Fact check: Were there any other high-ranking officials who criticized Trump's urban warfare comments?

1. Who loudly objected — governors and mayors who framed the moves as unnecessary and unlawful

Multiple state and city executives publicly rejected the characterization of their jurisdictions as “war-ravaged” and rejected federal troop deployments. Oregon Governor Tina Kotek repeatedly stated Portland did not need troops and pushed back on claims that the president had authority to send forces into the city, joining Portland Mayor Keith Wilson’s statement that the city “is not a military target” ^{[5] [8]}. Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker called the actions “unlawful and un-American,” and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson labeled proposed National Guard moves “illegal, uncoordinated, uncalled for, and unsound,” framing the deployments as political overreach rather than a law-enforcement necessity ^{[3] [2]}.

2. Senators added legal and constitutional objections from the federal level

U.S. Senators raised legal and rhetorical objections that echoed state-level concerns, focusing on the absence of an attack that would justify military use domestically. Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon shared evidence meant to show Portland was calm and argued the city neither wanted nor needed a federal takeover, using visual footage to contest the administration’s portrayal ^[8]. Senator Brian Schatz emphasized a constitutional principle: the American military should not be used domestically unless the country is under foreign attack, positioning his critique as both legal and normative, and aligning with other senators’ objections to perceived overreach ^[2].

3. Local officials emphasized on-the-ground reality versus the administration’s rhetoric

City leaders and community representatives mobilized images and statements to counter the “war-ravaged” claim, using peaceful scenes to refute the administration’s narrative. Portlanders and their officials circulated photos and videos to mock and dispute the president’s description, arguing that the imagery of conflict did not match reality and that federal intervention would be disproportionate ^[8]. This grassroots pushback functioned politically by shaping public perceptions and highlighting potential motivations behind the federal rhetoric, suggesting officials believed the comments served political signaling more than operational necessity ^[5].

4. Military leadership signaled institutional concern without directly mirroring political critiques

Senior defense leaders have voiced concerns about the administration’s defense strategy and its Russia policy, reflecting friction between the Pentagon’s professional judgment and the political messaging from the White House. Reporting indicates top military brass raised issues with the new Pentagon approach associated with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and these broader strategic concerns suggest discomfort with policy direction even where military officials did not specifically lambaste the urban-deployment rhetoric ^{[4] [6]}. That institutional unease frames civilian leaders’ troop-deployment proposals as potentially at odds with operational assessments.

5. Timing and overlap: when criticisms appeared relative to the announcements

Critiques clustered in late September 2025, with state and local reactions occurring quickly after the president’s announcements and media narratives developing through Sept. 26–29. Coverage noting military leaders’ concerns appeared around Sept. 26–29 as well, indicating contemporaneous public and institutional pushback ^{[6] [7]}. The close temporal alignment suggests coordinated rapid responses from affected officials and that military concerns were being reported as separate but overlapping threads rather than coordinated direct objections to the urban-deployment language ^{[2] [4]}.

6. Motives and agendas visible in the public record

Sources show divergent agendas: local leaders emphasized civil liberties, municipal authority, and public safety, framing federal moves as politically motivated or unlawful, while senators foregrounded constitutional norms about domestic troop use ^{[1] [2]}. News reports about military leaders focused on strategic disagreements over defense priorities and Russia policy, potentially signaling bureaucratic resistance to shifts in doctrine ^{[4] [7]}. These differing lenses—local governance, constitutional checks, and institutional strategy—explain why criticism took multiple forms and why statements ranged from legal objections to appeals to civic reality and operational prudence.

7. Bottom line: a broad chorus of opposition but different voices, different reasons

The record establishes that several high-ranking civic and elected officials publicly criticized Trump’s urban-warfare and troop deployment comments, with governors, senators, and mayors naming Portland and Chicago as examples of cities that did not require military action ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Military leadership voiced separate but related concerns about the administration’s defense strategy, which contextualizes political objections as part of a wider institutional debate over policy direction rather than a single unified repudiation ^{[4] [7]}. Together these strands show multi-level pushback grounded in legal, practical, and strategic arguments.