ongoing collaboration.

So the National would not help.

They're not trained and they quite frankly, they would know what they they they would be.

Need to be doing.

>> Meanwhile, a the naval station Great Lakes has been approached by the Department of Homeland Security regarding a potential request to support U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations at this time, decisions have been made.

But in a statement that we received, it reads, quote, Naval Station, Great Lakes has been approached by the Department of Homeland Security regarding a potential request to support U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations.

this time, no decisions have been made.

The request involves limited support in the form of facilities, infrastructure and other logistical needs to support DHS operations.

But they say that they also have not received any official request to support the National Guard.

What do you think when you hear something like that?

>> Well, interesting because from what I understand in California and in DC to some extent Guardsman into these cities without adequate preparation for their well-being.

You know, stories of guardsmen La who didn't have adequate places too sleep to arrest 2 eat.

These people being appropriately treated.

People who have let themselves to service to our country.

And so.

I don't what else to say the bat planning from a prior president and and the administration just too to create, create up the formative show of force.

>> So separately, Adams County Sheriff Tom Tony, Gruden's in western Illinois.

He has said that he intends to aid the Department of Homeland Security in its deportation efforts.

W T Tw News, Rick obtained records showing that the county did indeed transfer at least 2 men into ICE custody.

Do you see this as a violation of the state's trust act which prevents local law enforcement from supporting the federal government's immigration deportation efforts.

>> NSA too much about that particular case because we have to examine all the specifics.

You know, there are shows and individuals who who can proclaim a lot.

Tonight, a look at some of the statements that he made that represented media.

There's media's reports.

>> things like there have been a few and that's very vague statement.

So clearly the law of the state of Illinois.

Is that law enforcement, state and local law enforcement resources are not supposed to be used for immigration enforcement.

shares are sworn officers that are suppose abide by by the lawn.

So that's all I will say about that right now.

Okay.

>> On Monday, President Trump signed another executive order called taking steps to end cashless bail to protect Americans.

It seeks to block federal funding to states that eliminated cash bail.

Illinois is of course, one of those states.

It did so in 2023 under the Pretrial Fairness Act.

What's your reaction again to the president's order on this?

>> Well, I would I would turn into the federal court system largely doesn't to rely upon cash bail They rely upon assessing whether individual is a risk to public safety or a flight risk.

And that's a system that we have right without cash build whether or not somebody can afford to post bond is not determinative of whether they are a risk to public safety.

Somebody can have access to a lot of money and be a risk to public safety.

And so the notion that cash bail keeps people safe is it's a misplaced notion.

We should be doing risk assessment.

Assessing whether somebody is a risk to public safety or whether their flights, regardless of what they can afford.

>> There's your office intend to challenge this order.

>> Not to order.

order is not specific enough in terms of specific action if there is indeed funding conditioned on whether or not our state is no cash bail state.

will challenge that.

But the order doesn't take that.

That second step.

>> The another controversial executive order that the president signed last month.

This one is called ending crime and disorder on America's streets.

This one claims, quote, endemic vagrancy disorderly behavior, sudden confrontations and violent attacks major cities, unsafe.

One way to fix such issue according to the order is by restoring civil commitments.

And that is the involuntary commitment of individuals experiencing homelessness who may be mentally unwell.

What is your reaction to the push for local and state governments to provide that practice?

>> You know, there's Supreme decision instead for the 1999, that sets the framework.

>> Of >> Making sure that people with disabilities are protected from being unfairly committed.

And so the spirit of of the the order seems to be violative of that.

What specifically, again, what specifically they may do in follow-up to that?

have to evaluate on a case-by-case basis and I'm sure individuals who would have their rights violated individually would have right to action.