Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The politics of Donald Trump’s war on cities

Opinion

The politics of Donald Trump’s war on cities

An armed law enforcement agent sits in an armored vehicle as residents of Chicago's Brighton Park neighborhood confront law enforcement at a gas station after Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents allegedly detained an unidentified man riding in his car, in Chicago, Illinois, on Oct. 4, 2025.

(AFP via Getty Images)

A masked, federal agent in combat uniform leans out the passenger window of a Jeep and points a military rifle directly at the face of a U.S. citizen in Chicago, simply for recording him.

It should send a chill down every American’s spine. President Trump’s revenge on America’s liberal cities is an authoritarian abuse of power. Americans in 2025 should not have to live in police states or with the National Guard patrolling their streets or pointing weapons at them.


We are not at war, despite what he says about crime and illegal immigration, and we certainly aren’t at war with each other. Although that may be exactly what Trump wants.

And it’s happening. On Tuesday afternoon, the Texas National Guard arrived in Chicago, where federal law enforcement has already clashed with local government officials, local law enforcement, U.S. citizens, and journalists.

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker has accused the Trump administration of militarizing Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and ICE agents “to cause violence and chaos” and incite city residents.

Broadview Police Chief Thomas Mills, in a lawsuit filed by Pritzker, also says in sworn testimony that “the way in which federal agents have indiscriminately used chemical agents…is unlike anything I have seen before.”

Local officials have been arrested for protesting, and several journalists, including from the Chicago Sun-Times and CBS Chicago News, have been detained, tear-gassed, and pelted with rubber bullets.

Last week, CPB agents shot an unarmed woman. In September ICE agents shot and killed an unarmed illegal immigrant in Franklin Park. Also last month, 300 federal agents raided an apartment building — some rappelling from Blackhawk helicopters — zip-tying citizens and even children and eventually arresting 37 people they say are here illegally or tied to gangs or drug cartels.

This is setting up a potentially explosive situation, and one that Trump is promising to replicate in other cities like Portland and Los Angeles, wherein he sends in troops, incites protests and violence, and then invokes the Insurrection Act to go to war with Americans, round up dissenters, and even call off elections.

In addition to this being demonstrably bad for America, you’d think this would also be bad for Trump, politically.

But not so fast.

The politics of Trump’s months-long war on cities, and whether it will hurt him or Republicans in the coming midterm elections, is unclear and complicated.

The murkiness is evidenced in a tale of two polls.

On the one hand, Americans oppose militarizing law enforcement in U.S. cities without an explicit external threat, by 58%, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll.

On the other, Trump’s approval, specifically among voters in U.S. cities, is above water despite his interventions. A brand new TIPP Insights poll of 1,459 adults conducted between Sept. 30 and Oct. 2 showed his approval at 47%, versus 44% disapproval.

Additional polls flesh out the seeming contradiction.

A majority of Americans believe crime is up in the last year and the level of crime and violence in American cities is unacceptably high, according to NPR/Ipsos polling from this month.

But a majority also opposes using the federal government to take control of local law enforcement.

On immigration, 57% disapproves of Trump’s handling of deportation, but 56% approves of peaceful arrests of illegal immigrants.

To sum this up, Americans seem to agree with Trump on the problems, but not on his solutions.

So how does that shake out?

The tendency, particularly for the left, is to want to believe opposition to Trump’s tactics will translate to opposition to Trump and Republicans. What they often don’t take into account is the fact that plenty of voters will still give him credit for simply trying, or correctly identifying a problem. This is especially true when Democrats insist problems like crime or illegal immigration aren’t real, or as bad as voters feel they are.

Democratic officials are reacting to Trump’s war on cities in various ways. Some states are suing to block him. But Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser capitulated and signed an executive order formalizing cooperation between the city and federal forces.

New York’s mayoral frontrunner, Democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani is vowing to fight Trump’s threats to take over NYC if he wins his election.

The question is, will voters in these states see people like Pritzker and California Gov. Gavin Newsom as standing up to Trump? Or standing in Trump’s way of solving problems?

Both sides are taking some pretty big political risks here. Will Trump get the blame if cities like Chicago become powder kegs? Or will he get the credit simply for showing up? It’s not that simple.

S.E. Cupp is the host of "S.E. Cupp Unfiltered" on CNN.


Read More

Why Aren’t There More Discharge Petitions?

illustration of US Capitol

AI generated image

Why Aren’t There More Discharge Petitions?

We’ve recently seen the power of a “discharge petition” regarding the Epstein files, and how it required only a few Republican signatures to force a vote on the House floor—despite efforts by the Trump administration and Congressional GOP leadership to keep the files sealed. Amazingly, we witnessed the power again with the vote to force House floor consideration on extending the Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies.

Why is it amazing? Because in the 21st century, fewer than a half-dozen discharge petitions have succeeded. And, three of those have been in the last few months. Most House members will go their entire careers without ever signing on to a discharge petition.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol.
As government shutdowns drag on, a novel idea emerges: use arbitration to break congressional gridlock and fix America’s broken budget process.
Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

Congress's productive 2025 (And don't let anyone tell you otherwise)

The media loves to tell you your government isn't working, even when it is. Don't let anyone tell you 2025 was an unproductive year for Congress. [Edit: To clarify, I don't mean the government is working for you.]

1,976 pages of new law

At 1,976 pages of new law enacted since President Trump took office, including an increase of the national debt limit by $4 trillion, any journalist telling you not much happened in Congress this year is sleeping on the job.

Keep ReadingShow less
Red elephants and blue donkeys

The ACA subsidy deadline reveals how Republican paralysis and loyalty-driven leadership are hollowing out Congress’s ability to govern.

Carol Yepes

Governing by Breakdown: The Cost of Congressional Paralysis

Picture a bridge with a clearly posted warning: without a routine maintenance fix, it will close. Engineers agree on the repair, but the construction crew in charge refuses to act. The problem is not that the fix is controversial or complex, but that making the repair might be seen as endorsing the bridge itself.

So, traffic keeps moving, the deadline approaches, and those responsible promise to revisit the issue “next year,” even as the risk of failure grows. The danger is that the bridge fails anyway, leaving everyone who depends on it to bear the cost of inaction.

Keep ReadingShow less
Who thinks Republicans will suffer in the 2026 midterms? Republican members of Congress

U.S. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA); House Chamber at the U.S. Capitol on December 17, 2025,.

(Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

Who thinks Republicans will suffer in the 2026 midterms? Republican members of Congress

The midterm elections for Congress won’t take place until November, but already a record number of members have declared their intention not to run – a total of 43 in the House, plus 10 senators. Perhaps the most high-profile person to depart, Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, announced her intention in November not just to retire but to resign from Congress entirely on Jan. 5 – a full year before her term was set to expire.

There are political dynamics that explain this rush to the exits, including frustrations with gridlock and President Donald Trump’s lackluster approval ratings, which could hurt Republicans at the ballot box.

Keep ReadingShow less