President Donald Trump and Democratic Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker are undoubtedly enjoying the media spotlight accompanying their feud over possible deployment of federalized National Guard troops to Chicago after the crackdown in Washington, D.C. Neither man has ever shied away from a television camera, and Pritzker has White House ambitions of his own. But while both men savor the attention, the fact is that Pritzker has the better hand to play. Trump doesn’t have the same authority in Chicago that he has in D.C. And the president has more to lose in a showdown over law and order in a city—or any jurisdiction—governed by his political opponents.
You are reading The Rattler from J.D. Tuccille and Reason. Get more of J.D.’s commentary on government overreach and threats to everyday liberty.
Earlier this month, President Trump declared a state of emergency in Washington, D.C., so federal authorities could nudge the local government aside and assume responsibility for fighting crime.
“Rising violence in the capital now urgently endangers public servants, citizens, and tourists, disrupts safe and secure transportation and the proper functioning of the Federal Government, and forces the diversion of critical public resources toward emergency response and security measures,” his August 11 executive order insisted in the course of taking over the city.
While the district undoubtedly has a long history of high crime, it’s not obvious that it’s currently exceptional. In January, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia boasted that violent crime “is the lowest it has been in over 30 years.” But the head of the local police union points to a commander caught changing statistics to minimize the crime rate and claims the numbers can’t be trusted.
What’s not in question, though, is that the federal government has authority over Washington, D.C. As the Office of the City Administrator notes, “although District government officials have the authority to pass laws and govern local affairs, the United States Congress maintains the power to overturn local laws and legislate on behalf of the District.” The city has home rule by the courtesy of the federal government, which can step in or take it away.
That’s not to say that stepping in is a good idea. Trump dispatched federal officers, but also National Guard troops, to patrol the nation’s capital. The Guard is military and not generally trained for police work. The troops don’t necessarily understand the limits of their authority, and D.C. residents might count themselves lucky that unconstitutional checkpoints seem to be the worst excesses so far. Well, that and federal officers tearing down protest banners in violation of the First Amendment.
But Trump makes it clear that he considers D.C. “sort of a test” of federalized and militarized law enforcement that he might apply to other Democrat-led cities. To that end, an August 25 executive order directs Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to ensure “that each State’s Army National Guard and Air National Guard are resourced, trained, organized, and available to assist Federal, State, and local law enforcement in quelling civil disturbances and ensuring the public safety and order whenever the circumstances necessitate, as appropriate under law.” The president named Baltimore, Memphis, New York, and, of course, Chicago, as prime candidates for new deployments.
Rather than wait for governors or local officials to request intervention, “we may just go in and do it, which is probably what we should do,” Trump told reporters.
That raises the prospect of federal forces intervening in cities controlled by the president’s political opponents to fight crime and, not coincidentally, highlight the real and alleged failings of local officials.
Chicago is a good example. The city is, undoubtedly, poorly led. Just weeks ago, before the kerfuffle over law and order, the Chicago Tribune‘s editorial board warned that Mayor Brandon Johnson is leading the city to financial ruin, chasing businesses away, and hiking taxes to “bankroll an ever-growing government apparatus.” Johnson’s approval with voters hovers somewhere in the single to low-double digits.
But Chicago is not a federal district. It’s a city in a state that has its own sovereign authority under the U.S. Constitution. Johnson is the mayor, and Pritzker is the state’s governor. They’re responsible to their voters. And while the city has a serious crime problem, data suggests it’s falling, not getting worse.
There’s limited legal basis for federal intervention anywhere that isn’t Washington, D.C. Under federal law, the president can call up National Guard units in any state in case of invasion or rebellion, or to execute laws when “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.” The Posse Comitatus Act makes it illegal to use “any part of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Space Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws.”
That said, Joseph Nunn of the Brennan Center cautions that federal law limiting police use of the military “is riddled with exceptions, loopholes, and ambiguities that leave it surprisingly weak” and that “the principle enshrined in the Posse Comitatus Act is protected more by norms and historical practice than by the text of the law itself.” That is, there’s a good chance Trump could “just go in and do it” and get away with it—and set a precedent for future presidents to follow.
Doing so contains practical and political risks. Johnson’s constituents in Chicago may hold their hapless local leader responsible for his failings now, but wait until federal forces are on the streets. Who will be blamed when Guardsmen untrained for the job, or federal immigration agents, step out of line and commit serious constitutional violations? Who will answer if they wrongfully shoot somebody? Or matters might trudge along as usual but with Johnson, Pritzker, and other local officials insulated from responsibility.
The president is counting on getting credit for fighting chaos in the streets. If, instead, his federal forces break something (or someone), he’ll own the repercussions.
Trump is engaging in a dangerous political game. It’s apparent that he pushed aside California Governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass earlier this year to play to public concerns over immigration but mostly to embarrass two prominent Democrats. That they’re not especially good at their jobs is a concern for their voters—not the White House. Anti-crime intervention in other cities governed by his opponents is just more of the same grandstanding. The president risks turning often unpopular and incompetent politicians into martyrs to federal overreach.
That’s a move Democrats will undoubtedly be happy to emulate once they’re back in office.
The use of government force to achieve political advantage is always a terrible idea. It’s dangerous to life and liberty. Once it’s normalized, we can expect future politicians to further stretch the limits of their power.
