Trump’s Imperial Presidency: Putting Local Democracy at Risk

Trump says his deployment of federal law enforcement is about restoring order in Washington, D.C. But the real message isn’t about crime—it’s about power. By federalizing the District’s police, activating the National Guard, and bulldozing homeless encampments with just a day’s notice, Trump is flexing a new kind of presidential muscle: the authority to override local governments at will—a move that raises serious constitutional concerns.

And now, he promises that D.C. won’t be the last. New York, Chicago, Philadelphia—cities he derides as “crime-ridden”—could be next. Noticeably absent from his list are red-state cities with higher homicide rates, like New Orleans. The pattern is clear: Trump’s law-and-order agenda is less about public safety and more about partisan punishment.

---

In effect, it represents a dramatic inversion of federalism and reshapes the balance of power. For over two centuries, local control over policing and public safety has been a core principle of American governance, respected by presidents of both parties. Ronald Reagan refrained from intervening in New York’s crime crisis, preferring to let state and city officials address it. Barack Obama left local officials in charge during Ferguson’s unrest in 2014. To find parallels to Trump’s approach, one must look abroad—to authoritarian leaders like Viktor Orbán in Hungary, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Turkey, or Vladimir Putin in Russia—where centralized crackdowns on cities are a common tactic of strongman rule.

Selective Enforcement and Political Targets

Trump’s crackdown reveals a selective pattern. Crime statistics show that some of the cities he names are not the nation’s most violent. Washington ranked fourth in homicide rates last year, while Chicago and New York were far lower. Meanwhile, St. Louis and New Orleans—both with higher homicide rates—escaped his attention. The common thread isn’t safety but partisanship: he singles out Democratic strongholds while sparing cities in red states. In doing so, Trump reframes public safety as a partisan test of loyalty rather than a matter of governance.

This is troubling because public safety has long been a shared responsibility, with local governments closest to their communities making the key decisions. By federalizing this function selectively, Trump shifts the emphasis from community safety to political punishment. Ordinary residents—people concerned about schools, housing, and neighborhood policing—become pawns in a national feud rather than citizens whose well-being is the priority.

If presidents can target opponents’ cities while ignoring allies’ failures, federalism becomes less about constitutional balance and more about partisan advantage. Even if future presidents avoid this path, the precedent itself erodes constraints on the office. Over time, that erosion can normalize the idea that cities are bargaining chips in presidential politics. Communities become pieces in a national political game, and their residents become collateral in a struggle for executive dominance.

Congress and the Erosion of Checks

Many of the same GOP voices now cheering Trump’s federalization moves once denounced far smaller assertions of executive power by Democratic presidents. Republicans railed against Barack Obama’s use of executive actions on immigration policy, such as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). They also criticized Joe Biden’s attempts at student debt relief as unconstitutional overreach. The contrast underscores how partisan convenience often dictates whether lawmakers view presidential assertiveness as tyranny or necessary leadership.

What makes this shift especially dangerous is Congress’s silence. GOP lawmakers have cheered Trump’s actions as necessary to “restore order,” while Democrats have offered little resistance. By doing so, they weaken their own institution and normalize executive overreach into local functions that the Constitution never intended the presidency to control. Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader Steve Scalise both praised the federalization of D.C.’s police, while Democratic opposition remained muted and fragmented.

This problem is compounded by selective enforcement. When presidents push boundaries and Congress fails to respond, temporary excesses risk becoming permanent norms. Each time Congress defers, it cedes more ground to the White House, setting a precedent that future presidents of either party can exploit. When lawmakers abandon their constitutional duty to check the executive, the balance of power tilts further toward an overmighty presidency, leaving local democracy exposed.

Consequences for Citizens and Cities

For citizens, the implications are not abstract. When federal authority displaces local control, it is ordinary residents who feel the disruption most directly. In Washington, the clearing of homeless encampments with only a day’s notice left vulnerable people scrambling for shelter and services. In cities like New York or Chicago, a federal takeover could mean policies imposed by distant officials who lack an understanding of neighborhood realities. Public safety decisions risk turning into political theater instead of policies grounded in community needs. The result is a hollowing out of local democracy, where residents lose both voice and agency in the issues closest to home.

This shift also corrodes trust. Past examples show how blurred accountability undermines confidence. During Hurricane Katrina, disputes between federal, state, and local authorities left residents uncertain who was responsible for failures in relief efforts. More recently, during the COVID-19 pandemic, conflicting state and federal directives left citizens confused about who was in charge of testing, lockdowns, and vaccine rollouts. Citizens expect local leaders—mayors, city councils, police chiefs—to be accountable for safety and services. If those responsibilities are usurped by the White House, accountability blurs. Communities may feel they have no recourse when policies are heavy-handed or ineffective, deepening cynicism about government at every level.

Conclusion: Restoring the Balance

The danger in Trump’s actions is not just what he has done in Washington but the precedent they set for the presidency itself. Once federal takeovers of local functions are normalized, the constitutional safeguards meant to protect citizens from centralized power become weaker, no matter who occupies the White House. Local democracy erodes not in a single stroke but in the steady expansion of executive authority into spaces where it does not belong.

If American democracy is to remain resilient, Congress must reassert its constitutional role. Citizens must also demand accountability. They cannot remain passive when presidents overstep. Lawmakers could start by reining in the use of executive orders, strengthening limits on emergency declarations, and clarifying boundaries for federal involvement in local policing. Courts and state governments can also reinforce limits on federal intrusion. The alternative is a presidency where cities are pawns, communities are silenced, and local self-government—the very foundation of federalism—is reduced to a relic of the past.

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