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

Six Undeclared Wars Reveal Fatal Costs and Failed Oversight
grayscale photo of man in black jacket and pants holding rifle

Six Undeclared Wars Reveal Fatal Costs and Failed Oversight

In America’s 250-year history, only five wars were formally declared by Congress as required by Article I of the U.S. Constitution. They and the respective presidents were: the War of 1812 (James Madison), the Mexican-American War (James Polk), the Spanish-American War (William McKinley), World War I (Woodrow Wilson), and World War II (Franklin D. Roosevelt).

Many Americans may not fully comprehend the magnitude of military casualties, exceedingly high financial costs, and public opposition to the six most recent wars (1950-present) that were not completely authorized by Congress.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Enduring Illusion of Article the first
a large white building with a flag on top of it

The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

This is the third and final installment of our series on “Article the first.” Previous parts examined the history of the single inverted word that turned an intended floor into a ceiling and its impact on the amendment’s failed ratification. This concluding part outlines the path forward for enlarging the House today.

Part 3 — The Path Forward

Keep ReadingShow less
The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

Painting from 1856 by Junius Brutus Stearns of George Washington at the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

This is the second of a three-part series on the First Amendment proposed by Congress in 1789—often called “Article the first”—which was never ratified. Part 1 explained how a single inverted word in the text created a mathematical absurdity that has been misread for 237 years. This second part explores the untold history of how that defect affected the original ratification process in state legislatures.

Part 2 — The Untold History

Keep ReadingShow less
Bill of Rights
Happy 230th birthday, Bill of Rights
leezsnow/Getty Images

The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

This is the first of three parts exploring “Article the First,” the forgotten proposal in the original Bill of Rights. For 237 years, a single, inverted word has created a “semantic illusion,” leading historians and policymakers to misread the founders' intended guarantee of a growing House as a ceiling. This series uncovers the error, tracks its consequences, and explores why reclaiming the founders’ original vision is the path to meaningful representation reform.

Part 1 — The Inverted Word

Keep ReadingShow less