President Donald Trump is doubling down on a bold strategy to tackle urban crime by deploying the National Guard to cities beyond Los Angeles and Washington, DC. His administration is eyeing a nationwide rollout of military forces to enforce law and order, stirring both support and sharp criticism.
According to CNN, Trump has already tested this approach in Los Angeles with a June deployment and is now planning to send troops to Chicago, though specifics on timing and numbers remain unclear. The move, backed by an executive order signed on Monday to create specialized National Guard units for urban crime, signals a clear intent to bypass local resistance if needed.
Trump told reporters he "may just go in and do it," hinting at unilateral action over waiting for governors’ requests. While some see this as a necessary stand against spiraling crime, others question if it’s a power grab dressed as public safety.
In Los Angeles, Trump’s use of the National Guard to counter protests blocking federal immigration efforts is already under legal fire in California courts. Critics argue his invocation of federal law to deploy troops sidesteps state authority, a precedent that could shape future actions in cities like Chicago.
Elizabeth Goitein from the Brennan Center for Justice warned CNN that using the military domestically risks becoming "a powerful tool of oppression." Her concern about shredding long-standing principles against such actions is worth a hard look, but when cities fail to control violence, federal intervention might be the only card left to play.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s legal team claims the deployment violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits military involvement in civilian law enforcement. Yet Trump’s lawyers counter that no direct policing occurred, leaving the courts to untangle this constitutional knot.
Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson called Trump’s plans "unconstitutional" and a "threat to our democracy" during a Monday statement. His words paint a dire picture, but one has to ask if local failures to curb violence justify a stronger federal hand.
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker echoed the sentiment, telling Trump, "You are neither wanted here nor needed here," and promising a courtroom battle if troops arrive. His accusation that this is about intimidating political rivals rather than fighting crime raises eyebrows, though persistent sanctuary city policies might indeed be a sticking point for federal priorities.
David Janovsky of The Constitution Project cautioned CNN that sending troops creates "an inherently escalatory situation" for both residents and service members. While his warning about volatility rings true, doing nothing in the face of urban decay isn’t exactly a recipe for stability either.
Trump could turn to the Insurrection Act, a rarely used law allowing military deployment during rebellion or to protect constitutional rights under specific conditions. Though considered for Los Angeles in June, it wasn’t invoked, and during his first term, Trump threatened its use after the 2020 George Floyd protests without following through.
Goitein told CNN that even this act doesn’t grant "unlimited authority" and isn’t meant for routine street crime, which falls under state jurisdiction. Her point holds weight, but if local leaders can’t or won’t act, federal tools like these might be the only way to restore order.
Attorney General Pam Bondi has also flagged sanctuary policies as potential targets for National Guard action, linking crime crackdowns with immigration enforcement. This dual focus suggests a broader agenda, one that could further inflame tensions with state officials over who truly controls the streets.
Trump’s repeated claims about rampant crime in cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Baltimore, and Oakland fuel his push for military involvement, despite 2024 data showing a national drop in violent crime. His rhetoric, while at times overstated, taps into real frustrations about urban safety that many Americans share.
The legal battles, like California’s challenge citing the 10th Amendment and state sovereignty over Guard units, highlight a deeper clash over federal versus local power. If courts side with states, Trump’s plans could hit a wall, but until then, his resolve seems unshaken.
This unfolding saga pits urgent public safety needs against sacred constitutional boundaries. Whether Trump’s strategy is a lifeline for struggling cities or a dangerous overstep will likely be decided not just in courtrooms, but in the court of public opinion as well.
