Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Who Asked for This? Trump’s Militarization of Cities Nobody Wanted

Who Asked for This? Trump’s Militarization of Cities Nobody Wanted
A U.S. military uniform close up.
Getty Images, roibu

Nobody asked for soldiers on their streets. Yet President Trump sent 2,000 National Guard troops into Washington, D.C.—and now he’s threatening the same in Chicago and New York. The problem isn’t whether crime is up or down (it’s down). The problem is that governors didn’t request it, mayors didn’t sign off, and residents certainly didn’t take to the streets begging for troops. Yet here we are, watching as the president becomes “mayor-in-chief,” turning American cities into props for his reality-TV spectacle of power, complete with all the theatrics that blur politics with entertainment.

Federal Power Without Local Consent

D.C. has always been uniquely vulnerable because of the Home Rule Act. The president can activate its National Guard without consulting the mayor. That’s troubling enough, but now Trump is floating deployments in Illinois and New York—states where he has no such authority. The principle at stake isn’t whether troops can reduce crime; it’s whether the federal government can unilaterally occupy a city whose leaders and citizens told it to stay away.


This federal overreach only sharpens the next point: the hypocrisy is so brazen it’s as if Republicans have stopped even trying to conceal it. These are the same politicians who shriek about “tyranny” whenever a Democrat signs an executive order. Think of the recent hair-on-fire theatrics over Obama’s DACA order, or the anguished howls when Biden rejoined the Paris Climate Accord. Yet when their president decides to send troops into cities during peacetime—something no modern Democrat has ever dared—they fall silent. The self-proclaimed guardians of local control and small government morph into cheerleaders for the biggest federal power grab in decades. Apparently, “limited government” only applies when a Democrat is in office.

Civil Society at Risk

Let’s be clear: this isn’t “help.” It’s overreach dressed up as public safety. Troops on the streets erode the principle of local self-rule, turning cities into backdrops for presidential theater. Once normalized, the presence of soldiers in everyday civic life stops feeling extraordinary. Today it’s D.C., tomorrow it’s Chicago, and after that—why not anywhere a president decides the optics are good?

History tells us how badly this ends and why normalizing troop deployments today only increases the risk of repeating those same mistakes. Kent State. Portland. Deployments that inflamed tensions rather than restored calm, leaving communities more fractured than before. And it isn’t just Trump who benefits. Future presidents—Democrat or Republican—will inherit these precedents. By staying silent now, GOP lawmakers are essentially handing unchecked executive power on a silver platter to the executive branch for whoever comes next.

And this isn’t just an American story. Putin deployed Russia’s National Guard to crush protests and reframe dissent as a security crisis. Erdoğan turned Turkey’s public squares into showcases of force during Gezi Park. Duterte blurred the line between policing and military occupation in the Philippines’ so-called “War on Drugs.” The playbook is clear: when leaders use troops as stage props, democracy is what gets trampled.

How Civil Society Should Respond

Faith communities and labor unions have already shown how broad coalitions can resist federal overreach. During the Trump administration’s travel ban, churches, synagogues, and mosques joined hands with airport workers and unions to demand change—proof that civil society has the reach and moral authority to fight back when government power goes too far.

If Congress won’t defend its role, civil society has to. That means:

  • Legal and legislative resistance: challenge deployments without consent in court, as civil liberties groups did when federal agents were dispatched to Portland in 2020, and press lawmakers to add real guardrails.
  • Community mobilization: peaceful protests, civic forums, and neighborhood organizing, like the grassroots coalitions in Ferguson and Minneapolis, to remind Washington that cities govern themselves.
  • Narrative and coalition work: hammer home the obvious—nobody asked for this—while faith groups, unions, nonprofits, and businesses stand together, much like the interfaith and labor alliances that opposed the Muslim travel ban, on the principle that local voices matter.

Recent history shows this is possible. In Portland during the 2020 federal deployments, community organizations and legal advocates worked together to document abuses, challenge them in court, and sustain public opposition. Civil society must be prepared to do the same again.

The Stakes

Once we accept soldiers in the streets as normal, democracy itself becomes abnormal. Local governments fade into irrelevance, federalism shrinks to a slogan, and residents lose any say in how their communities are policed. That’s not “law and order.” That’s command and control—the stuff of Russia and Hungary.

So let’s not mince words: deploying troops into cities that never asked for them is an occupation, not assistance. And if GOP politicians won’t say it because they’re too busy polishing their conservative credentials by attacking wokeness on college campuses, civil society must. If it fails, the precedent of unilateral militarization will harden, leaving future presidents free to bypass communities entirely and putting the foundations of American democracy at even greater risk. Our answer has to be clear: Our streets are not your stage. Our safety, our voice, our choice. If Trump wants a show, he can stage another parade—not occupy our cities.

Robert Cropf is a professor of political science at Saint Louis University.


Read More

McConnell and Platner both feel entitled

Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Graham Platner speaks to voters at a town hall at the Elks Lodge 188 on June 7, 2026, in Portland, Maine.

(Laura Brett/Getty Images/TCA)

McConnell and Platner both feel entitled

The two men could not be more different. One, a Republican, octogenarian, seven-term Southern senator, the other a progressive, millennial Maine oysterman who’s never spent a day in elected office.

But Mitch McConnell, the senior senator from Kentucky who’s been MIA for the past few weeks and Graham Platner, the Maine Senate candidate who’s facing calls to drop out of his race against Sen. Susan Collins, apparently do have something in common: an outsized sense of entitlement.

Keep ReadingShow less
President's Trump National Address On Iran Is Watched By New Yorkers In Manhattan

People watch as US President Donald Trump makes a national address on television at Brooklyn Diner Times Square on April 1, 2026 in New York City. US President Donald Trump's address to the nation is expected to lay out the framework for ending the conflict in Iran.

Adam Gray / Getty Images

When Duty Isn’t a Priority: A Megalomaniac President Abuses the Nation

What does it mean when the presidential oath becomes a performance instead of a promise? It means the nation is left vulnerable to a leader whose actions suggest that personal power may matter more than the Constitution he swore to defend.

He raised his right hand and swore to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.” Yet millions of Americans have watched a president whose conduct repeatedly raises doubts about his commitment to that oath. His attacks on constitutional limits, his hostility toward oversight, and his tendency to treat institutional constraints as obstacles to personal objectives have led many to conclude that constitutional duty is no longer his governing priority. When the oath becomes symbolic rather than binding, the consequences are carried by the public.

Keep ReadingShow less
Why Democrats Are Running Against the ‘Epstein Class’

Graham Platner, the Democratic Senate nominee, is running a populist campaign with a focus on corruption and influence.

CJ Gunther/Getty Images

Why Democrats Are Running Against the ‘Epstein Class’

After Graham Platner secured the Democratic nomination for Senate in Maine, his first ad of the general election didn’t mention his opponent, Sen. Susan Collins, or the Republican Party. It focused on the late disgraced financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, and who he called the “Epstein class” of elites in both parties.

“Some of the most powerful Democrats and Republicans in the country were on Epstein island,” Platner said in the ad, referring to Epstein’s former residence in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Platner, whose economic-populist campaign combined with controversial online statements and a since-removed tattoo of a Nazi symbol have drawn national attention, framed himself in opposition to this elite class.

Keep ReadingShow less
I Alone Can (Fix) Destroy It

U.S. President Donald Trump at the U.S. Capitol on June 24, 2026 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

I Alone Can (Fix) Destroy It

Donald Trump’s racist, misogynist, xenophobic view of the world has undermined the USA’s global standing. He has surrounded himself with cabinet officials who believe that competence is determined not by expertise, training, education and experience but with factors perceived to be far more important like, whether they are white, male and retain a feudal sense of subservience, other criteria he values include girth, facial hair and his very subjective perception of attractiveness.

Trump’s attack on wokeness and diversity, equity and inclusion mean that his administration is left without a diversity of knowledge , cultural understanding and empathy which means his negotiators for the Iran War cannot appreciate the history of the region, the cultural nuances, the languages, the political tensions, the emotional impact of their actions or the thinking of the current leadership. Being woke means understanding a variety of perspectives and having empathy for others, something this administration sorely lacks. They represent the total opposite of Kissinger, Brzezinski, Albright and Rice who were lifelong experts on their diplomatic counterparts.

Keep ReadingShow less