national guard

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is set to rule for the first time on whether the president has the power to deploy troops in American cities over the objections of local and state officials.

A decision could come at any time.

And even a one-line order siding with President Trump would send the message that he is free to use the military to carry out his orders — and in particular, in Democratic-controlled cities and states.

Trump administration lawyers filed an emergency appeal last week asking the court to reverse judges in Chicago who blocked the deployment of the National Guard there.

The Chicago-based judges said Trump exaggerated the threat faced by federal immigration agents and had equated “protests with riots.”

Trump administration lawyers, however, said these judges had no authority to second-guess the president. The power to deploy the National Guard “is committed to his exclusive discretion by law,” they asserted in their appeal in Trump vs. Illinois.

That broad claim of executive power might win favor with the court’s conservatives.

Administration lawyers told the court that the National Guard would “defend federal personnel, property, and functions in the face of ongoing violence” in response to aggressive immigration enforcement, but it would not carry out ordinary policing.

Yet Trump has repeatedly threatened to send U.S. troops to San Francisco and other Democratic-led cities to carry out ordinary law enforcement.

When he sent 4,000 Guard members and 700 Marines to Los Angeles in June, their mission was to protect federal buildings from protesters. But state officials said troops went beyond that and were used to carry out a show in force in MacArthur Park in July.

Newsom, Bonta warn of dangers

That’s why legal experts and Democratic officials are sounding an alarm.

“Trump v. Illinois is a make-or-break moment for this court,” said Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck, a frequent critic of the court’s pro-Trump emergency orders. “For the Supreme Court to issue a ruling that allows the president to send troops into our cities based upon contrived (or even government-provoked) facts … would be a terrible precedent for the court to set not just for what it would allow President Trump to do now but for even more grossly tyrannical conduct.”

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and Gov. Gavin Newsom filed a brief in the Chicago case warning of the danger ahead.

“On June 7, for the first time in our nation’s history, the President invoked [the Militia Act of 1903] to federalize a State’s National Guard over the objections of the State’s Governor. Since that time, it has become clear that the federal government’s actions in Southern California earlier this summer were just the opening salvo in an effort to transform the role of the military in American society,” their brief said.

“At no prior point in our history has the President used the military this way: as his own personal police force, to be deployed for whatever law enforcement missions he deems appropriate. … What the federal government seeks is a standing army, drawn from state militias, deployed at the direction of the President on a nationwide basis, for civilian law enforcement purposes, for an indefinite period of time.”

Conservatives cite civil rights examples

Conservatives counter that Trump is seeking to enforce federal law in the face of strong resistance and non-cooperation at times from local officials.

“Portland and Chicago have seen violent protests outside of federal buildings, attacks on ICE and DHS agents, and organized efforts to block the enforcement of immigration law,” said UC Berkeley law professor John Yoo. “Although local officials have raised cries of a federal ‘occupation’ and ‘dictatorship,’ the Constitution places on the president the duty to ‘take care that the laws are faithfully executed.’”

He noted that presidents in the past “used these same authorities to desegregate southern schools in the 1950s after Brown v. Board of Education and to protect civil rights protesters in the 1960s. Those who cheer those interventions cannot now deny the same constitutional authority when it is exercised by a president they oppose,” he said.

The legal battle so far has sidestepped Trump’s broadest claims of unchecked power, but focused instead on whether he is acting in line with the laws adopted by Congress.

The Constitution gives Congress the power “to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel Invasions.”

Beginning in 1903, Congress said that “the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary” if he faces “danger of invasion by a foreign nation … danger of a rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States or the president is unable to execute the laws of the United States.”

While Trump administration lawyers claim he faces a “rebellion,” the legal dispute has focused on whether he is “unable to execute the laws.”

Lower courts have blocked deployments

Federal district judges in Portland and Chicago blocked Trump’s deployments after ruling that protesters had not prevented U.S. immigration agents from doing their jobs.

Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, described the administration’s description of “war-ravaged” Portland as “untethered to the facts.”

In Chicago, Judge April Perry, a Biden appointee, said that “political opposition is not rebellion.”

But the two appeals courts — the 9th Circuit in San Francisco and the 7th Circuit in Chicago — handed down opposite decisions.

A panel of the 9th Circuit said judges must defer to the president’s assessment of the danger faced by immigration agents. Applying that standard, the appeals court by a 2-1 vote said the National Guard deployment in Portland may proceed.

But a panel of the 7th Circuit in Chicago agreed with Perry.

“The facts do not justify the President’s actions in Illinois, even giving substantial deference to his assertions,” they said in a 3-0 ruling last week. “Federal facilities, including the processing facility in Broadview, have remained open despite regular demonstrations against the administration’s immigration policies. And though federal officers have encountered sporadic disruptions, they have been quickly contained by local, state, and federal authorities.”

Attorneys for Illinois and Chicago agreed and urged the court to turn down Trump’s appeal.

“There is no basis for claiming the President is ‘unable’ to ‘execute’ federal law in Illinois,” they said. “Federal facilities in Illinois remain open, the individuals who have violated the law by attacking federal authorities have been arrested, and enforcement of immigration law in Illinois has only increased in recent weeks.”

U.S. Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer, shown at his confirmation hearing in February, said the federal judges in Chicago had no legal or factual basis to block the Trump administration’s deployment of troops.

(Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

Trump’s Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer presented a dramatically different account in his appeal.

“On October 4, the President determined that the situation in Chicago had become unsustainably dangerous for federal agents, who now risk their lives to carry out basic law enforcement functions,” he wrote. “The President deployed the federalized Guardsmen to Illinois to protect federal officers and federal property.”

He disputed the idea that agents faced just peaceful protests.

“On multiple occasions, federal officers have also been hit and punched by protestors at the Broadview facility. The physical altercations became more significant and the clashes more violent as the size of the crowds swelled throughout September,” Sauer wrote. “Rioters have targeted federal officers with fireworks and have thrown bottles, rocks, and tear gas at them. More than 30 [DHS] officers have been injured during the assaults on federal law enforcement at the Broadview facility alone, resulting in multiple hospitalizations.”

He said the judges in Chicago had no legal or factual basis to block the deployment, and he urged the court to cast aside their rulings.

The Trump administration is sending federal agents to San Francisco following weeks of threats from the president to deploy the National Guard to the Bay Area.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom released a statement on X confirming and criticizing the agents’ upcoming arrival. He called deployment a “page right out of the dictator’s handbook” intended to create the conditions of unrest necessary to then send in the National Guard.

“He sends out masked men, he sends out Border Patrol, he sends out ICE, he creates anxiety and fear in the community so that he can lay claim to solving that by sending in the [National] Guard,” said Newsom. “This is no different than the arsonist putting out the fire.”

Around 100 federal agents, including members of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, are en route to the U.S. Coast Guard’s Alameda base, according to reporting from the San Francisco Chronicle. The Coast Guard and DHS did not immediately respond to The Times’ request for comment.

Trump has suggested for weeks that San Francisco is next on his list for National Guard deployment, after the administration sent troops to Los Angeles and Chicago and is battling in court to send them to Portland, Ore.

On Sunday, Trump told Fox News, “We’re going to San Francisco and we’ll make it great. It’ll be great again.”

Trump has suggested that the role of the National Guard in San Francisco would be to address crime rates. However, the National Guard is generally not allowed to perform domestic law enforcement duties when federalized by the president.

In September, he said that cities with Democratic political leadership such as San Francisco, Chicago and Los Angeles “are very unsafe places and we are going to straighten them out.”

Trump said he told Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that “we should use some of these dangerous cities as training for our military, our national guard.”

Newsom urged Californians to remain peaceful in the face of the arrival of federal agents.

“President Trump and [White House Deputy Chief of Staff] Stephen Miller’s authoritarian playbook is coming for another of our cities, and violence and vandalism are exactly what they’re looking for to invoke chaos,” said Newsom on X.

The sending of federal agents to San Francisco comes as the Trump administration continues to crack down on immigration across the nation in an attempt to carry out what the president has proclaimed is the largest deportation effort in U.S. history.

Comedians Kumail Nanjiani and Ilana Glazer dropped out of performing at Salesforce’s annual tech conference this week after the company’s chief executive Marc Benioff made controversial remarks that showed his support for President Trump.

Last week, Benioff told the New York Times he thought Trump should deploy the National Guard to reduce crime in San Francisco, comments that sparked backlash from Silicon Valley philanthropists and Democrats.

On Friday, Benioff completely walked back his remarks and apologized.

“I do not believe the National Guard is needed to address safety in San Francisco,” he wrote on social media site X. “My earlier comment came from an abundance of caution around the event, and I sincerely apologize for the concern it caused.”

Salesforce, a software company based in San Francisco, provides a platform that businesses use to manage customer data and track sales. The company confirmed the comedians dropped out but the entertainers haven’t said publicly what prompted the last-minute cancellation. A source close to the company told the San Francisco Chronicle that Nanjiani became ill and that led to his scheduled opener Glazer to cancel as well.

Nanjiani and Glazer haven’t publicly spoken out about Benioff’s remarks about the National Guard.

Both comedians, though, have been critical of Trump in the past and his anti-immigrant rhetoric. Earlier this year, Glazer spoke at a “No Kings” protest, which organizers say is to meant fight back against authoritarian policies pushed by Trump and his administration. This week, she promoted the next series of demonstrations, scheduled to take place on Oct. 18, stating it wasn’t a partisan issue on Instagram.

The San Francisco Standard reported earlier on the cancellation.

Benioff has grappled with a growing backlash since he made comments about Trump and the National Guard. The controversy overshadowed Dreamforce, a conference in San Francisco that featured well-known speakers including tech executives, government officials and entertainers.

Nanjiani played Dinesh in the HBO series “Silicon Valley” and co-wrote and starred in the Oscar-nominated 2017 film “The Big Sick.” Glazer co-created and starred in the Comedy Central series “Broad City” and the 2024 comedy film “Babes.”

In their absence, comedian David Spade performed at Dreamforce on Thursday afternoon, closing out the conference.

Ahead of the event, which ended on Thursday, Benioff appeared to dial back his remarks.

On social media site X, he said he was trying to make a point about making the conference as safe as possible.

“Keeping San Francisco safe is, first and foremost, the responsibility of our city and state leaders,” he wrote on X. Benioff also said he’s donating an extra $1 million to fund larger hiring bonuses for new police officers.

Benioff, who has previously said he’s an independent and was once a Republican, has backed Democrats and supported liberal causes such as a business tax for homeless services. But he’s also been critical of public safety in San Francisco and has threatened to move Dreamforce from San Francisco to Las Vegas.

The conference brings nearly 50,000 people to the city, generates $130 million in revenue for San Francisco and creates 35,000 local jobs, according to Salesforce. The company announced earlier this week it was investing $15 billion in San Francisco over five years to advance artificial intelligence.

On Thursday, prominent Silicon Valley venture capitalist and Democratic donor Ron Conway resigned from the Salesforce Foundation board. In an email first viewed by the New York Times, Conway told Benioff that he “now barely recognize the person I have so long admired.”

“Your obsession with and constant annual threats to move Dreamforce to Las Vegas is ironic, since it is a fact that Las Vegas has a higher rate of violent crime than San Francisco,” Conway wrote in the email. “San Francisco does not need a federal invasion because you don’t like paying for extra security for Dreamforce.”

Conway, founder and managing partner of SV Angel, is widely regarded as the “Godfather of Silicon Valley” because of his early investments in major tech companies such as Google, Facebook and PayPal. SV Angel didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

A Salesforce spokesperson said in a statement they have “deep gratitude for Ron Conway and his incredible contributions to the Salesforce Foundation Board for over a decade.”

On Friday, entrepreneur and philanthropist Laurene Powell Jobs published an essay in the Wall Street Journal citing some of Benioff’s earlier remarks and claims that no one has given more to San Francisco. The widow of Apple co-founder Steve Jobs also founded and heads the philanthropic organization, Emerson Collective.

“The message beneath that comment was unmistakable: In his eyes, generosity is an auction—and policy is the prize awarded to the highest bidder,” she wrote. “But giving that expects control is anything but generous.”

WASHINGTON — President Trump asked the Supreme Court on Friday to uphold his deployment of National Guard troops to Chicago.

His lawyers filed an emergency appeal urging the court to set aside rulings of judges in Chicago and hold that National Guard troops are needed to protect U.S. immigration agents from hostile protesters.

The case escalates the clash between Trump and Democratic state officials over immigration enforcement and raises again the question of using military-style force in American cities. Trump’s lawyers have repeatedly gone to the Supreme Court and won quick rulings when lower-court judges have blocked his actions.

Federal law authorizes the president to call into service the National Guard if he cannot “execute the laws of the United States” or faces “a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority” of the U.S. government.

“Both conditions are satisfied here,” Trump’s lawyer said.

Judges in Chicago came to the opposite conclusion. U.S. District Judge April Perry saw no “danger of rebellion” and said the laws were being enforced. She accused Trump’s lawyers of exaggerating claims of violence and equating “protests with riots.”

She handed down a restraining order on Oct. 9, and the 7th Circuit Court agreed to keep it in force.

But Trump’s lawyers insisted that protesters and demonstrators were targeting U.S. immigration agents and preventing them from doing their work.

“Confronted with intolerable risks of harm to federal agents and coordinated, violent opposition to the enforcement of federal law, the President lawfully determines that he is unable to enforce the laws of the United States with the regular forces and calls up the National Guard to defend federal personnel, property, and functions in the face of ongoing violence,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer wrote in a 40-page appeal.

He argued that historically the president has had the full authority to decide on whether to call up the militia. Judges may not second-guess the president’s decision, he said.

“Any such review [by judges] must be highly deferential, as the 9th Circuit has concluded in the Newsom litigation,” referring to the ruling that upheld Trump’s deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles.

Trump’s lawyer said the troop deployment to Los Angeles had succeeded in reducing violence.

“Notwithstanding the Governor of California’s claim that deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles would ‘escalat[e]’ the ongoing violence that California itself had failed to prevent … the President’s action had the opposite, intended effect. In the face of federal military force, violence in Los Angeles decreased and the situation substantially improved,” he told the court.

But in recent weeks, “Chicago has been the site of organized and often violent protests directed at ICE officers and other federal personnel engaged in the execution of federal immigration laws,” he wrote. “On multiple occasions, federal officers have also been hit and punched by protesters. … Rioters have targeted federal officers with fireworks and have thrown bottles, rocks, and tear gas at them.”

“More than 30 [DHS] officers have been injured during the assaults on federal law enforcement” at the Broadview facility alone, resulting in multiple hospitalizations, he wrote.

Officials in Illinois blamed aggressive enforcement actions of ICE agents for triggering the protests.

Sauer also urged the court to hand down an immediate order that would freeze Perry’s rulings.

The court asked for a response from Illinois officials by Monday.

Marc Benioff has become the latest Silicon Valley tech leader to signal his approval of President Trump, saying that the president is doing a great job and ought to deploy the National Guard to deal with crime in San Francisco.

The Salesforce chief executive’s comments came as he headed to San Francisco to host his annual Dreamforce conference — an event for which he said he had to hire hundreds of off-duty police to provide security.

“We don’t have enough cops, so if they [National Guard] can be cops, I’m all for it,” he told The New York Times from aboard his private plane.

The National Guard is generally not allowed to perform domestic law enforcement duties when federalized by the president.

Last month, a federal judge ruled that Trump’s use of National Guard soldiers in Los Angeles violated the Posse Comitatus Act — which restricts use of the military for domestic law enforcement — and ordered that the troops not be used in law enforcement operations within California.

Trump has also ordered the National Guard to deploy to cities such as Portland, Ore., and Chicago, citing the need to protect federal officers and assets in the face of ongoing immigration protests. Those efforts have been met with criticism from local leaders and are the subject of ongoing legal battles.

President Trump has yet to direct troops to Northern California, but suggested in September that San Francisco could be a target for deployment. He has said that cities with Democratic political leadership such as San Francisco, Chicago and Los Angeles “are very unsafe places and we are going to straighten them out.”

“I told [Defense Secretary] Pete [Hegseth] we should use some of these dangerous cities as training for our military, our national guard,” Trump said.

Benioff’s call to send National Guard troops to San Francisco drew sharp rebukes from several of the region’s elected Democratic leaders.

San Francisco Dist. Atty. Brooke Jenkins said she “can’t be silent any longer” and threatened to prosecute any leaders or troops who harass residents in a fiery statement on X.

“I am responsible for holding criminals accountable, and that includes holding government and law enforcement officials too, when they cross the bounds of the law,” she said. “If you come to San Francisco and illegally harass our residents, use excessive force or cross any other boundaries that the law prescribes, I will not hesitate to do my job and hold you accountable just like I do other violators of the law every single day.”

State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) also took to X to express indignation, saying “we neither need nor want an illegal military occupation in San Francisco.”

“Salesforce is a great San Francisco company that does so much good for our city,” he said. “Inviting Trump to send the National Guard here is not one of those good things. Quite the opposite.”

San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie’s office offered a more muted response, touting the mayor’s efforts to boost public safety in general, but declining to directly address Benioff’s remarks.

Charles Lutvak, a spokesperson for the mayor, noted that the city is seeing net gains in both police officers and sheriff’s deputies for the first time in a decade. He also highlighted Lurie’s efforts to bring police staffing up to 2,000 officers.

“Crime is down nearly 30% citywide and at its lowest point in decades,” Lutvak said. “We are moving in the right direction and will continue to prioritize safety and hiring while San Francisco law enforcement works every single day to keep our city safe.”

When contacted by The Times Friday night, the office of Gov. Gavin Newsom, who vociferously opposed the deployment of National Guard troops in Los Angeles, did not issue a comment in response to Benioff.

Benioff and Newsom have long been considered friends, with a relationship dating back to when Newsom served as San Francisco’s mayor. Newsom even named Benioff as godfather to one of his children, according to the San Francisco Standard.

Benioff has often referred to himself as an independent. He has donated to several liberal causes, including a $30-million donation to UC San Francisco to study homelessness, and has contributed to prior political campaigns of former President Barack Obama, former Vice President Kamala Harris, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), and Hillary Clinton.

However, he has also donated to the campaigns of former House Speaker Paul Ryan and Sen. John McCain, both Republicans, and supported tougher-on-crime policies and reducing government spending.

Earlier this year, Benioff also praised the Elon Musk-led federal cost-cutting effort known as the Department of Government Efficiency.

“I fully support the president,” Benioff told the New York Times this week. “I think he’s doing a great job.”

PORTLAND, Ore. — A federal judge in Oregon temporarily blocked the Trump administration from deploying the National Guard in Portland, ruling Saturday in a lawsuit brought by the state and city.

U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut issued the order pending further arguments in the case. She said that the relatively small protests the city has seen did not justify the use of federalized forces and that allowing the deployment could harm Oregon’s state sovereignty.

“This country has a longstanding and foundational tradition of resistance to government overreach, especially in the form of military intrusion into civil affairs,” Immergut wrote. She later continued, “This historical tradition boils down to a simple proposition: this is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law.”

State and city officials sued to stop the deployment last week, one day after the Trump administration announced that 200 Oregon National Guard troops would be federalized to protect federal buildings. The president called the city “war-ravaged.”

Oregon officials said that characterization was ludicrous. The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building in the city has been the site of nightly protests that typically drew a couple dozen people in recent weeks before the deployment was announced.

Generally speaking the president is allowed “a great level of deference” to federalize National Guard troops in situations where regular law enforcement forces are not able to execute the laws of the United States, the judge said, but that has not been the case in Portland.

Plaintiffs were able to show that the demonstrations at the immigration building were not significantly violent or disruptive ahead of the president’s order, the judge wrote, and “overall, the protests were small and uneventful.”

“The President’s determination was simply untethered to the facts,” Immergut wrote.

After the ruling, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said that “President Trump exercised his lawful authority to protect federal assets and personnel in Portland following violent riots and attacks on law enforcement — we expect to be vindicated by a higher court.”

Trump has deployed or threatened to deploy troops in several U.S. cities, particularly ones led by Democrats, including Los Angeles, Washington, Chicago and Memphis, Tenn. Speaking Tuesday to U.S. military leaders in Virginia, he proposed using cities as training grounds for the armed forces, alarming many military analysts.

Last month a federal judge ruled that the president’s deployment of some 4,700 National Guard soldiers and Marines in Los Angeles this year was illegal, but he allowed the 300 who remain in the city to stay as long as they do not enforce civilian laws. The Trump administration appealed, and an appellate panel has put the lower court’s block on hold while it moves forward.

The Portland protests have been limited to a one-block area in a city that covers about 145 square miles and has about 636,000 residents.

The protests grew somewhat following the Sept. 28 announcement of the Guard deployment. The Portland Police Bureau, which has said it does not participate in immigration enforcement and intervenes in the protests only if there is vandalism or criminal activity, arrested two people on assault charges. A peaceful march earlier that day drew thousands to downtown and saw no arrests, police said.

On Saturday, before the ruling was released, roughly 400 people marched to the ICE facility. The crowd included people of all ages and races, families with children and older people using walkers. Federal agents responded with chemical crowd-control munitions, including tear gas canisters and less-lethal guns that sprayed pepper balls. At least six people were arrested as the protesters reached the ICE building.

During his first term, Trump sent federal officers to Portland over the objections of local and state leaders in 2020 during long-running racial justice protests after George Floyd’s murder by Minneapolis police. The administration sent hundreds of agents for the stated purpose of protecting the federal courthouse and other federal property from vandalism.

That deployment antagonized demonstrators and prompted nightly clashes. Federal officers fired rubber bullets and used tear gas.

Viral videos captured federal officers arresting people and hustling them into unmarked vehicles. A report by the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general found that while the federal government had legal authority to deploy the officers, many of them lacked the training and equipment necessary for the mission.

The government agreed this year to settle an excessive-force lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union by compensating several plaintiffs for their injuries.

Rush and Boone write for the Associated Press and reported from Portland and Boise, Idaho, respectively. AP writer Josh Boak in Washington contributed to this report.

After weeks of threatening to send federal troops to Chicago, the Trump administration plans to federalize 300 members of the Illinois National Guard, Gov. JB Pritzker said Saturday.

Pritzker said the National Guard received word from the Pentagon in the morning that the troops would be called up. He did not specify when or where they would be deployed.

“This morning, the Trump Administration’s Department of War gave me an ultimatum: call up your troops, or we will,” Pritzker said in a statement, using the name President Trump has adopted for the Department of Defense. “It is absolutely outrageous and un-American to demand a Governor send military troops within our own borders and against our will.”

The governor’s office did not immediately respond to a request for addition details. The White House and the Pentagon did not respond to questions about Pritzker’s statement.

The escalation of federal law enforcement in Illinois follows similar deployments in other parts of the country. Trump deployed the National Guard to Los Angeles in June in response to protests against immigration raids, and in Washington, D.C., as part of his law enforcement takeover in the capital city. Meanwhile, Tennessee National Guard troops are expected to help Memphis police.

Pritzker called Trump’s move in Illinois a “manufactured performance” that would pull the state’s National Guard troops away from their families and regular jobs.

“For Donald Trump, this has never been about safety. This is about control,” said the governor, who also noted that state, county and local law enforcement have been coordinating to ensure the safety of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Broadview facility on the outskirts of Chicago.

Federal officials reported the arrests of 13 people protesting Friday near the facility, which has been frequently targeted during the Trump administration’s surge of immigration enforcement this fall.

Trump also said last month that he was sending federal troops to Portland, Ore., characterizing the city as war-ravaged. But local officials have suggested that many of his claims and social media posts appear to rely on images from 2020, when demonstrations and unrest gripped the city amid mass protests nationwide after the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police.

City and state officials sued to stop the deployment the next day. U.S. District Court Judge Karin J. Immergut heard arguments Friday, and a ruling is expected over the weekend.

Trump has federalized 200 National Guard troops in Oregon, but so far it does not appear that they have moved into Portland. They have been seen training on the coast in anticipation of a deployment.

Peipert writes for the Associated Press.

PORTLAND, Ore. — Five years after protests roiled Portland, Oregon, the city known for its history of civil disobedience is again at the center of a political maelstrom as it braces for the arrival of federal troops being deployed by President Donald Trump.

Months of demonstrations outside Portland’s immigration detention facility have escalated after conservative influencer Nick Sortor was arrested late Thursday on a disorderly conduct charge by Portland Police.

On Friday, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said the agency would send additional federal agents. She also said the Justice Department was launching a civil rights investigation into the circumstances surrounding Sortor’s arrest, and whether Portland Police engage in viewpoint discrimination.

Meanwhile, a federal judge heard arguments Friday — but did not immediately rule — on whether to temporarily block Trump’s call-up of 200 Oregon National Guard members to protect the ICE facility and other federal buildings.

The escalation of federal law enforcement in Portland, population 636,000 and Oregon’s largest city, follows similar crackdowns to combat crime in other cities, including Chicago, Baltimore and Memphis. He deployed the National Guard to Los Angeles over the summer and as part of his law enforcement takeover in Washington, D.C.

A conservative influencer arrested in Portland

Sortor, 27, who’s a regular guest on Fox News and whose X profile has more than 1 million followers, was arrested Thursday night with two other people outside the city’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement building. He is set to be arraigned on Monday.

What exactly led up to the arrests was not immediately clear. Portland police said in a news release that officers observed two men fighting and one of the men was knocked to the ground. Neither of the men wanted to file a police report. Police moved in about three hours later, as fights continued to break out, and arrested Sorter and two others.

All three were charged with second-degree disorderly conduct. Sorter was released Friday on his own recognizance, according to Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office’s online records. An email seeking comment from Sortor sent Friday went unanswered and no one answered phone numbers listed for him.

In a post on X on Friday morning, Sortor said his arrest proved that Portland Police are corrupt and controlled by “vioIent Antifa thugs who terrorize the streets.”

“You thought arresting me would make me shut up and go away,” he wrote.

Sortor also said that Attorney General Pam Bondi had ordered an investigation into the circumstances of his arrest and of the Portland Police Bureau.

A history of Portland protests led to this moment

Portland famously erupted in more than 100 days of sustained, nightly protests in 2020 during the Black Lives Matter movement. In his first term, Trump sent federal law enforcement to the city to protect the U.S. District Courthouse in the heart of Portland after protests attracted thousands of people following George Floyd’s murder by Minneapolis police.

The presence of the federal agents further inflamed the situation, with federal officers repeatedly firing rubber bullets and teargassing protestors. Viral videos captured militarized federal officers, often unidentified, arresting people and hustling them into unmarked vehicles.

At the same time, Portland police were unable to keep ahead of splinter groups of black-clad protesters who broke off and roamed the downtown area, at times breaking windows, spraying graffiti and setting small fires in moments that were also captured on video and shared widely on social media.

A report by the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general found that while the federal government had legal authority to deploy the officers, many of them lacked the training and equipment needed to carry out the mission.

The tensions reached a peak in September 2020 when a self-identified member of the far-left anti-fascist movement fatally shot 39-year-old Aaron “Jay” Danielson in the chest. Danielson and a friend were seen heading downtown to protect a flag-waving caravan of Trump supporters shortly before the shooting.

The shooter, Michael Forest Reinoehl, was himself later shot and killed when he pulled a gun as a federal task force attempted to apprehend him near Lacey, Washington.

A different context for today’s protests

The situation in Portland is very different now.

There’s been a sustained and low-level protest outside the Portland ICE facility — far from the downtown clashes of 2020 — since Trump took office in January. Those protests flared in June, during the national protests surrounding Trump’s military parade, but have rarely attracted more than a few dozen people in the past two months.

Trump has once more turned his attention to the city, calling Portland “war ravaged,” and a “war zone” that is “burning down” and like “living in hell.” But local officials have suggested that many of his claims and social media posts appear to rely on images from 2020. Under a new mayor, the city has reduced crime, and the downtown has seen a decrease in homeless encampments and increased foot traffic.

Most violent crime around the country has actually declined in recent years, including in Portland, where a recent report from the Major Cities Chiefs Association found that homicides from January through June decreased by 51% this year compared to the same period in 2024.

City leaders have urged restraint and told residents not to “take the bait” this week after the announcement that the National Guard would be sent to Portland.

Oregon seeks to block National Guard deployment by Trump

On Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Karin J. Immergut heard arguments on whether to block the deployment of National Guard troops in Portland, where they would defend federal buildings such as the ICE facility from vandalism.

Oregon sued to stop the deployment on Sept. 28 after Democratic Gov. Tina Kotek failed to convince Trump to call off the deployment in a 10-minute phone call on Sept. 27.

Immergut did not immediately issue a ruling Friday after a short hearing and said she would issue an order later that day or over the weekend.

Meanwhile, the National Guard troops — from communities not too far from Portland — were training on the Oregon Coast in anticipation of deployment.

Thursday’s arrest of Sortor, however, likely means more federal law enforcement presence in Portland.

In an X post, which reposted a video from the protest and a photo of Sortor being detained, Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said there would be an immediate increase in federal resources to the city with enhanced Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement resources.

“This violence will end under @POTUS Trump,” McLaughlin wrote.

Rush and Catalini write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Saturday he will send troops to Portland, “authorizing Full Force, if necessary,” to handle “domestic terrorists” in Oregon’s biggest city as he expands his deployments to more American metropolises.

He made the announcement on social media, writing that he was directing the Department of Defense to “provide all necessary Troops to protect War ravaged Portland.”

Trump said the decision was necessary to protect U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities, which he described as “under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for details on Trump’s announcement, such as a timeline for the deployment or what troops would be involved. He previously threatened to send the National Guard into Chicago but has yet to follow through. A deployment in Memphis, Tenn., is expected to include about 150 troops, far fewer than were sent to the District of Columbia for Trump’s crackdown or in Los Angeles in response to immigration protests.

Pentagon officials did not immediately respond to requests for information.

Since the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, the Republican president has escalated his efforts to confront what he calls the “radical left,” which he blames for the country’s problems with political violence.

He deployed the National Guard and active-duty Marines to Los Angeles in June as part of his law enforcement takeover in Democratic-run cities.

The ICE facility in Portland has been the target of frequent demonstrations, sometimes leading to violent clashes. Some federal agents have been injured and several protesters have been charged with assault. When protesters erected a guillotine this month, the Department of Homeland Security described it as “unhinged behavior.”

Trump, in comments Thursday in the Oval Office, suggested that some kind of operation was in the works.

“We’re going to get out there and we’re going to do a pretty big number on those people in Portland,” he said, describing them as “professional agitators and anarchists.”

Earlier in September, Trump had described the environment in Portland as “like living in hell” and said he was considering sending in federal troops, as he has recently threatened to do to combat crime in other cities, including Chicago and Baltimore.

“Like other mayors across the country, I have not asked for — and do not need — federal intervention,” Portland’s mayor, Keith Wilson, said in a statement after Trump’s threat. Wilson said his city had protected freedom of expression while “addressing occasional violence and property destruction.”

In Tennessee, Memphis has been bracing for an influx of National Guard troops, and on Friday, Republican Gov. Bill Lee, who helped coordinate the operation, said they will be part of a surge of resources to fight crime in the city. Memphis is led by a Democratic mayor.

Megerian writes for the Associated Press.

NASHVILLE — President Trump said Friday he’ll send the National Guard to address crime concerns in Memphis with support from the mayor and Tennessee’s governor, making it his latest expansion of military forces into American cities that has tested the limits of presidential power and drawn sharp criticism from local leaders.

Speaking on Fox News, Trump said “the mayor is happy” and “the governor is happy” about the pending deployment. The city is “deeply troubled,” he said, adding, “we’re going to fix that just like we did Washington,” where he’s sent the National Guard and surged federal law enforcement.

Memphis is a majority-Black city and has a Democratic mayor, who did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Republican Gov. Bill Lee confirmed Friday that he was working with the Trump administration to deploy National Guard troops to Memphis as part of a new crime-fighting mission.

The governor said he planned to speak with the president on Friday to work out details of the mission and was working with Trump’s team to determine the most effective roles for the Tennessee National Guard, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Tennessee Highway Patrol, Memphis Police Department and other law enforcement agencies.

Trump on Friday said he decided to send troops into Memphis after Union Pacific’s CEO Jim Vena, who used to regularly visit the city when he served on the board of FedEx, urged him earlier this week to address crime in the city.

Since sending the National Guard to Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., Trump has openly mused about sending troops to some of the nation’s most Democratic cities — including Chicago and Baltimore — even as data show most violent crime in those places and around the country has declined in recent years.

Trump has also suggested he could send troops to New Orleans, another Democratic-run city in a Republican-leaning state.

Crime is down, but troops may be coming

The president’s announcement came just days after Memphis police reported decreases across all major crime categories in the first eight months of 2025 compared with the same period in previous years. Overall crime hit a 25-year-low, while murder hit a six-year low, police said.

Asked Friday if city and state officials had requested a National Guard deployment — or had formally signed off on it — the White House didn’t answer. It also didn’t offer a possible timeline or say whether federal law enforcement would be surged in connection with a guard deployment to Memphis, as happened when troops were deployed to Washington.

Trump said Friday that he “would have preferred going to Chicago,” where local politicians have fiercely resisted his plans, but suggested the city was too “hostile” with “professional agitators.”

Officials in Tennessee appear divided

Republican state Sen. Brent Taylor, who backs the Memphis troop deployment, said Friday the National Guard could provide “administrative and logistical support” to law enforcement and allow local officers to focus on police work. Republican U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn also voiced her approval.

The Democratic mayor of Shelby County, which includes the city of Memphis, criticized Trump’s proposal. “Mr. President, no one here is ‘happy,’ ” said Mayor Lee Harris. “Not happy at all with occupation, armored vehicles, semi-automatic weapons, and military personnel in fatigues.”

Republican Gov. Bill Lee said Wednesday that an ongoing FBI operation alongside state and local law enforcement had already made “hundreds of arrests targeting the most violent offenders.” He also said there are record levels of Tennessee Highway Patrol troopers in Shelby County, including a newly announced additional 50 troopers.

“We are actively discussing the next phase of our strategy to accelerate the positive momentum that’s already underway, and nothing is off the table,” Lee said in the statement.

On Thursday, Memphis Mayor Paul Young said he learned earlier this week that the governor and Trump were considering the deployment in Memphis.

“I am committed to working to ensure any efforts strengthen our community and build on our progress,” Young’s statement said. What the city needs most, he said, is money for intervention and crime prevention, as well as more officers on patrol and support for bolstering the police department’s investigations.

Some Republicans, including Taylor, the state senator, have asked the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation to audit the Memphis Police Department’s crime reporting.

Trump’s broader National Guard strategy

Trump first deployed troops to Los Angeles in early June over Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom’s objections by putting the California National Guard under federal jurisdiction, known as Title 10, to protect federal property from protests over immigration raids. The National Guard later helped protect officers during immigration arrests.

Alongside 4,000 National Guard members, 700 active duty Marines were also sent, and California sued over the intervention.

In Washington, D.C., where the president directly commands the National Guard, Trump has used troops for everything from armed patrols to trash cleanup without any legal issues.

Chicago is on edge

Trump’s comments underscored his shift away from threats to send troops into Chicago. Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker and Mayor Brandon Johnson, both Democrats, vowed legal action to block any such move.

Pritzker, a potential 2028 presidential contender, has said a federal intervention is not justified or wanted in Chicago. U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi this week accused state leaders of being uncooperative.

“We want Chicago to ask us for the help and they’re not going to do that,” she told reporters after an unrelated event near Chicago where federal agents seized vaping products.

Even without National Guard troops, residents in Chicago are expecting more federal immigration enforcement. The Department of Homeland Security launched a new operation this week, with federal officials confirming 13 people with prior criminal arrests had been detained. However, it’s still unclear what role that operation would play more broadly.

Mattise writes for the Associated Press.

Donald Trump’s recent floated proposal to deploy the National Guard to crime-overrun blue cities like Chicago and Baltimore has been met with howls of outrage from the usual suspects. For many liberal talking heads and Democratic officials, this is simply the latest evidence of Trump’s “authoritarianism.” But such specious analysis distracts from what all parties ought to properly focus on: the well-being of the people who actually live in such crime-addled jurisdictions.

What’s remarkable is not just the specific policy suggestion itself — after all, federal force has been called in, or sent in, to assist state-level law enforcement plenty of times — but rather how Trump is once again baiting his political opponents into defending the indefensible. He has a singular talent for making the left clutch onto wildly unpopular positions and take the wrong side of clear 80-20 issues. It’s political jiu-jitsu at its finest.

Crime in cities like Chicago and Baltimore isn’t a right-wing fever dream. It’s a persistent, documented crisis that continues to destroy communities and ruin lives. Chicago saw nearly 600 homicides in 2024 alone. In Baltimore, despite a recent downtick, violent crime remains exponentially higher than national averages. Sustained, decades-long Democratic leadership in both cities has failed, time and again, to secure even a minimum baseline level of safety for residents — many of whom are Black and working-class, two communities Democrats purport to champion.

Trump sees that leadership and quality-of-life vacuum. And he’s filling it with a popular message of law and order.

Trump’s proposal to deploy the National Guard isn’t the flight of fancy of a would-be strongman. It’s federalism functioning as the founders intended: The federal government must step in, per Article IV of the Constitution, when local governance breaks down so catastrophically that the feds are needed to “guarantee … a republican form of government.” Even more specifically, the Insurrection Act of 1807 has long been available as a congressionally authorized tool for presidents to restore order when state unrest reaches truly intolerable levels. Presidents from Jefferson to Eisenhower to Bush 41 have invoked it.

Trump’s critics would rather not have a conversation about bloody cities like Chicago — or the long history of presidents deploying the National Guard when local circumstances require it. They’d rather scream “fascism” than explain why a grandmother on the South Side of Chicago should have to dodge gang bullets on her way to church. They’d rather chant slogans about “abolishing the police” than face the hard fact that the communities most devastated by crime consistently clamor for more law enforcement — not less.

This is where Trump’s political instincts shine. He doesn’t try to “win” the crime debate by splitting the difference with progressives. He doesn’t offer a milquetoast promise to fund “violence interrupters” or expand toothless social programs. He goes right at the issue, knowing full well that the American people are with him.

Because they are. The public has consistently ranked crime and safety among their top concerns; last November, it was usually a top-five issue in general election exit polling. And polling consistently shows that overwhelming majorities — often in the 70-80% range — support more police funding and oppose the left’s radical decarceration agenda. Democrats, ever in thrall to their activist far-left flank, are stuck defending policies with rhetoric that most voters correctly identify as both dangerous and absurd.

Trump knows that when he floats these proposals, Democrats and their corporate media allies won’t respond with nuance. They’ll respond with knee-jerk outrage — just as they did in 2020, when Trump sent federal agents to Portland to stop violent anarchists from torching courthouses. The media framed it as martial law; sane Oregonians saw it as basic governance.

This dynamic plays out again and again. When Trump highlights the border crisis and the need to deport unsavory figures like Mahmoud Khalil and Kilmar Abrego Garcia, Democrats defend open borders. When Trump attacks gender ideology indoctrination in schools, Democrats double down on letting teachers hide children’s gender transitions from parents. When Trump condemns pro-Hamas rioters in American cities, Democrats can’t bring themselves to say a word of support for Israel’s war against a State Department-recognized foreign terrorist organization. When Trump signs an executive order seeking to prosecute flag burning, Democrats defend flag burning.

On and on it goes. By now, it’s a well-established pattern. And it’s politically devastating for the left. Moreover, the relevant history is on Trump’s side. This sort of federal corrective goes back all the way to the republic’s origins; those now freaking out might want to read up on George Washington’s efforts to quash the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794.

Call it the art of the 80-20 issue. Along with his sheer sense of humor, Trump’s instinctual knack for picking such winning battles is one of his greatest political assets. And this time, the winner won’t just be Trump himself — it will be Chicagoans and Baltimoreans as well.

Josh Hammer’s latest book is “Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West.” This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. @josh_hammer

WASHINGTON — The District of Columbia on Thursday sued to stop President Trump’s deployment of National Guard during his law enforcement intervention in Washington.

The city’s attorney general, Brian Schwalb, said the surge of troops essentially amounts to an “involuntary military occupation.” He argued in the federal lawsuit that the deployment, coinciding with an executive order Aug. 11, that now involves more than 1,000 troops is an illegal use of the military for domestic law enforcement.

A federal judge in California recently ruled that Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles after days of protests over immigration raids in June was illegal.

The Republican administration is appealing that decision and Trump has said he is ready to order federal intervention in Chicago and Baltimore, despite staunch opposition in those Democrat-led cities. That court ruling, however, does not directly apply to Washington, where the president has more control over the Guard than in states.

The White House did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment to the new lawsuit.

Members of the D.C. National Guard have had their orders extended through December, according to a Guard official. While that does not necessarily mean all those troops will serve that long, it is a strong indication that their role will not wind down soon.

Several GOP-led states have added National Guard troops to the ranks of those patrolling the streets and neighborhoods of the nation’s capital.

Schwalb’s filing contends the deployment also violates the Home Rule Act, signed by President Richard Nixon in 1973, because Trump acted without the mayor’s consent and is wrongly asserting federal control over units from other states.

The city’s attorney general, an elected official, is its top legal officer and is separate from Washington’s federal U.S. attorney, who is appointed by the president.

The lawsuit is the second from Schwalb against the Trump administration since the president asserted control over the city’s police department and sent in the Guard, actions that have been with protests from some residents.

Trump has said the operation is necessary to combat crime in the district, and Mayor Muriel Bowser, a Democrat, has pointed to a steep drop in offenses such as carjackings since it began.

Violent crime has been an issue in the capital for years, though data showed it was on the decline at the start of Trump’s intervention.

Whitehurst writes for the Associated Press.

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles was illegal, which the sane and democracy-loving among us should applaud — though of course an appeal is coming.

During the trial, though, a concerning but little-noticed exchange popped up between lawyers for the state of California and Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman, who was in charge of the federalized National Guard forces in L.A. It should have been an explosive, red-flag moment highlighting the pressure our military leaders are under to shake off their oath to the Constitution in favor of fealty to Trump.

Sherman testified that he objected to National Guard involvement in a show-of-force operation in MacArthur Park, where Latino families often congregate.

That action, Sherman said, was originally slated for Father’s Day, an especially busy time at the park. Internal documents showed it was considered it a “high-risk” operation. Sherman said he feared his troops would be pushed into confrontations with civilians if Border Patrol became overwhelmed by the crowds on that June Sunday.

Gregory Bovino, in charge of the immigration efforts in L.A. for the Border Patrol, questioned Sherman’s “loyalty to the country,” Sherman testified, for just showing hesitation about the wisdom and legality of an order.

It’s the pressure that “you’re not being patriotic if you don’t blow by the law and violate it and just bend the knee and and exhibit complete fealty and loyalty to Trump,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said Tuesday. And it’s a warning of what’s to come as Trump continues to press for military involvement in civilian law enforcement across the country.

For the record, Sherman has served our country for decades, earning along the way the prestigious Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star and the Meritorious Service Medal among other accolades.

The MacArthur Park operation, according to the Department of Homeland Security, was itself little more than a performative display of power “to demonstrate, through a show of presence, the capacity and freedom of maneuver of federal law enforcement within the Los Angeles,” according to agency documents presented in court. It was dubbed Operation Excalibur, in honor of the legendary sword of King Arthur that granted him divine right to rule, a point also included in court documents.

But none of that mattered. Instead, Sherman was pushed to exhibit the kind of blind loyalty to a dear leader that you’d expect to be demanded in dictatorships like those of North Korea or Hungary. Loyalty that confuses — or transforms — a duty to the Constitution with allegiance to Trump. Military experts warn that Sherman’s experience isn’t an isolated incident.

“There’s a chilling effect against pushing back or at least openly questioning any kind of orders,” Rachel E. VanLandingham, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel, told me. She’s former active duty judge advocate in the U.S. Air Force who now teaches at Southwestern Law School and serves as a national security law expert.

VanLandingham sees the leadership of our armed forces under pressure “to not engage in the critical thinking, which, as commanders, they are required to do, and to instead go along to get along.” She sees Sherman’s testimony as a “telling glimpse into the wearing away” of that crucial independence.

Such a shift in allegiance would undermine any court order keeping the military out of civilian law enforcement, leaving Trump with exactly the boots on the ground power he has sought since his first term. This is not theoretical.

Through Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Trump has purged the top ranks of the military of those who aren’t loyal to him. In February, Hegseth fired the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a Black soldier who championed diversity in the armed forces. Hegseth has also purged the head of the Pentagon’s intelligence agency, the head of the National Security Agency, the chief of Naval Operations, multiple senior female military staff and senior military lawyers for the Army, Navy and Air Force. In August, he fired the head of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency after that general gave a truthful assessment of our bombing of Iran’s nuclear sites, angering Trump.

At the same time, the military is being pushed farther into civilian affairs, and not just as erstwhile cops. The Associated Press reported Tuesday that Hegseth ordered 600 military lawyers to serve as temporary immigration judges.

Not to dive too deep into the convoluted immigration system, but these are civilian legal positions, another possible violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, VanLandingham points out.

And beyond that, can a military lawyer — trained and bound to follow orders — really act as an impartial judge in proceedings where the administration’s wish to deport is clearly known?

Goodbye due process, goodbye fair trial.

That “looks like martial law when you have militarized … judicial proceedings,” VanLandingham said. “How can we trust they are making unbiased decisions? You can’t.”

And even though Sherman pushed back on a full-blown military presence in MacArthur Park, that raid did happen. Federal agents marched through, about three weeks after Father’s Day, with National Guard troops remaining in their vehicles on the perimeter. It was Hegseth himself who authorized the mission.

Sherman also said on the stand that he was told there were “exceptions” to the Posse Comitatus Act — the law being debated in the trial that prevents the military from being used as civilian law enforcement — and that the president had the power to decide what those exceptions were.

“So your understanding is that while [some actions] are on the list of prohibited functions, you can do them under some circumstances?” Judge Charles Breyer asked.

“That’s the legal advice I received,” Sherman answered.

“And the president has the authority to make that decision?” Breyer asked.

“The president has the authority,” Sherman answered.

But does he?

Breyer also asked during the trial, if the president’s powers to both command troops and interpret law are so boundless, “What’s to prevent a national police force?” What, in effect, could stop Trump’s Excalibur-inspired inclinations?

For now, it’s the courts and ethical, mid-level commanders like Sherman, whose common-sense bravery and decency kept the military out of MacArthur Park.

Men and women who understand that the oaths they have sworn are to our country, not the man who would be king.

President Trump has threatened to deploy the National Guard to Chicago, New York, Seattle, Baltimore, San Francisco and Portland, Ore., to fight what he says is runaway crime. Yet data show most violent crime in those places and around the country has declined in recent years.

Homicides through the first six months of 2025 were down significantly compared with the same period in 2024, continuing a post-pandemic trend across the U.S.

Trump, who has already taken federal control of police in Washington, D.C., has maligned the six Democratic-run cities that all are in states that opposed him in 2024. But he hasn’t threatened sending in the Guard to any major cities in Republican-leaning states.

John Roman, a data expert who directs the Center on Public Safety & Justice at the University of Chicago, acknowledged violence in some urban neighborhoods has persisted for generations. But he said there’s no U.S. city where there “is really a crisis.”

“We’re at a remarkable moment in crime in the United States,” he said.

Public sees things differently

Trump might be tapping somewhat into public perception when he describes cities such as Chicago as a “killing field.” The vast majority of Americans, 81%, see crime as a “major problem” in large cities, according to a survey released this week by the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, though there is much less support, 32%, for federal control of police.

The public was reminded this week that shootings remain a frequent event in the U.S. In Minneapolis, which has seen homicides and most other crime fall, a shooter killed two children attending a Catholic school Mass on Wednesday and wounded 17 a day after three people died in separate shootings elsewhere in the city.

Still, over time, the picture is encouraging, according to numbers from AH Datalytics, which tracks crimes across the country using law enforcement data for its Real-Time Crime Index.

Aggravated assaults — which includes nonfatal shootings — through June were down in Chicago, Portland, Seattle, Baltimore and San Francisco and were virtually unchanged in New York. Reports of rape were up in New York and Chicago during the first half of the year, but down in the other cities, including a 51% drop in San Francisco.

The crime index also showed that property crimes, such as theft, burglary and motor vehicle theft, were mostly down in those six cities in the first six months of 2025. Theft crimes rose from 2020-24 in four of the six cities analyzed by AP.

Cities defend safety strategies

Trump exaggerated and misstated facts about crime in Washington when his administration took over the D.C. police department and flooded the capital with federal agents and the National Guard. He referred to Baltimore, 40 miles away, as a “hellhole” during a Cabinet meeting and has said he might “send in the ‘troops.’ ”

“I’m not walking in Baltimore right now,” Trump said.

Yet Baltimore has shown drops in major crime, according to the crime index. Homicides and rapes were down 25% or more in the first half of 2025 compared with the same period in 2024. Homicides were down for three consecutive years through 2024 and were 35% lower when compared with 2018.

“Deploying the National Guard for municipal policing purposes is not sustainable, scalable, constitutional, or respectful,” Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, a Democrat, said on social media site X.

Baltimore has found ways to reduce violence by offering mentorship, social services and job opportunities to young people likely to commit crimes, said Michael Scott, director of the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing at Arizona State University and a former police chief in Florida.

“That approach has resulted in more significant reductions in shootings and homicides than any other strategy I’ve seen in the over 50 years I’ve been in the field,” Scott said.

Vice President JD Vance told a Wisconsin crowd on Thursday that governors and mayors should ask the Trump administration for help.

“The president of the United States is not going out there forcing this on anybody,” Vance said of using the National Guard, “though we do think that we have the legal right to clean up America’s streets if we want to.”

Tales of different cities

Trump doesn’t seem to disparage big cities in states that favor Republicans. Charlotte, N.C., had 105 homicides in 2024 compared with 88 in 2023. The rate of vehicle thefts per 100,000 people more than doubled there from 2020-24. Indianapolis had a homicide rate of 19 per 100,000 residents in 2024 — more than four times higher than New York’s.

Amy Holt, 48, who recently moved to Charlotte from a gated community in northern Virginia, said someone tried to steal her husband’s car in their new city. She also found bullets on the ground while walking with dogs.

There’s no discussion about sending the National Guard to Charlotte. Holt believes most cities should be trusted to be in charge of public safety, adding that troops in uniforms would be “alarming” and “scary.”

Democratic-elected officials in cities targeted by Trump have publicly rejected suggestions that their residents need the National Guard. “Crime is at its lowest point in decades, visitors are coming back, and San Francisco is on the rise,” Mayor Daniel Lurie said.

Experts question just how effective the National Guard would be and where troops would be deployed in cities.

“It’s going to make residents think: Things must be much worse than I realize to have the military in my neighborhood. What’s going on?” Scott said. “It’s more likely to generate undue fear and apprehension than it will lead to perceptions of reassurance and safety.”

White and Keller write for the Associated Press. White reported from Detroit and Keller reported from Albuquerque, N.M. AP video journalist Erik Verduzco in Charlotte, N.C., contributed to this report.

President Trump declared Tuesday that federal prosecutors in Washington, D.C., should seek the death penalty for murders committed in the capital, claiming without explanation that “we have no choice.”

“That’s a very strong preventative,” he said of his decision. “I don’t know if we’re ready for it in this country, but we have it.”

Trump’s pronouncement is about much more than deterring killings, though. With speed and brazenness, Trump seems intent on creating a new, federal arrest and detention system outside of existing norms, aimed at everyday citizens and controlled by his whims. The death penalty is part of it, but stomping on civil rights is at the heart of it — ruthlessly exploiting anxiety about crime to aim repression at whatever displeases him, from immigration protesters to murderers.

This administration “is using the words of crime and criminals to get themselves a permission structure to erode civil rights and due processes across our criminal, legal and immigration systems in ways that I think should have everyone alarmed,” Rena Karefa-Johnson told me. She’s a former public defender who now works with Fwd.us, a bipartisan criminal justice advocacy group.

Authoritarians love the death penalty, and have long used it to repress not crime, but dissent. It is, after all, both the ultimate power and the ultimate fear, that the ruler of the state holds the lives of his people in his hands.

Though we are far from such atrocities, Spain’s purge of “communists” and other dissenters under Francisco Franco, Rodrigo Duterte’s extrajudicial killings of alleged drug dealers in the Philippines (though the death penalty remains illegal there) and the routine executions, even of journalists, under the repressive rulers in Saudi Arabia are chilling examples.

What each of those regimes shares in common with this moment in America is the rhetoric of making a better society — often by purging perceived threats to order — even if that requires force, or the loss of rights.

Suddenly, violent criminals become no different than petty criminals, and petty criminals become no different than immigrants or protesters. They are all a threat to a nostalgic lost glory of the homeland that must be restored at any cost, animals that only understand force.

“We have no choice.”

The result is that the people become, if not accustomed to masked agents and the military on our streets, too scared to protest it, fearful they will become the criminal target, the hunted animal.

Already, the National Guard in D.C. is carrying live weapons. With great respect to the women and men who serve in the Guard, and who no doubt individually serve with honor, they are not trained for domestic law enforcement. Forget the legalities, the Constitution and the Posse Comitatus Act, which should prevent troops from policing American citizens, and does prevent them from making arrests.

Who do we want these soldiers to shoot? Who have they been told to shoot? A kid with a can of spray paint? A pickpocket? A drug dealer? A flag burner? A sandwich thrower?

We don’t even know what their orders are. What choices they will have to make.

But we do know that police do not walk around openly holding their guns, and certainly do not stroll with rifles. For civilian law enforcement, their guns are defensive weapons, and they are trained to use them as such.

Few walking by these troops, even the most law abiding, can fail to feel the power of those weapons at the ready. It is a visceral knowledge that to provoke them could mean death. That is a powerful form of repression, meant to stop dissent through fear of repercussion.

It is a power that Trump is building on multiple fronts. After declaring his “crime emergency” in D.C., Trump mandated a serious change in the mission of the National Guard.

President Trump with members of law enforcement and National Guard troops in Washington on Aug. 21, 2025.

(Jacquelyn Martin / Associated Press)

He ordered every state to train soldiers on “quelling civil disturbances,” and to have soldiers ready to rapidly mobilize in case of protests. That same executive order also creates a National Guard force ready to deploy nationwide at the president’s command — presumably taking away states’ rights to decide when to utilize their troops, as happened in California.

Trump has already announced his intention to send them to Chicago, called Baltimore a “hellhole” that also may be in need and falsely claimed that, “in California, you would’ve not had the Olympics had I not sent in the troops” because “there wouldn’t be anything left” without their intervention.

Retired Maj. Gen. Randy Manner, a former acting vice chief of the National Guard Bureau, told ABC that “the administration is trying to desensitize the American people to get used to American armed soldiers in combat vehicles patrolling the streets of America. “

Manner called the move “extremely disturbing.”

Add to that Trump’s desire to imprison opponents. In recent days, the FBI raided the home of former National Security Advisor John Bolton, a Republican who has criticized Trump, especially on his policy toward Ukraine. Then Trump attempted to fire Lisa D. Cook, a Biden appointee to the Federal Reserve board, after accusing her of mortgage fraud in another apparent attempt to bend that independent agency to his will on the economy.

On Wednesday, Trump wrote on social media that progressive billionaire George Soros and his son Alex should be charged under federal racketeering laws for “their support of Violent Protests.”

“We’re not going to allow these lunatics to rip apart America any more, never giving it so much as a chance to “BREATHE,” and be FREE,” Trump wrote. “Soros, and his group of psychopaths, have caused great damage to our Country! That includes his Crazy, West Coast friends. Be careful, we’re watching you!”

Consider yourselves threatened, West Coast friends.

But of course, we are already living under that thunder. Dozens of average citizens are facing serious charges in places including Los Angeles for their participation in immigration protests.

Whether they are found guilty or not, their lives are upended by the anxiety and expense of facing such prosecutions. And thousands are being rounded up and deported, at times seemingly grabbed solely for the color of their skin, as Immigration and Customs Enforcement, arguably the most Trump-loyal law enforcement agency, sees its budget balloon to $45 billion, enough to keep 100,000 people detained at a time.

Despite Trump’s maelstrom of dread-inducing moves, resistance is alive, well and far from futile.

A new Quinnipiac University national poll found that 56% of voters disapprove of the National Guard being deployed in D.C.

This week, the U.S. attorney’s office in D.C. for a second time failed to convince a grand jury to indict a man who threw a submarine sandwich at federal officers — proof that average citizens not only are sane, but willing to stand up for what is right.

That comes after a grand jury three times rejected the same kind of charge against a woman who was arrested after being shoved against a wall by an immigration agent.

Californians will decide this in November whether to redraw their electoral maps to put more Democrats in Congress. Latino leaders in Chicago are protesting possible troops there. People are refusing to allow fear to define their actions.

Turns out, we do have a choice.

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Sunday threatened to expand his military deployments to more Democratic-led cities, responding to an offer by Maryland’s governor to join him in a tour of Baltimore by saying he might instead “send in the ‘troops.’”

Last week, Trump said he was considering Chicago and New York City for troop deployments similar to what he has unleashed on the nation’s capital, where thousands of National Guard and federal law enforcement officers are patrolling the streets.

Trump made the threat to Baltimore in a spat with Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, a Democrat who has criticized Trump’s unprecedented flex of federal power, which the Republican president says is aimed at combating crime and homelessness in Washington. Moore last week invited Trump to visit his state to discuss public safety and walk the streets.

In a social media post Sunday, Trump said Moore asked “in a rather nasty and provocative tone,” and then raised the specter of repeating the National Guard deployment he made in Los Angeles over the objections of California’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom.

“Wes Moore’s record on Crime is a very bad one, unless he fudges his figures on crime like many of the other ‘Blue States’ are doing,” Trump wrote. “But if Wes Moore needs help, like Gavin Newscum did in L.A., I will send in the ‘troops,’ which is being done in nearby DC, and quickly clean up the Crime.”

Moore said he invited Trump to Maryland “because he seems to enjoy living in this blissful ignorance” about improving crime rates in Baltimore.

“The president is spending all of his time talking about me,” Moore said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday. “I’m spending my time talking about the people I serve.”

After surging National Guard troops and federal law enforcement officers into Washington this month, Trump has said Chicago and New York City are most likely his next targets, eliciting strong pushback from Democratic leaders in both states. The Washington Post reported Saturday that the Pentagon has spent weeks preparing for an operation in Chicago that would include National Guard troops and, potentially, active-duty forces.

Asked about the Post report, the White House pointed to Trump’s earlier comments discussing his desire to expand his use of military forces to target local crime.

“I think Chicago will be our next,” Trump told reporters at the White House on Friday, adding, “And then we’ll help with New York.”

Trump has repeatedly described some of the nation’s largest cities — run by Democrats, with Black mayors and majority-minority populations — as dangerous and filthy. Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott is Black, as is Moore. The District of Columbia and New York City also have Black mayors.

The Rev. Al Sharpton, speaking during a religious event Sunday at Howard University in Washington, said the Guard’s presence in the nation’s capital was not about crime: “This is about profiling us.”

“This is laced with bigotry and racism,” he later elaborated to reporters. “Not one white mayor has been designated. And I think this is a civil rights issue, a race issue, and an issue of D.C. statehood.”

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, a Democrat, said there is no emergency warranting the deployment of National Guard troops in Chicago.

“Donald Trump is attempting to manufacture a crisis, politicize Americans who serve in uniform, and continue abusing his power to distract from the pain he’s causing families,” Pritzker wrote on X. “We’ll continue to follow the law, stand up for the sovereignty of our state, and protect Illinoisans.”

Cooper and Askarinam write for the Associated Press and reported from Phoenix and Washington, respectively.

WASHINGTON — The main drag in Washington’s Columbia Heights neighborhood is typically crammed with people peddling pupusas, fresh fruit, souvenirs and clothing. On Tuesday, though, things felt different: The white tents that bulge with food and merchandise were scarcer than usual.

“Everything has stopped over the last week,” said Yassin Yahyaoui, who sells jewelry and glass figurines. Most of his customers and fellow vendors, he said, have “just disappeared” — particularly if they speak Spanish.

The abnormally quiet street was further proof of how President Trump’s decision to flood the nation’s capital with federal law enforcement and immigration agents has rippled through the city. Although troop deployments and foot patrols in downtown areas and around the National Mall have garnered the most attention, life in historically diverse neighborhoods such as Columbia Heights is being reshaped as well.

The White House has credited Trump’s crackdown with hundreds of arrests, while local officials have criticized the aggressive intervention in the city’s affairs.

The confrontation escalated Tuesday as the top federal prosecutor in the District of Columbia opened an investigation into whether police officials have falsified crime data, according to a person familiar with the situation who wasn’t authorized to comment publicly. The inquiry could be used to bolster Trump’s claims that the city is suffering from a “crime emergency” despite statistics showing improvements. The mayor’s office and the Police Department declined to comment.

Stops are visible across the city

Blocks away from where Yahyaoui had set up shop, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and local police stopped a moped driver delivering pizza. The agents drove unmarked cars and wore tactical vests; one covered his face with a green balaclava. They questioned the driver and required him to present documentation relating to his employment and legal residency status. No arrest was made.

The White House said there have been 465 arrests since Aug. 7, when the federal operation began, including 206 people who were in the country illegally. The Trump administration has ramped up immigration enforcement and the president signed an executive order on Aug. 11 to put the Police Department under federal control for 30 days; extending that would require congressional approval.

Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said Trump was “unapologetically standing up for the safety of law-abiding American citizens.”

Glorida Gomez, who has been working a fruit stand in Columbia Heights for more than a decade, said business is worse now than during the COVID-19 pandemic. She said many vendors stopped coming because they were afraid of encountering federal agents.

Customers seem less willing to spend money too. Reina Sosa, another vendor, said that “they’re saving it in case something happens,” like getting detained by immigration enforcement.

Ana Lemus, who also sells fruit, said that “we need more humanity on that part of the government.”

“Remember that these are people being affected,” she said. “The government is supposed to protect members of the community, not attack or discriminate against them.”

Bystanders have recorded some arrests on video. On Saturday morning, Christian Enrique Carias Torres was detained in another part of the city during a scuffle with ICE agents, and the video ricocheted around social media. An FBI agent’s affidavit said Carias Torres kicked one of the agents in the leg and another was injured when he fell during the struggle and struck his head on the pavement. A stun gun was used to subdue Carias Torres, who was charged Tuesday with resisting arrest.

An alphabet soup of federal agencies have been circulating in the city. In the Petworth neighborhood, roughly 20 officers from the FBI, Homeland Security, Park Police and U.S. Marshals descended on an apartment building on Tuesday morning. A man extended his hands out a window while officers cuffed him. Yanna Stelle, 19, who witnessed the incident, said she heard the chatter from walkie-talkies as officers moved through the hallways.

“That was too many police first thing in the morning — especially for them to just be doing a warrant,” she said.

More National Guard troops from other states are slated to arrive

From his actions and remarks, Trump seems interested in ratcheting up the pressure. His administration has asked Republican-led states to send more National Guard troops. Mississippi, Tennessee, Louisiana, West Virginia, South Carolina and Ohio have agreed to deploy a total of 1,100 troops to the city, on top of the 800 from the D.C.-based National Guard.

Resistance to that notion is starting to surface, both on the streets and in Congress. On Tuesday, Democratic Rep. Sam Liccardo (D-San José) introduced a bill that would require a report outlining the cost of any National Guard deployment unrelated to a natural disaster, as well as its legal basis. It would also require reporting on any Guard interactions with civilians and other aspects of the operation.

Forty-four Democrats have signed on in support, including Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, Washington’s nonvoting delegate in the House of Representatives. Although the measure stands little chance of passing while Republicans control the chamber, it’s a sign of a wider Democratic response to Trump’s unprecedented moves in Washington.

“Are L.A. and D.C. a test run for a broader authoritarian takeover of local communities?” Liccardo asked. He added that the country’s founders were suspicious of “executive control of standing armies.”

Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, said that “Democrats continue to side with criminals over law-abiding Americans.”

What kind of assistance will be offered?

It’s unclear what kind of help the National Guard will be able to provide when it comes to crime.

“The fact of the matter is that the National Guard are not law-enforcement trained, and they’re not going into places where they would be engaged in law enforcement activity,” said Jeff Asher, a crime analyst and consultant at AH Datalytics. “So I don’t know that it’s fair to expect much of it.”

Trump declared in a social media post that his initiative has transformed Washington from “the most unsafe ‘city’ in the United States” to “perhaps the safest, and getting better every single hour!”

The number of crimes reported in D.C. did drop by about 8% this week as compared with the week before, according to Metropolitan Police data. There was some variation within that data, with crimes such as robberies and car thefts declining while burglaries increased a bit and homicides remained steady.

Still, a week is a small sample size — far from enough time for data to show meaningful shifts, Asher said. Referring to the monthlong period that D.C.’s home rule law allows the president to exert control over the Police Department, he said: “I think 30 days is too short of a period to really say anything.”

Brown, Whitehurst and Megerian write for the Associated Press. AP writers Michael Kunzelman, Alanna Durkin Richer, Jacquelyn Martin and Ashraf Khalil contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — A man charged with a felony for hurling a sandwich at a federal law-enforcement official in the nation’s capital has been fired from his job at the Justice Department, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said in a social media post Thursday.

A video of Sean Charles Dunn berating a group of federal agents late Sunday went viral online. Dunn was arrested on an assault charge after he threw a “sub-style” sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection agent, a court filing said.

Dunn, 37, of Washington, was an international affairs specialist in the Justice Department’s criminal division, according to a department official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a personnel matter.

“This is an example of the Deep State we have been up against for seven months as we work to refocus DOJ,” Bondi wrote. “You will NOT work in this administration while disrespecting our government and law enforcement.”

A multiagency flood of uniformed federal law enforcement officers had fanned out across the city over the weekend after the White House had announced stepped-up measures to combat crime. That was before President Trump’s announcement Monday that he was taking over Washington’s police department and activating 800 members of the National Guard.

The Justice Department still employs a former FBI agent who was charged with joining a mob’s attack on the U.S. Capitol and cheering on rioters during the Jan. 6, 2021, siege, repeatedly yelling, “Kill ‘em!” as they attacked police. The former FBI supervisory agent, Jared Lane Wise, is serving as a counselor to Justice Department pardon attorney Ed Martin Jr., who was a leading figure in Trump’s campaign to overturn the 2020 election.

Around 11 p.m. on Sunday, Dunn approached a group of CBP agents, pointed a finger in an agent’s face and swore at him, calling him a “fascist,” a police affidavit says. An observer’s video captured Dunn throwing a sandwich at the agent’s chest, the affidavit says.

“Why are you here? I don’t want you in my city!” Dunn shouted, according to police.

Dunn tried to run away but was apprehended, police said.

An attorney for Dunn didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on Dunn’s charge.

The incident coincided with Trump’s push to flood the city with National Guard troops and federal officers. Trump claims crime in the city has reached emergency levels, but city leaders point to statistics showing violent crime at a 30-year low.

Kunzelman and Richer write for the Associated Press.

Remember “I alone can fix it”? Donald Trump, who made that laughable statement in his 2016 convention acceptance speech, is now testing the theory in Washington.

Trump and his party have been threatening a D.C. takeover for years and made it part of the Republican platform last year. But it was all just empty talk and random uppercase words until a former staffer at the Department of Government Efficiency was reportedly attacked in an attempted carjacking in the wee hours of Aug. 3 in a busy area of bars and restaurants.

It doesn’t matter at all to Trump that D.C.’s violent crime rate fell to a 30-year low last year and is down another 26% so far this year compared with 2024, or that a police report suggests police saw the incident and intervened. This particular victim — a teenage Elon Musk protégé and notorious DOGE operative — gave this particular president the “emergency” he needed to declare a “public safety emergency.”

Of course, he called it “a historic action to rescue our nation’s capital from crime, bloodshed, bedlam and squalor and worse.” He has federalized the city’s Metropolitan Police Department and deployed 800 members of its National Guard (to start). Over the weekend he sent 450 federal police officers from 18 agencies to patrol the city.

It’s the second time this year that Trump has played the National Guard card to show who’s boss. He sent 4,000 Guard troops and 700 Marines to Los Angeles in June, over the objections of Gov. Gavin Newsom and Mayor Karen Bass, ostensibly to restore order amid immigration raids. But the move sparked new tensions, protests and at least one surreal foray by armed, masked agents into a park where children were attending summer camp. It also drew a legal challenge from Newsom, which is unfolding in court this week.

There will be no similar lawsuit in D.C., where I’ve lived for decades. That’s because the U.S. president controls our National Guard. The hard truth is that though Wyoming and Vermont each have fewer people than D.C.’s 700,000-plus residents, D.C. is not a state. It’s still in a semi-colonial status, with a mayor and city council whose actions can be nullified by Congress, and with no voting representation in that Congress.

In fact, Congress accidentally slashed $1.1 billion from D.C.’s budget — our own money, not federal dollars! — in its cost-cutting frenzy last spring. A promised fix never came, forcing cuts that affect public safety and much else. And yet the city’s crime rate has continued to fall.

Compared with California, an economic juggernaut of more than 39 million people located thousands of miles from Washington, D.C. is a minuscule and all too convenient target for an executive aiming to prove his manhood, show off to autocrats in other countries or create headlines to distract from news he doesn’t like.

I could go off on Trump for his lies, overreach and disrespect for D.C. and its right to govern itself. Or the various Republicans who have imposed conservative policies on D.C. for years and now are trying to repeal its home rule law.

But what really enrages me is the lack of Democratic nerve — or even bravado — that has left D.C. so vulnerable to Trump and conservative-run Congresses. Where was the modern-day Lyndon Johnson (the “master of the Senate,” in Robert Caro’s phrase) in 2021, to whip support in the narrowly Democratic Senate after the House passed a D.C. statehood bill for the second year in a row?

Trump has no mastery beyond bullying and bribery — but those tactics are working fine with Congress, corporations, law firms, academia and sovereign nations across the globe. As former House Speaker Newt Gingrich put it last week: “You have this rock standing in the middle of history called Donald Trump. And he’s saying: ‘Do you want to do it my way, or do you want to be crushed? I prefer you do it my way, but if you have to be crushed, that’s OK.’ ”

Gingrich correctly characterized most responses to Trump as “You know, I’ve always wanted to be part of the team,” and added: “If he can sustain this, he’s moving into a league that, other than Washington and Lincoln, nobody has gotten to the level of energy, drive and effectiveness that we see with Trump.”

Unfortunately, Trump is aiming to speed-raze what Washington and Lincoln built. (He keeps claiming it’s “Liberation Day” for D.C., but the last “Liberation Day” — his April 2 tariff announcements — tanked the stock market.) The only conceivable antidote is to elect a mad-as-hell Democratic Congress in 2026 and, in 2028, an arm-twisting, strong-arming, terror-inspiring Democratic president who’s in a hurry to get things done. Someone who’s forceful, persuasive and resolved to use the power they have while they have it.

The top priorities, beyond reversing as much institutional and constitutional damage as possible, should be structural: Supreme Court term limits and ethics rules with teeth, a national gerrymandering ban, a sensible and uniform national voter ID policy, and minimum national standards for early voting and mail voting — to protect the will of the people and the republic itself.

Equally important, make D.C. the state of Douglass Commonwealth, named after the abolitionist Frederick Douglass rather than the colonizing Christopher Columbus. Rural America has wielded disproportionate power since the late 1800s, when Republicans added sparsely populated states and permanently skewed the Senate. Two new D.C. senators would help correct that imbalance.

The problem is that the next president, or even the next Congress, might arrive too late for D.C. Trump has already begun the federal takeover he has threatened so often for so many years. He took over the Kennedy Center. He took over Congress. We should have expected we’d be next.

Back in March, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) proposed that D.C. seek temporary sanctuary with Maryland, which ceded most of the land to create the capital in the first place. “You’d definitely be safer,” he said he told Mayor Muriel Bowser.

That offer, joke or not, practical or not, is looking increasingly inviting by the day.

Jill Lawrence is a writer and author of “The Art of the Political Deal: How Congress Beat the Odds and Broke Through Gridlock.” @jilldlawrence.bsky.social

WASHINGTON — In past Olympic Games held on American soil, sitting presidents have served in passive, ceremonial roles. President Trump may have other plans.

An executive order signed by Trump on Tuesday names him chair of a White House task force on the 2028 Games in Los Angeles, viewed by the president as “a premier opportunity to showcase American exceptionalism,” according to a White House statement. Trump, the administration said, “is taking every opportunity to showcase American greatness on the world stage.”

At the White House, speaking in front of banners adding the presidential seal to the logo for LA28, Trump said he would send the military back to Los Angeles if he so chose in order to protect the Games. In June, Trump sent the National Guard and U.S. Marines to the city amid widespread immigration enforcement actions, despite widespread condemnation from Mayor Karen Bass and other local officials.

“We’ll do anything necessary to keep the Olympics safe, including using our National Guard or military, OK?” he said. “I will use the National Guard or the military. This is going to be so safe. If we have to.”

Trump’s executive order establishes a task force led by him and Vice President JD Vance to steer federal coordination for the Games. The task force will work with federal, state and local partners on security and transportation, according to the White House.

Those roles have been fairly standard for the federal government in past U.S.-hosted Olympic Games. But Trump’s news conference could present questions about whether a president with a penchant for showmanship might assume an unusually active role in planning the Olympics, set to take place in the twilight of his final term.

There is ample precedent for military and National Guard forces providing security support during U.S.-hosted Olympic Games. But coming on the heels of the recent military deployment to Los Angeles, Trump’s comments may prove contentious.

French president Emmanuel Macron was a key figure in preparations for last year’s Paris Games, including expressing his vocal support for the ambitious Olympic opening ceremony plan to parade athletes down the Seine River on boats. Many officials were concerned about potential threats along the 3.7-mile stretch, but authorities responded by increasing security measures that included up to 45,000 police officers and 10,000 soldiers.

The task force, to be housed within the Department of Homeland Security, will “assist in the planning and implementation of visa processing and credentialing programs for foreign athletes, coaches, officials, and media personnel,” the executive order said. City officials have expressed concern that the president’s border policies could deter international visitors and complicate visa processing for Olympic teams.

Tensions with L.A.

More concentrated involvement from Trump could spell further strain with Los Angeles city officials, who sought to make nice in the wake of devastating January fires, but have fiercely bucked Trump’s recent immigration offensive. Trump swiped at Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass during his remarks on Tuesday, calling her “not very competent” and criticizing the pace of city permitting for fire rebuilding. (Bass did not immediately respond to a request for comment.)

Known for her coalition-building skills, Bass is not, by nature, a public brawler. In the aftermath of the Palisades fire, she appeared determined to preserve her fragile relationship with the president — and the billions of dollars of federal aid her city was depending on — responding diplomatically even as he publicly attacked her.

But that determined cordiality crumbled when masked immigration agents and military personnel descended on the city. With troops stationed in the city and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal authorities arresting undocumented immigrants at courthouses, car washes and Home Depot parking lots, Bass took on Trump forcefully.

At news conferences and in interviews, she accused the president of waging “an all-out assault on Los Angeles, inciting chaos and fear and using the city as “a test case for an extremist agenda.”

Casey Wasserman, chairman of LA28, attended the White House event, thanking Trump for “leaning in” to planning for an Olympics that was awarded to Los Angeles during his first term.

“You’ve been supportive and helpful every step of the way,” Wasserman said, noting that the Games would amount to hosting seven Super Bowls a day for 30 days. “With the creation of this task force, we’ve unlocked the opportunity to level up our planning and deliver the largest, and yes, greatest Games for our nation, ever.”

Wasserman will also have a delicate political balancing act, managing a Games in a deep-blue city with a famously mercurial Republican president in office.

President Trump holds a full set of medals from the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles during Tuesday’s event at which he announced an executive order regarding federal involvement in the 2028 Los Angeles Games.

(Julia Demaree Nikhinson / Associated Press)

A Hollywood scion and sports and entertainment mogul, Wasserman has long been a prominent Democratic donor known for his close relationship with the Clintons.

But in recent months he has diversified his giving, with hefty donations to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee and House Speaker Mike Johnson’s leadership fund. Wasserman has publicly praised Trump’s commitment to the Games and traveled to Mar-a-Lago in January to meet with the incoming president.

Presidents have long played a role in the Games. In 1984, Ronald Reagan formally opened the Summer Olympics in Los Angeles, becoming the first American president to do so. Reagan attended several Olympic events, but repeatedly emphasized the federal government’s role was focused on security, according to the White House Historical Assn.

The Olympic Charter requires the host country’s head of state to officially open the Games, but before Reagan, the duty had been fulfilled by local political leaders or vice presidents representing the president.

Ever-tightening security

The federal government has historically provided significant funding when the Games are hosted on U.S. soil, with financial support going toward both security and infrastructure.

Leading up to the 1996 Games in Atlanta, the federal government spent $227 million on security and transportation, playing “very much a junior partner” to the Olympic Committee, then-Vice President Al Gore said at the time. Still, a bombing at the Centennial Olympic Park during the games that summer shook the security establishment.

The 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City were the first Games to be classified as a “National Special Security Event,” the government’s highest security rating for any event that designates the U.S. Secret Service as the lead agency for implementing security. That standard has remained in place for U.S.-held Olympic Games ever since. The Secret Service will also lead security coordination for the 2028 Games.

The federal government was particularly involved in the Salt Lake City games, which were held just months after the 9/11 attacks.

Los Angeles leaders are actively involved in the security planning, and are currently in negotiations with LA28 for the use of the city’s police, traffic officers, and other employees during the Olympics and Paralympics.

Security, trash removal, traffic control, paramedics and more will be needed during the 17-day Olympics and the two-week Paralympics the following month.

Under the 2021 Games agreement between LA28 and the city, LA28 must reimburse Los Angeles for any services that go beyond what the city would provide on a normal day. The two parties must agree by Oct. 1, 2025, on “enhanced services” — additional city services needed for the Games, beyond that normal level — and determine rates, repayment timelines, audit rights and other processes.

Overtime for Los Angeles police officers, and any other major expenses, would be acutely felt by a city government that recently closed a nearly $1-billion budget deficit, in part by slowing police hiring.

Wilner reported from Washington, Wick and Nguyen from Los Angeles. Times staff writer Dakota Smith contributed to this report.