Dem
47
GOP
53
Ostensibly, Donald Trump is sending National Guard troops and ICE officers to invade various cities because crime in those places is "out of control." He's already hit Washington, DC, and Los Angeles, and Chicago is on deck. Trump has also suggested that New York City and Baltimore are in the queue.
We imagine that roughly 100.0% of readers know that this is nonsense, and that these invasions are just MAGA red meat for the benefit of the base. Still, instead of just assuming, how about some evidence? First of all, here are the 10 American cities with the highest rates of violent crime:
It is true that some of the cities on this list are also some of the cities on Trump's list. On the other hand, the single most violent city in America, crime-wise, is Memphis, and there's been nary a word about that. Not to mention Kansas City, Houston, or Nashville. At very least, even if the administration is trying to fight "crime," it's clear that red states get a free pass, no matter how bad some of their cities might be.
Readers might also notice that two of Trump's first three targets (namely, Los Angeles and Chicago) aren't even on that list. We suggest that greater clarity into the decision-making process can be had if we examine the list of blue- and purple-state cities (remember, red-state cities get a pass) with the largest number of Black people. Here are all such cities with at least 200,000 Black residents:
That's eight cities, five in blue states/districts and four in purple states. The purple-state cities are certainly possibilities in the future, and J.D. Vance has even hinted at Milwaukee. However, purple states are not ideal, since there is considerably more chance of the GOP being punished at the ballot box (each of the three purple states on the list has either a gubernatorial election or a U.S. Senate election next year).
Following from that, if we therefore limit ourselves to blue states (which are basically a lost cause for the Republicans), and cities with at least 200,000 Black residents, we end up with this list:
Gee, that list of targets cities looks awfully familiar. You might say that Trump's hands
aren't the only thing in this administration to be Black and blue.
Meanwhile, take a look at this chart of murders in next-target Chicago over the last 60 years:
The city did not report data for those two years in the 1980s, if you are wondering about the gap. In any case, it's clear that if murder—the most violent of violent crimes—has been a problem, it was during the Reagan-Bush years, and then during Trump v1.0. However, there was no deployment of the National Guard in response at those times. Today, murder rates (and other violent crime rates) are close to historical lows, and certainly are not at "crisis" level.
We think it would be harder for it to be clearer that this is just political theater, meant to convince the MAGA base that Trump is doing something about those crime-ridden blue cities in general, and about those uppity negroes in particular. Given that this man rose to power by scapegoating Mexican immigrants as gang members, and given that demagogues always have to keep finding new targets, this is par for the course.
It's actually a little strange to us, though, that the White House is doing this NOW, as opposed to next year (i.e., when the elections are much closer). Maybe Trump doesn't have the patience to wait, or maybe he's trying to create a distraction from the EpsteinYZ Affair. If he just so happens to order the commencement of operations in Chicago today (see item below), it would certainly lend support to the latter thesis.
In any case, we may well be getting close to the point of the Trump administration overplaying its hand. The administration has already lost in court, on this very issue (see above), and will presumably keep doing so. Even the Supremes, as accommodating as they have been for him, are going to be very leery of granting him the authority to make war against those Americans who are unfavored. Trump might defy the courts, of course, but if he does, that might well be a bridge too far for even some Republicans in Congress.
Meanwhile, consider a blue-state governor like J.B. Pritzker (D-IL). On his side of the ledger, Pritzker knows a few things. He knows, first of all, that he would like to run for president in 2028. He also knows that more than 99% of Democrats are unhappy with the Trump administration, and many of them want some sort of pushback. On top of that, Pritzker knows that the law is on his side here, based on both what the actual legal texts (like the Posse Comitatus Act) say and the court decisions thus far (again, see above) have said.
On Trump's side of the ledger, Pritzker knows a few things, too. He knows that Trump is a coward who generally chickens out. He also knows that Trump's only real interest is in a photo-op or two, and maybe a few over-the-top prosecutions of sandwich throwers. As many readers will know, the National Guard has done virtually nothing while being deployed to D.C., and now, so the government gets something for its money, many of the soldiers have been reduced to picking up litter. Yet despite the fact that the assault on D.C. has had no appreciable impact, and that Jeannine Pirro's efforts to over-charge and indict keep blowing up in her face (and there was yet another one yesterday), Trump has nonetheless claimed total victory, asserting that he "eliminated" crime in D.C. He's even got sycophants, like Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), decreeing that Trump's efforts in D.C. should cause him to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
In view of all of this, it is no surprise that Pritzker gave a defiant speech last week. The Governor told Illinoisans to keep their protests peaceful, but he also ended with this:
Finally, to the Trump administration officials who are complicit in this scheme, to the public servants who have forsaken their oath to the Constitution to serve the petty whims of an arrogant little man, to any federal official who would come to Chicago and try to incite my people into violence as a pretext for something darker and more dangerous: We are watching and we are taking names.
This country has survived darker periods than the one that we are going through right now, and eventually the pendulum will swing back, maybe even next year. Donald Trump has already shown himself to have little regard for the many acolytes that he has encouraged to commit crimes on his behalf.
You can delay justice for a time, but history shows you cannot prevent it from finding you eventually. If you hurt my people, nothing will stop me, not time or political circumstance, from making sure that you face justice under our constitutional rule of law.
As Dr. King once said, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." Humbly I would add, it doesn't bend on its own. History tells us we often have to apply force needed to make sure that the arc gets where it needs to go. This is one of those times.
Yesterday, after Trump once again affirmed that "We're going in" to Chicago (which sounds like he's been watching a few too many World War II movies), Pritzker responded, firing back at the "loss of sanity." Meanwhile, Chicago mayor Brandon Johnson (D) has already signed an executive order with a tentative framework for how the city will resist the President's efforts, most obviously by not lending assistance from local police, and otherwise lifting no fingers in response to the administration's efforts. Well, OK, maybe one finger.
There is little to no precedent for this in U.S. history, so we have no idea how this will play out. All we can offer is the following, disjointed, observations. First, Pritzker and Johnson are clearly setting up the lawsuits that are undoubtedly already drawn up and ready to file; they will make the argument that deploying the National Guard when there's no emergency, and there's been no input from local officials, is unprecedented and illegal. Second, they are working to get their messaging out there, ahead of the Trump administration messaging. Third, during the Civil Rights Movement, when government personnel acted aggressively, and protesters responded passively and non-violently, it was not the government personnel who won over millions of hearts and minds. We are now getting dangerously close to Civil Rights Movement, Redux. (Z)