In an article for Democracy Docket published Thursday, journalist Jim Saksa argued that President Donald Trump is systematically expanding his authority to deploy military force within U.S. cities, and that the lack of sufficient legal or legislative pushback risks making such aggressive domestic deployments routine.
Saksa noted that over the past two weeks Trump has repeatedly threatened to send the National Guard not only to Chicago, but also to New York, Baltimore, Seattle, New Orleans and other major American cities. These threats follow earlier deployments of thousands of troops to Los Angeles in June and Washington D.C. in August.
Most recently, Trump signed an executive order establishing a National Guard “quick reaction force” prepared for rapid nationwide mobilization.
While these troop deployments are of questionable legality, Saksa pointed out that previous actions, particularly the deployments to LA and D.C., have largely gone unchecked by either the courts or Congress.
This, he warned, could embolden the president to continue deploying military force in Democratic-led cities
Trump’s rhetoric has reinforced this trajectory. He described Chicago as “a killing field right now,” despite evidence of its safest summer in decades.
He further asserted, “I have the right to do anything I want to do. I’m the President of the United States of America,” and added, “If I think our country is in danger, and it is in danger in these cities, I can do it.”
Saksa examined the legal response: a district court in California ruled that Trump’s administration violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which broadly prohibits the use of the military for domestic law enforcement, but the court did not deem the deployment itself illegal.
The Ninth Circuit, moreover, upheld the administration’s actions, concluding the deployment to LA was lawful. As a result, around 300 National Guard personnel remain on federal active duty in Southern California nearly three months later.
The article noted the slow governmental response: nearly a month passed before Washington filed a legal challenge, a delay compounded by the District’s unique legal status.
Meanwhile, the White House continues to rely on obscure statutes and novel legal theories, while avoiding reliance on the Insurrection Act of 1807, a more traditional yet controversial legal pathway to deploy troops domestically.
David Janovsky, acting director of the Project on Government Oversight’s Constitution Project, told the outlet that courts and Congress have been “mostly feeble” in response to what he termed a “power grab.”
He voiced concern that there may be no clear limits left on such presidential authority: “I don’t know what the next meaningful limit is,” he said.
The article also included comments from William Banks, professor emeritus at Syracuse University College of Law, who said: “The insurrection act is the big heavy gun.”
He added: “It was intended to be utilized, if at all, when all hell is broken loose. It’s for extreme circumstances.”
Tag Archives: New York
Alternet: ‘He was an FBI informant’: Mike Johnson makes stunning admission about Trump
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) appeared to say that President Donald Trump once doubled as a confidential informant for the FBI before he ran for office.
Johnson made the comment while speaking to reporters at the U.S. Capitol on Thursday about Rep. Thomas Massie’s (R-Ky.) effort to force a vote on releasing the Department of Justice’s remaining evidence on convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. When CNN congressional correspondent Manu Raju asked Johnson about Trump calling the ongoing controversy over Epstein a “hoax,” the speaker insisted that Trump’s statement was being misconstrued by the media.
“I’ve talked with him about this many times,” Johnson said. “It’s been misrepresented. He’s not saying that what Epstein did is a hoax. It’s a terrible, unspeakable evil. He believes that himself. When he first heard the rumor he kicked [Epstein] out of Mar-a-Lago. He was an FBI informant to try to take this stuff down.”
Trump’s status as an FBI informant remains unconfirmed. However, he has a history of being willing to cooperate with the FBI in the past. BuzzFeed News reported in 2017 on a 1981 FBI memo in which he said he would to “fully cooperate” with the bureau. Trump reportedly agreed to accommodate undercover FBI agents at his Atlantic City, New Jersey casino who were investigating organized crime.
In 2016, the Washington Post reported that Trump “welcomed [agents] in” to his Manhattan office, and that the meeting came at a pivotal time in Trump’s career when he was trying to cement himself as a real estate tycoon in New York. The report detailed how Trump became close friends with both an FBI informant who worked for Trump as a labor consultant and investigator Walt Stowe, who at the time was one of the informant’s handlers.
If Trump indeed worked as an FBI informant to take down Epstein, it may have happened sometime between 2004 and 2005, when the two had their famous falling-out over a $41 million mansion in Palm Beach, Florida. The New York Post reported last year that the mansion became a “centerpiece of an intense rivalry” between the two men who were formerly close friends. The initial investigation into Epstein’s exploitation of underage girls began in March of 2005, according to the Palm Beach Post.
Trump previously said that he ended his friendship with Epstein after he “stole” Virginia Giuffre — one of Epstein’s most prominent accusers who died by suicide earlier this year — from the Mar-a-Lago spa in 2000. However, journalist and author Barry Levine said that Epstein maintained his paying membership at Mar-a-Lago as late as 2007, which was well after his initial arrest and subsequent prosecution for preying on teenage girls.
They’re trying to infer that perhaps Trump was an FBI informant who ratted out Epstein.
But the math just doesn’t work out: Epstein was a due-paying member of Mar-A-Largo for years after Trump claimed to have shown him the door.
Washington Examiner: Border czar says ICE ops will ramp up after Labor Day
Border czar Tom Homan told reporters that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations will expand after Labor Day in sanctuary cities nationwide, including Seattle, Wash., and Portland, Ore.
“You’re going to see a ramp up of operations in New York. You’re going to see a ramp up of operations continue in L.A. and, you know, Portland, Seattle,” Homan told reporters gathered near the White House. “I mean, all these sanctuary cities refuse to work with ICE … we’re going to address that.”
Homan said some other states are complying and working with ICE.
“We don’t have that problem in Texas and Florida, where all the sheriffs are working with us and they’re actually holding people for us and letting us know when someone’s being released,” he said. “So, we’re going to take the assets we have and move them to problem areas like sanctuary cities, where we know for a fact they’re releasing public safety threat illegal aliens to the streets every day. That’s where we need to send the majority of the resources, and that’s where they’re going.”
Homan was in Portland on Aug. 21 to meet with ICE personnel. After the visit, Portland Mayor Keith Wilson reaffirmed the city’s sanctuary status and said city employees, including police officers, will not assist in ICE operations.
“I was in San Diego and Portland in the last week meeting with the men and women of ICE to understand the hate that’s being pushed against them and letting them know the President has their six,” Homan said. “I have their six.”
The Center Square contacted Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell’s office on Friday for comment on what the nation’s border czar had to say.
“Seattle will not be intimidated by the Trump administration’s threats. Suggesting that federal immigration raids or deployments of federal agents could soon target our city is not about public safety – it’s about political theater and an overreach of federal authority,” said Harrell in a statement emailed to The Center Square. “Seattle is a welcoming city, and our policies comply with both federal and state law. Immigration enforcement is the federal government’s responsibility, not the city’s, and we will not allow our police resources to be commandeered for political purposes.
“We are already working closely with Gov. [Bob] Ferguson and Attorney General [Nick] Brown, and have asked the City Attorney’s Office to review every legal option available to protect our residents. We have successfully taken this administration to court before … over its attempts to punish sanctuary cities, and we are prepared to do so again. We will stand firm, protect our communities, and preserve local control over our public safety resources. Seattle’s values are not up for negotiation.”
Homan said enforcement operations across the country are improving public safety for Americans.
“I look at the numbers every morning,” he said. “There’s about 22 pages of data; 70% of everybody arrested is a criminal,” he said. “But the left says, ‘Well, not criminal enough. It’s just a DUI.’ DUIs kill over 10,000 people a year. That’s a public safety threat. I don’t care what anybody thinks.”
As for the other 30% of arrestees, Homan explained, “We arrested thousands of national security threats. Many of them don’t have a criminal history because their whole goal is to lay low ‘til they do their dirty deed. Gang members. A lot of gang members don’t have a criminal history.”
He concluded, “And finally, final deportation orders. People who had due process at great taxpayer expense. They were ordered removed by a federal judge, and they didn’t leave. And we’re looking for them, too, because we’re sending a message to the whole world. It’s not okay to enter this country illegally. It’s a crime.”
Bring it on, asshole! You haven’t yet see the poll numbers bottom out!

NBC News: Kristi Noem confirms plan to expand ICE operations in major cities
The DHS secretary made the comments after Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson threatened legal action against any surge of federal law enforcement or National Guard troops in the city.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem confirmed Sunday that the Trump administration plans to expand Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations in major cities, including Chicago.
Asked about plans to expand ICE operations in Chicago specifically, Noem told CBS News’ “Face the Nation,” “We’ve already had ongoing operations with ICE in Chicago and throughout Illinois and other states, making sure that we’re upholding our laws, but we do intend to add more resources to those operations.”
Asked about what an expansion of ICE operations would look like in Chicago and whether it would involve a mobilization of National Guard troops to assist with immigration raids and arrests, Noem demurred, saying, “That always is a prerogative of President [Donald] Trump and his decision. I won’t speak to the specifics of the operations that are planned in other cities.”
Her remarks come one day after Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson signed an executive order directing his city’s legal department to explore ways to counter a potential surge in federal law enforcement and National Guard troops to Illinois.
During a press conference Saturday, Johnson warned that Chicago officials had “received credible reports that we have days, not weeks, before our cities see some type of militarized activity by the federal government.”
Earlier this month, the Trump administration directed federal law enforcement officers, including those employed by ICE, to assist police in Washington, D.C., with crime-fighting operations. That surge of resources included thousands of National Guard troops who were deployed to the nation’s capital with the stated goal of lowering crime rates.
Following the movement of troops and law enforcement officers to Washington, Trump threatened to send federal officers and troops to other major American cities, including Baltimore.
Later in the Sunday interview, Noem was asked whether Boston would be one of the cities where the federal government would surge immigration enforcement agents.
“There’s a lot of cities that are dealing with crime and violence right now, and so we haven’t taken anything off the table,” she said, adding later: “I’d encourage every single big city — San Francisco, Boston, Chicago, whatever they are — if they want to help make their city safer, more prosperous, allow people the opportunity to walk in freedom like the people of Washington, D.C., are now … they should call us.”
Other Democratic officials, including a group of over a dozen governors, have condemned plans to deploy troops to their states.
In a statement last week, they said, “Whether it’s Illinois, Maryland and New York or another state tomorrow, the President’s threats and efforts to deploy a state’s National Guard without the request and consent of that state’s governor is an alarming abuse of power, ineffective, and undermines the mission of our service members.”
And in an interview that aired Sunday on “Face the Nation,” Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, a Democrat, said, “We don’t want troops on the streets of American cities. That’s un-American. Frankly, the president of the United States ought to know better.”
Pritzker also accused the Trump administration of targeting states run by Democrats rather than those run by Republicans, telling CBS, “Notice he never talks about where the most violent crime is occurring, which is in red states. … Their violent crime rates are much worse in other places, and we’re very proud of the work that we’ve done.”
Asked whether there are plans in place to deploy troops and federal law enforcement officials to states and cities run by Republicans, Noem said, “Absolutely.”
“Every single city is evaluated for what we need to do there to make it safer. So we’ve got operations that, again, I won’t talk about details on, but we absolutely are not looking through the viewpoint at anything we’re doing with a political lens,” she added.
MSNBC: Why Trump is appealing the New York civil fraud ruling after claiming ‘TOTAL VICTORY’
The president won a significant victory but not a complete one. That’s why he’s seeking further relief from New York’s highest state court.
When New York’s mid-level appeals court threw out the nearly half-billion-dollar penalty against Donald Trump last week, New York Attorney General Letitia James quickly vowed to appeal. But now, the president is seeking to appeal the civil fraud ruling despite having claimed “TOTAL VICTORY” last week.
That Trump is appealing might seem curious at first glance, especially if one was the under the impression that the ruling was, as the president claimed, a complete win for him. But as I explained when the ruling came out, it was a messy one that made both James’ and Trump’s celebrations awkward.
To be sure, Trump notched a serious win in wiping out the massive monetary penalty. But the bottom-line result, amid a tangle of three separate opinions spanning 323 pages, led James to craft her own victory statement.
In it, she embraced the Appellate Division’s ruling for affirming that Trump, his company and his sons Eric and Don Jr. “are liable for fraud,” and for upholding limits on the Trumps’ ability to do business in the state. Though James didn’t directly mention the massive money loss, her statement ended by saying her office “will seek appeal to the Court of Appeals and continue to protect the rights and interests of New Yorkers.”
The Court of Appeals is New York’s highest state court.
As James touted, there are aspects of the ruling that Trump and his civil co-defendants did lose. Their notice of appeal, filed Tuesday, makes clear that that’s what they’re challenging: the Appellate Division’s order to the extent that it “affirms in part” James’ trial-court win.
Appellate Division justices themselves acknowledged the possibility that their jumble of opinions wouldn’t be the last word. Their three separate decisions each had different rationales, none of them garnering a true majority on the five-justice panel. Two of the justices wrote that they only reluctantly joined two others for the purposes of technically rendering a decision, to allow “the option of further review of this matter by the Court of Appeals.”
So it won’t be surprising if the Court of Appeals endeavors to issue a clearer decision in the matter, which carries implications for business dealings throughout the state, not limited to this Trump case. Whatever that high court does, both sides have reason to fight for a different outcome than the one that’s currently on the table.
Albany Times Union: Ex-Border Patrol agent gets prison for making migrants show breasts
A former U.S. Border Patrol agent was sentenced to 12 months in federal prison Wednesday after pleading guilty to charges that he had made immigrant women expose their breasts when he was processing their information using a computer webcam.
The incidents took place after the immigrants had been encountered by Border Patrol agents in August 2023 while crossing the southern border.
Shane Millan, 54, who pleaded guilty in March to two misdemeanor counts of deprivation of rights under color of law, had been working at a Border Patrol station at Wellesley Island in Jefferson County and was using the computer to get information from the immigrants during interviews over a webcam. He had been a border patrol agent for 17 years at the time.
According to federal court records, Millan was tasked with gathering the migrants’ biographical and other information and saving the data electronically so that they could remain in the United States pending further immigration proceedings. Although the immigrants had crossed the southern border, Millan was doing the work through a computer from upstate New York at a time when record numbers of migrants were entering the U.S. and the federal agency was overwhelmed.
According to prosecutors, Millan “repeatedly abused his authority by requiring female immigrants to expose their breasts during these video-conference sessions, ostensibly so that he could confirm whether they had any chest tattoos.”
Millan did not speak Spanish but used a translation app to learn phrases such as, “I will also need you to lift your bra, please,” and “I will need to verify once more, can you stand in front of the monitor and lift your shirt and bra again, please,” according to court records.
One of the women, who was carrying an infant, resisted when Millan told her to lift her shirt a second time. Court records indicate he told her that he would not sign her paperwork unless she showed him her bare chest again. She reluctantly placed her child on the floor and lifted her shirt.
“These sickening demands violated agency policies regarding voyeurism and strip searches, but the victims did not know that,” federal prosecutors wrote in a sentencing memorandum. “(Millan’s) repeated instructions appeared legitimate, which is the lynchpin of a color of law offense, and multiple immigrants reluctantly complied with them.”
Acting U.S. Attorney John A. Sarcone III said: “Everybody deserves respect, and we will not tolerate the sexual exploitation of immigrants by members of law enforcement. Nobody is above the law.”
Prosecutors said Millan admitted requiring at least a dozen women to show him their breasts during the webcam processing. The misconduct was exposed after “multiple victims had the courage to come forward and report how they were exploited,” prosecutors said.When he was initially interviewed about the allegations in August 2023, Millan told investigators that he had asked only one woman to lift her shirt but never asked any women to remove their bras. In June 2024, after an investigation that lasted nearly a year, he confessed to what he had done, according to court records.
Millan’s attorneys, while noting his behavior was “disturbing” and “aberrant,” had asked the judge to consider a sentence of “supervision, rather than incarceration,” along with mental health counseling. They said that he had no prior criminal history and is having trouble finding a new job due to publicity about his case.
They also wrote in the sentencing memorandum that prior to his arrest last year, Millan’s “lifestyle was not only law-abiding, considering his family commitments, religious practices, and career, his lifestyle was devoted to caring for and protecting others.”
Making Amerika great again, one perverted bully-boy at a time!
Slingshot News: ‘The Windmills Are Killing This Country’: Trump Goes On Outlandish Tirade About Windmills During Bill Signing Event At The White House
Washington Post: DHS moves to bar aid groups from serving undocumented immigrants
The Department of Homeland Security is now barring states and volunteer groups that receive government funds from helping undocumented immigrants, according to a Washington Post analysis of updated guidelines and interviews with Federal Emergency Management Agency employees. The new rules also require groups to cooperate with immigration officials and enforcement operations.
Several disaster assistance groups, FEMA employees and emergency management experts said the new requirements in the department’s fiscal 2025 aid contracts would make it harder for nonprofits to help the most vulnerable people in the aftermath of a disaster. Some members of the national volunteer disaster group network also questioned whether the new requirements are constitutional and point out that they seem to violate some local and state laws that prevent asking about a person’s immigration status.
By accepting the federal grants and awards, the new documents state, volunteer organizations that help after disasters must agree to not “operate any program that benefits illegal immigrants or incentivizes illegal immigration.”
That could put groups that provide food, housing, mental health support and other assistance in disaster-stricken states in the position of having to verify aid recipients’ legal status before providing assistance, experts said.
“There is no historical context for this,” said Scott Robinson, an emergency management expert and FEMA historian who teaches at Arizona State University. “The notion that the federal government would use these operations for surveillance is entirely new territory.”
The affected contractors include faith-based groups and nonprofits such as the Salvation Army and the Red Cross, which states usually rely on to set up shelters and deliver basic assistance. They often serve communities with large Latino populations, where people often have trouble getting federal aid because they are uninsured or live in multigenerational households so they can’t all apply to FEMA. They serve those who have lost their homes or incomes after a catastrophic event but are not in the United States legally. Such humanitarian organizations typically do not ask about religious beliefs, political affiliation or documentation status when offering aid.
The federal government first awards funds to states, which then bring in organizations once they have accepted the contract and its rules. The DHS document states an award recipient, such as a state, must make all contractors and sub-recipients follow its terms.
In a statement, acting FEMA press secretary Daniel Llargues said any recipient of a DHS or FEMA grant “is required to follow the DHS Standard Terms & Conditions,” noting most funding is awarded directly to states, tribes and territories.
Another new section of the document states all award recipients must comply with federal statutes that prohibit state and local governments from keeping information about a person’s immigration status from DHS. They are also barred from “harboring, concealing, or shielding from detection illegal aliens”; have to agree to “provide access to detainees, such as when an immigration officer seeks to interview a person who might be a removable alien”; and not leak or publicize an enforcement operation.
“This is likely to have a chilling effect on any undocumented person” seeking assistance, Robinson said, adding that it might even deter someone who fears their legal status may be questioned.
While the federal government has always had wide-ranging authority when setting conditions for grants, a review of contracts going back to 2016, the first year they were posted, found past DHS contracts for federal assistance have not had any language about undocumented immigrants. One FEMA official said the new regulations move away from past terms that focused on civil rights and “place more emphasis on exclusionary powers the government has.”
These standards are not just limited to nonprofits but could apply to all applicants, sub-applicants and even other federal agencies that work with FEMA, such as search-and-rescue groups, said a former senior FEMA official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the matter.
Officials at disaster volunteer organizations across the U.S., many of whom embed all across communities after major hurricanes, floods or fires, said they were caught off guard by the new conditions. Several members raised concerns that federal contracts cannot make nonprofits violate local laws that protect people’s privacy. The bulk of disaster volunteer groups that work with the federal government are also faith-based organizations, which some groups said could create constitutional concerns.
“We see this as a free-exercise issue under our First Amendment rights,” said Peter Gudaitis, the executive director of New York Disaster Interfaith Services. “First, the federal government has never attempted to tell the nonprofit sector who we can and cannot serve. Further, as a faith-based organization we have the right to determine who we serve.”
The new terms and conditions also target diversity, equity and inclusion policies, stating that the department’s awards cannot be used “to advance or promote DEI and/or DEIA (diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility) or discriminatory equity ideology.”
To meet the needs of the communities they serve, nonprofits often hire Spanish speakers and people of color, and Gudaitis and other members of the nation’s disaster volunteer network questioned whether the anti-DEI provision would affect this approach.
There are states and cities that don’t allow such organizations to ask about a person’s immigration status. In New York, for example, disaster workers can register anyone in any affected Zip code regardless of their citizenship.
These groups, represented by a broader umbrella group called National Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster, are grappling with the new requirements, said the Rev. David Guadalupe, the organization’s interim president who also runs Puerto Rico’s volunteer disaster aid group. Each group will have to make an independent decision as to whether they can and will abide by these terms when a state asks them to assist, he said. That could put many groups in a very difficult position, he said, and goes against an ethos to serve anyone in need.
“Their shared mission is to serve all disasters’ survivors with compassion and dignity, especially those most vulnerable, and to work together to help communities recover,” he said.
The network reached out to the administration on Monday about the new terms and is awaiting a reply, Guadalupe said. It is hosting a town hall next week to discuss the new policy and how its members “will proactively prepare for impacts” on the funds they rely on to manage disasters, according to an email obtained by The Post.
These groups often work with states through FEMA’s Disaster Case Management Program. In its description of the program, DHS notes, “without federal support, the state may be inundated and unable to address the size and scope of the needs or unable to sustain the length of time the services are needed.”
There are already strict rules surrounding federal assistance that states and subrecipients, such as volunteer groups and nonprofits, have to follow. These entities have to cooperate with compliance reviews and investigations; they are audited several times a year; and, according to the conditions, have to give “DHS access to examine and copy records, accounts, and other documents and sources of information related to the federal award and permit access to facilities and personnel.”
If a state rejects these conditions, an agency official explained, it would be ineligible for FEMA funds.
Nonprofits and disaster response groups worry that the terms could have a ripple effect on mixed-status households, where the parents might be undocumented but their children are citizens, which means they would be entitled to federal disaster assistance.
“So will our government now deprive a household with a citizen member of assistance because undocumented people live in the household, too?” asked a state VOAD chair who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution. “Is the federal government saying that a disaster case manager can’t even advise someone where to get help if they are undocumented or their family is? Is that really what we’ve come to?”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2025/08/27/dhs-fema-undocumented-immigrants-aid-groups-grants
No paywall:
Associated Press: ‘Leave our kids alone’: Schools reopen in DC with parents on edge over Trump’s armed patrols
“Mr. President, do not come to Chicago,” [Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker said, standing in a park about a mile from the Chicago skyscraper that features Trump’s name in large lettering. The governor said he would fight the “petty whims of an arrogant little man” who “wants to use the military to occupy a U.S. city, punish his dissidents and score political points.”
Public schools reopened Monday in the nation’s tense capital with parents on edge over the presence in their midst of thousands of National Guard troops — some now armed — and large scatterings of federal law enforcement officers carrying out President Donald Trump’s orders to make the District of Columbia a safer place.
Even as Trump started talking about other cities — “Do not come to Chicago,” was the Democratic Illinois governor’s clipped response — the president again touted a drop in crime that he attributed to his extraordinary effort to take over policing in Washington, D.C. The district’s mayor, meanwhile, was lamenting the effect of Trump’s actions on children in her city.
“Parents are anxious. We’ve heard from a lot of them,” Mayor Muriel Bowser said at a news conference, noting that some might keep their children out of school because of immigration concerns.
“Any attempt to target children is heartless, is mean, is uncalled for and it only hurts us,” she said. “I would just call for everybody to leave our kids alone.”
Rumors of police activity abound
As schools opened across the capital city, parental social media groups and listservs were buzzing with reports and rumors of checkpoints and arrests.
The week began with some patrolling National Guard units now carrying firearms. The change stemmed from a directive issued late last week by his Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
Armed National Guard troops from Ohio, South Carolina and Tennessee were seen around the city Monday. But not every patrol appears to be carrying weapons. An Associated Press photographer said the roughly 30 troops he saw on the National Mall on Monday morning were unarmed.
Armed Guard members in Washington will be operating under long-standing rules for the use of military force inside the U.S., the military task force overseeing all the troops deployed to D.C. said Monday. Those rules, broadly, say that while troops can use force, they should do so only “in response to an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm” and “only as a last resort.”
The task force has directed questions on why the change was necessary to Hegseth’s office. Those officials have declined to answer those questions. Speaking in the Oval Office on Monday, Hegseth said that it was common sense to arm them because it meant they were “capable of defending themselves and others.”
Among their duties is picking up trash, the task force said, though it’s unclear how much time they will spend doing that.
Bowser reiterated her opposition to the National Guard’s presence. “I don’t believe that troops should be policing American cities,” she said.
Trump is considering expanding the deployments to other Democratic-led cities, including Baltimore, Chicago and New York, saying the situations in those cities require federal action. In Washington, his administration says more than 1,000 people have been arrested since Aug. 7, including 86 on Sunday.
“We took hundreds of guns away from young kids, who were throwing them around like it was candy. We apprehended scores of illegal aliens. We seized dozens of illegal firearms. There have been zero murders,” Trump said Monday.
Some other cities bristle at the possibility of military on the streets
The possibility of the military patrolling streets of Chicago, the nation’s third-largest city, prompted immediate backlash, confusion and a trail of sarcastic social media posts.
Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, a first-term Democrat, has called it unconstitutional and threatened legal action. Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker deemed it a distraction and unnecessary as crime rates in Chicago are down, as they are nationwide.
Trump suggested multiple times earlier Monday that he might dispatch the National Guard to Chicago regardless of Pritzker’s opinion, calling the city a “killing field.”
Pritzker and other Illinois officials said the Trump administration has not reached out to Chicago leaders about any federal initiative to deploy military personnel to the city to combat crime. They cited statistics showing drops in violent crime in Chicago and cast Trump’s move as performative, partisan and racist.
“Mr. President, do not come to Chicago,” Pritzker said, standing in a park about a mile from the Chicago skyscraper that features Trump’s name in large lettering. The governor said he would fight the “petty whims of an arrogant little man” who “wants to use the military to occupy a U.S. city, punish his dissidents and score political points.”
Others raised questions about where patrols might go and what role they might play. By square mileage, Chicago is more than three times the size of Washington, and neighborhoods with historically high crime are spread far apart.
Former Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy, who also worked for the New York Police Department, wondered what the National Guard would do in terms of fighting street violence. He said if there was clear communication, they could help with certain tasks, like perimeter patrol in high-crime neighborhoods, but only as part of a wider plan and in partnership with police.
National Guard troops were used in Chicago to help with the Democratic National Convention last summer and during the 2012 NATO Summit.
Overall, violent crime in Chicago dropped significantly in the first half of 2025, representing the steepest decline in over a decade, according to police data. Shootings and homicides were down more than 30% in the first half of the year compared with the same time last year, and total violent crime dropped by over 22%.
Still, some neighborhoods, including Austin on the city’s West Side, where the Rev. Ira Acree is a pastor, experience persistent high crime.
Acree said he’s received numerous calls from congregants upset about the possible deployment. He said if Trump was serious about crime prevention, he would boost funding for anti-violence initiatives.
“This is a joke,” Acree said. “This move is not about reducing violence. This is reckless leadership and political grandstanding. It’s no secret that our city is on the president’s hit list.”
In June, roughly 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines were sent to Los Angeles to deal with protests over the administration’s immigration crackdown. California’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, and other local elected officials objected.
Washington Post: Democrats are pushing back against crackdown on sanctuary cities
Some responded with strongly worded letters. Others spoke out publicly, accusing Attorney General Pam Bondi of trying to unlawfully bully governors and mayors.
Democratic state and local officials are forcefully pushing back against threats from Attorney General Pam Bondi that their jurisdictions could be stripped of federal funding or they could face criminal prosecution if they don’t back away from “sanctuary” policies friendly toward suspected undocumented immigrants.
Bondi last week sent a letter to leaders of more than 30 Democratic-led cities, counties and states that accused the jurisdictions of interfering with federal immigration enforcement.
Some responded with their own strongly worded letters. Others seized the moment to speak out in a public show of resistance, accusing Bondi of trying to unlawfully bully governors and mayors amid the political divide over President Donald Trump’s aggressive immigration tactics.
But what happens next remains deeply unclear, according to those Democratic officials, who have described the events of the past week as startling and unprecedented, even against the backdrop of the tumultuous launch of the second Trump term. They are staying mum so far about how much they are coordinating with each other to combat potential actions by the administration.
In Seattle, Mayor Bruce Harrell (D), who is seeking a second term, told The Washington Post that the Aug. 13 letter from Bondi warned that his “jurisdiction” had been “identified as one that engages in sanctuary policies and practices that thwart federal immigration enforcement.” It did not reference his city by name, mention specific local laws or policy, or cite Seattle’s crime rates, which Harrell pointed out are “down in all major categories.”
Days later, he was standing behind Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson (D), who had received a nearly identical letter.
“A letter like this cannot be normalized,” Ferguson said Tuesday, speaking to reporters at the state Capitol in Olympia. He called the attorney general’s threats a “breathtaking” tactic aimed at pressuring elected officials to “bend a knee” to Trump.
Ferguson told Bondi in a letter that his state “will not be bullied or intimidated by threats and legally baseless accusations.”
On the opposite coast, Boston Mayor Michelle Wu (D) stepped onto the plaza outside City Hall for a news conference that quickly took on the feel of an anti-Trump rally.
“Stop attacking our cities to hide your administration’s failures,” said Wu, the daughter of Taiwanese immigrants. “Boston follows the law, and Boston will not back down from who we are and what we stand for.”
The Trump administration’s intensifying efforts to identify and deport suspected undocumented immigrants include the deployment of thousands of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers in U.S. cities as they seek to meet a directive from White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller to make at least 3,000 arrests a day.
Bondi and other Trump administration officials have insisted on cooperation from state and local officials, including access to law enforcement facilities and, in some cases, officers as they seek to step up deportation efforts.
Trump last week ordered the deployment of National Guard troops to D.C. and has sought to expand federal control over D.C. police, claiming the city was not doing enough to stem violent crime. He has indicated that cities like Baltimore, Chicago and New York could be next, likening them to urban hellscapes ruined by crime and lawlessness. All three cities are listed as sanctuary jurisdictions on federal government websites.
On Thursday, Trump reiterated his pledge to pursue similar crime crackdowns in Democratic-led cities.
In an interview last week with Fox News, Bondi suggested a takeover could be on the table for any city the administration deems out of compliance with federal immigration laws. “You better be abiding by our federal policies and with our federal law enforcement, because if you aren’t, we’re going to come after you,” she said.
Numerous city and state officials in their letters to Bondi questioned the legality of the Trump administration’s threats against their jurisdictions, with some pointedly critical of Trump’s actions in D.C. and in Los Angeles, where the president — despite the opposition of state and local officials — activated National Guard troops amid protests over the administration’s immigration arrests.
Responding to a letter sent to Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker (D), Ann Spillane, the governor’s general counsel, noted federal courts had repeatedly upheld an Illinois law that restricts state law enforcement involvement in immigration enforcement. Spillane said that Illinois officers’ primary focus is fighting crime and that they routinely cooperate with federal law enforcement on those issues. “We have not observed that type of coordination with local law enforcement in Washington, D.C. or Los Angeles,” Spillane wrote, according to a copy of the letter obtained by The Post.
Bondi’s letters also arrived at the offices of Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D) and Denver Mayor Mike Johnston (D). Trump homed in on the state during the presidential race last year, baselessly claiming one of its cities had been overrun by Venezuelan gangs.
Johnston’s city has already lost millions in federal grants intended for migrant shelters, and the Justice Department sued him, Polis, and other state and local officials in May over what it called “disastrous” sanctuary policies. Colorado law bars local police officers from asking a person for their immigration status, arresting someone based only on that status and giving that personal information to federal authorities.
“It is immaterial to whether or not you were doing 55 in a 45, where you were born, and so we don’t ask for that information,” Johnston said. “We don’t have that information.” On Thursday, he remained adamant that Denver had not violated any laws. Bondi’s allegations, he said, are “false and offensiveOn Thursday, Trump reiterated his pledge to pursue similar crime crackdowns in Democratic-led cities.
In an interview last week with Fox News, Bondi suggested a takeover could be on the table for any city the administration deems out of compliance with federal immigration laws. “You better be abiding by our federal policies and with our federal law enforcement, because if you aren’t, we’re going to come after you,” she said.
Numerous city and state officials in their letters to Bondi questioned the legality of the Trump administration’s threats against their jurisdictions, with some pointedly critical of Trump’s actions in D.C. and in Los Angeles, where the president — despite the opposition of state and local officials — activated National Guard troops amid protests over the administration’s immigration arrests.
Responding to a letter sent to Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker (D), Ann Spillane, the governor’s general counsel, noted federal courts had repeatedly upheld an Illinois law that restricts state law enforcement involvement in immigration enforcement. Spillane said that Illinois officers’ primary focus is fighting crime and that they routinely cooperate with federal law enforcement on those issues. “We have not observed that type of coordination with local law enforcement in Washington, D.C. or Los Angeles,” Spillane wrote, according to a copy of the letter obtained by The Post.
Bondi’s letters also arrived at the offices of Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D) and Denver Mayor Mike Johnston (D). Trump homed in on the state during the presidential race last year, baselessly claiming one of its cities had been overrun by Venezuelan gangs.
Johnston’s city has already lost millions in federal grants intended for migrant shelters, and the Justice Department sued him, Polis, and other state and local officials in May over what it called “disastrous” sanctuary policies. Colorado law bars local police officers from asking a person for their immigration status, arresting someone based only on that status and giving that personal information to federal authorities.
“It is immaterial to whether or not you were doing 55 in a 45, where you were born, and so we don’t ask for that information,” Johnston said. “We don’t have that information.” On Thursday, he remained adamant that Denver had not violated any laws. Bondi’s allegations, he said, are “false and offensive.”
In his letter to Bondi, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) questioned Bondi’s demand that he identify how he’s working to eliminate laws, policies and practices that she claimed impede federal immigration enforcement.
“In a democracy, governors do not unilaterally ‘eliminate laws.’ The role of the executive is to take care that the laws are faithfully executed, not to pick and choose which to follow,” wrote Walz, the 2024 Democratic nominee for vice president. “In Minnesota, we take pride in following the law.”
New York Mayor Eric Adams, who promised to toughen immigration enforcement in his city after the Trump administration dropped corruption charges against him this spring, did not respond directly to Bondi’s letter. The task was passed on to the city’s corporation counsel, who sent a two-paragraph letter that said the city was not thwarting federal immigration policies but operating under a “system of federalism” that means states and cities do not have to undertake federal mandates.
Kayla Mamelak Altus, a spokeswoman for Adams, said the city was taking Trump’s threat to possibly target New York seriously and preparing for any scenario. But she declined to reveal what that playbook might look like.
In Washington, Ferguson, who previously served as the state’s attorney general before he was elected governor in November, said he had anticipated some dramatic action from the Trump administration. Late last year, before he was sworn into office, Ferguson spoke to state finance officials to determine how the state would fare fiscally if it lost federal funding, which makes up 28 percent of the budget.
But Ferguson did not anticipate Bondi’s threat to potentially prosecute him or any other elected official in the country over differences in policy. As attorney general, he had been the first to file a lawsuit over Trump’s 2017 executive order to ban visitors and refugees from several predominantly Muslim countries.
On Tuesday, Ferguson recalled trying to reassure his 8-year-old daughter at the time, who worried something might happen to him for challenging Trump.
“I remember telling her … ‘We’re lucky to live in a country right where your dad, or any American, can speak out against the president, where your dad can file a lawsuit against the president, say things that are pretty direct about the president, be critical,’” Ferguson recalled.
It was something they shouldn’t take for granted, he told her, because in other countries people could get sent to jail for something like that.
Eight years later, Ferguson said he didn’t know what he would say to his daughter now of that freedom to challenge a president. “Maybe I’m not so sure about that,” the governor said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2025/08/22/sanctuary-cities-bondi