Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

jimfeng/Getty Images

Pennsylvania’s Bipartisan Exchange Is Rebuilding Trust in Governance

The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics has nearly 40 years of experience working with legislators from different political parties, and it is building on this history by drawing on lessons from the successful American Congressional Exchange model, begun in 2018 at the Bipartisan Policy Center, and from state exchanges now underway in Minnesota and Michigan. The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics, in collaboration with the Bridge Alliance, has launched the Pennsylvania Legislative Exchange.

This state-based, systematic approach is designed to foster better relationships and build trust across the political aisle with the following guiding principles:

Keep ReadingShow less
An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
Five men sitting on one side of a table, as a panel at an event.

Harvard's Guy-Uriel Charles (left) listens to David Walker, Chair of the Federal Fiscal Sustainability Foundation. Fellow panelists (L-R) are Michael Farris, Convention of States Project; Samuel Fieldman, Wolf Pack; and Jim Rubens, FFSA and American Promise.

Photo by Martha Stewart

Congressional Inaction Raises Constitutional Change Alternative

Voting is the anchor of democracy, as we are reminded every two years. But this anchor rests on unstable ground today, signaling that our political roots need examining too.

In the United States, the Constitution itself becomes the focus when serious problems prompt such foundational civic dives. Our current challenges may not be as severe as the Civil War or the excesses of the Gilded Age, which produced waves of amendments, but today’s erosion of our system of checks and balances requires us to revisit our constitutional underpinnings.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less