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

A Constitutional Provision We Ignored for 150 Years

Voter registration in Wisconsin

Michael Newman

A Constitutional Provision We Ignored for 150 Years

Imagine there was a way to discourage states from passing photo voter ID laws, restricting early voting, purging voter registration rolls, or otherwise suppressing voter turnout. What if any state that did so risked losing seats in the House of Representatives?

Surprisingly, this is not merely an idle fantasy of voting rights activists, but an actual plan envisioned in Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 – but never enforced.

Keep ReadingShow less
People wearing vests with "ICE" and "Police" on the back.

The latest shutdown deal kept government open while exposing Congress’s reliance on procedural oversight rather than structural limits on ICE.

Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

A Shutdown Averted, and a Narrow Window Into Congress’s ICE Dilemma

Congress’s latest shutdown scare ended the way these episodes usually do: with a stopgap deal, a sigh of relief, and little sense that the underlying conflict had been resolved. But buried inside the agreement was a revealing maneuver. While most of the federal government received longer-term funding, the Department of Homeland Security, and especially Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), was given only a short-term extension. That asymmetry was deliberate. It preserved leverage over one of the most controversial federal agencies without triggering a prolonged shutdown, while also exposing the narrow terrain on which Congress is still willing to confront executive power. As with so many recent budget deals, the decision emerged less from open debate than from late-stage negotiations compressed into the final hours before the deadline.

How the Deal Was Framed

Democrats used the funding deadline to force a conversation about ICE’s enforcement practices, but they were careful about how that conversation was structured. Rather than reopening the far more combustible debate over immigration levels, deportation priorities, or statutory authority, they framed the dispute as one about law-enforcement standards, specifically transparency, accountability, and oversight.

Keep ReadingShow less
Pier C Park waterfront walkway and in the background the One World Trade Center on the left and the Erie-Lackawanna Railroad and Ferry Terminal Clock Tower on the right

View of the Pier C Park waterfront walkway and in the background the One World Trade Center on the left and the Erie-Lackawanna Railroad and Ferry Terminal Clock Tower on the right

Getty Images, Philippe Debled

The City Where Traffic Fatalities Vanished

A U.S. city of 60,000 people would typically see around six to eight traffic fatalities every year. But Hoboken, New Jersey? They haven’t had a single fatal crash for nine years — since January 17, 2017, to be exact.

Campaigns for seatbelts, lower speed limits and sober driving have brought national death tolls from car crashes down from a peak in the first half of the 20th century. However, many still assume some traffic deaths as an unavoidable cost of car culture.

Keep ReadingShow less
Congress Has Forgotten Its Oath — and the Nation Is Paying the Price

US Capitol

Congress Has Forgotten Its Oath — and the Nation Is Paying the Price

What has happened to the U.S. Congress? Once the anchor of American democracy, it now delivers chaos and a record of inaction that leaves millions of Americans vulnerable. A branch designed to defend the Constitution has instead drifted into paralysis — and the nation is paying the price. It must break its silence and reassert its constitutional role.

The Constitution created three coequal branches — legislative, executive, and judicial — each designed to balance and restrain the others. The Framers placed Congress first in Article I (U.S. Constitution) because they believed the people’s representatives should hold the greatest responsibility: to write laws, control spending, conduct oversight, and ensure that no president or agency escapes accountability. Congress was meant to be the branch closest to the people — the one that listens, deliberates, and acts on behalf of the nation.

Keep ReadingShow less