President Trump is looking to replicate the federal forces’ deployment in Washington, D.C. to address crime issues in other major U.S. cities, with Chicago being a key target. This follows a noticeable impact in the District of Columbia.
Chicago stands out on his list, especially as Mayor Brandon Johnson and Governor JB Pritzker have highlighted improvements in safety compared to the previous year. Yet, as of June 2025, the city recorded 498 murders, averaging over 40 per month. This past Labor Day weekend alone saw 53 people shot, including eight fatalities from two mass shootings.
On Monday, Pritzker expressed concerns at a press conference, arguing against the idea of federal troops entering Chicago, claiming, “No one here today claims to have solved all the crimes in Chicago.” He emphasized that calling in the military to invade cities disrupts the lives of everyday people and is, in his view, “unprecedented and unjustified.” He further stated that such actions are illegal and un-American.
However, history suggests otherwise. When Trump discusses deploying the National Guard, it’s not without precedent. In 1957, President Eisenhower sent troops to Little Rock to uphold civil rights amidst resistance. Similarly, in 1962, federal forces were dispatched to control riots in Oxford, Mississippi, related to the integration of black students.
Eisenhower and Kennedy used military intervention to protect African Americans’ rights to education. A deployment by Trump could be interpreted as an effort to safeguard lives amid ongoing violence in Chicago.
The racial disparities in murder rates are striking, with significantly higher rates among black residents compared to white residents. If Pritzker doesn’t recognize this as a legitimate reason for federal action, he’s essentially accepting the status quo, which allows for the continued loss of life—a disruption far greater than the presence of federal forces.
Pritzker’s rhetoric, echoing historical figures like George Wallace, suggests a reluctance to accept federal intervention, as he stated, “You don’t want or need it here.”
Johnson, the Mayor, conveyed similar thoughts, asserting that Chicagoans prefer local solutions over a military presence. Despite this, some residents, like Pastor Corey Brooks of Project Hood, express a desire for federal assistance in combating violent crime. Brooks highlighted the ongoing tragedy of young lives lost in the city and urged prioritization of saving lives over political considerations.
For Trump to send in National Guard troops, he’d either need to declare a federal emergency or receive a formal request from Pritzker. Yet, he does hold the authority to increase the presence of immigration and customs enforcement agents without such approvals.
Homeland Security Secretary Christie Noem mentioned ongoing operations with ICE in Chicago, indicating that resources would be increasing. In response, Johnson’s executive order discouraging local police cooperation with federal agents could create complications if conflicts arise, as seen in other cities. This situation could potentially provide Trump a pathway to declare a state of emergency and deploy federal troops.
Regardless of their efforts, it appears Pritzker and Johnson may struggle to prevent Trump’s intervention aimed at protecting lives in Chicago, leaving an open question about their strong opposition to him.
