Imagine being caught between duty and conscience, your loyalty to your country clashing with your moral compass. This is the reality for hundreds of National Guard members in Illinois, who find themselves in a legal and ethical limbo after a federal judge blocked their deployment onto Chicago’s streets. But here’s where it gets controversial: while some are ready to defy orders they deem unjust, others tread carefully, questioning where the line between obedience and resistance truly lies. And this is the part most people miss—the deeply personal and political dilemmas these service members face.
Following the Trump administration’s decision to send approximately 500 troops to Illinois, these soldiers are now waiting for the courts to determine their role in civilian areas. Amid this uncertainty, three Illinois National Guard members—two active and one retired—spoke candidly with the Chicago Sun-Times about their perspectives on potential activation. Active-duty members typically face restrictions on speaking to the media, but Dylan Blaha and Demi Palecek, both political candidates, argue their views are already public knowledge. Joe Prehm, who left the Guard in 2018 after a decade of service, faces no such constraints.
Palecek, a 34-year-old staff sergeant running as a Democrat for state representative in the 13th District, takes a firm stance. With 12 years in the Guard, she declares she would refuse to protect U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents if ordered to do so. “Absolutely, I’d refuse. There’s no way,” she asserts, urging her fellow Guard members to do the same. “We signed up to serve humanitarian causes, to protect and help people, not to be weaponized against our own communities,” she explains. For Palecek, the issue hits close to home—her mother is from Mexico, adding a layer of personal urgency to her stance.
U.S. service members swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, and under military law, they must obey lawful orders while disregarding those that violate constitutional principles, international human rights, or the Geneva Conventions. Yet, as Blaha, a 32-year-old Democratic congressional candidate from the Champaign area, points out, determining the legality of an order is rarely straightforward. “There’s a big gray area,” he notes. “You don’t know if an order is unlawful until after the fact, so it’s often a judgment call.”
Blaha, who has served 11 years in the Guard, suggests a cautious approach. “If soldiers are ordered to stand in front of a federal building, it’s better to comply for now,” he advises. “But if an order clearly crosses the line, that’s when you stand up. Stepping aside could mean letting someone else take charge who might comply without question.”
Prehm, a former Guard member deployed to Kuwait and Iraq, echoes Blaha’s concerns. He speculates that President Trump may have chosen to deploy the Texas National Guard instead of Illinois’s because Chicago-based troops might be less willing to enforce controversial policies. “The National Guard shouldn’t be used to protect federal agents,” Prehm argues. “That’s a job for law enforcement.”
On a recent Friday, Blaha and Palecek joined a protest near an ICE detention facility in Broadview, wearing sweatshirts honoring journalists killed in Gaza. Both expressed relief at the judge’s ruling, which found violations of the 10th and 14th Amendments and the Posse Comitatus Act—a law limiting the use of federal military forces for domestic law enforcement. “I hope President Trump doesn’t invoke the Insurrection Act,” Blaha said, referring to the law that allows the president to deploy troops to quell civil unrest. “Let’s keep winning in the courts.”
Palecek raised another concern: the financial limbo Guard members face during the government shutdown. “They’re not getting paid now but will receive back pay later. So, are they just sitting around? We’re essentially paying them to wait—it’s a strange situation,” she observed.
Here’s the controversial question: Should service members prioritize obedience to orders or their personal moral and ethical judgments? And if they refuse, what are the consequences for them and the communities they’re tasked with serving? Share your thoughts in the comments—this debate is far from over.
