Vice President JD Vance expressed his desire to expand Trump’s crime crackdown to all major American cities, citing “weak leadership” as the root cause of rising crime. During an interview with Matt Gaetz, Vance endorsed replicating federal policing strategies seen in Washington, D.C., and the recent “Operation Midway Blitz” in Chicago. He explicitly named cities like Detroit, Milwaukee, and Chicago as targets for federal intervention, asserting that common-sense law enforcement could reclaim the streets for citizens. Additionally, Vance echoed Trump’s stance on “narcoterrorists,” advocating for wartime-like rules of engagement, even if it meant extrajudicial killings.
Read More
Chicago officials, including Mayor Johnson, are strongly opposing potential federal intervention, including military deployment, in the city, emphasizing that they haven’t requested assistance and that crime rates are actually declining. This opposition comes in response to former President Trump’s suggestion of intervening in Chicago, echoing previous actions in other cities like Los Angeles. Illinois leaders, alongside the mayor, have emphasized their intention to pursue legal action if necessary, citing the Tenth Amendment to limit federal authority. The Trump administration had previously invoked Title 10 of the federal code to justify troop deployments elsewhere despite state objections.
Read More
Starting Sunday night, a limited number of National Guard members in Washington, D.C., will be armed, as directed by the Secretary of Defense. The Joint Task Force in D.C. stated that personnel will carry service weapons but operate under established Rules for the Use of Force. This represents an escalation in the federal intervention in the city, despite declining violent crime rates, with no specific threats necessitating armed guards reported. The decision follows President Trump’s order for a law enforcement crackdown and the earlier deployment of National Guard troops who have primarily focused on landmark protection and crowd control.
Read More
Pritzker slams Trump’s threat to target Chicago next: ‘We don’t play those games’ is the headline, and it’s a stark declaration. The situation feels charged with tension. The responses paint a picture of real concern, with a lot of fear bubbling under the surface. The core of it is this: Trump, possibly motivated by political vendettas or a desire to exert control, is purportedly eyeing Chicago as the next target for some kind of federal intervention, possibly involving the deployment of troops. The potential consequences are heavy, and the air is thick with what-ifs.
The sentiment seems to be, “Get ready.”… Continue reading
President Trump has announced plans to expand his federalized crime crackdown, currently implemented in Washington, D.C., to other major cities. During a recent press conference, Trump stated that Chicago would likely be the next city to receive federal intervention, followed by New York. Trump cited an alleged desire from residents and praised the success of the D.C. takeover, which has seen increased arrests and a federal takeover of the Metropolitan Police Department. These plans follow Trump’s declaration of a public safety emergency and deployment of the National Guard in D.C., which have been met with both praise and protests.
Read More
President Trump has indicated that Chicago is the next city targeted for federal intervention, following the current occupation in Washington, D.C., drawing strong opposition from local officials. Trump’s declaration of a public safety emergency and the deployment of federal forces, despite decreasing crime rates in several cities, has been met with accusations of authoritarian overreach. While Trump faces legal obstacles to controlling local police departments in Chicago, officials like Mayor Johnson and Governor Pritzker have vehemently rejected the idea, citing existing crime reduction efforts and community violence intervention programs. Elected officials across Illinois have unified in their condemnation of Trump’s threats, highlighting concerns about the impact on vulnerable communities and the prioritization of political spectacle over effective public safety measures.
Read More
In a significant escalation of federal intervention, West Virginia, South Carolina, and Ohio are deploying hundreds of National Guard troops to Washington D.C. The Republican governors of these states are sending personnel at the request of the Trump administration to assist with law enforcement and bolster the federal crackdown on crime and homelessness. These actions follow President Trump’s executive order federalizing local police forces and activating D.C. National Guard members, sparking protests in the city. The added troops are intended to provide support in patrolling landmarks and assisting with tasks such as crowd control.
Read More
In response to rising crime rates in Washington, D.C., former President Trump announced a press conference for Monday, claiming it would end violent crime in the city. Following a White House announcement of increased federal law enforcement presence, Trump suggested potentially taking control of the city’s police force. While Trump has made such claims, the Department of Justice reports a significant drop in violent crime rates in Washington, the lowest in three decades, with further decreases this year. The White House has deployed over 120 members of federal agencies to address the issue, sparking debate among officials and residents regarding local governance and federal intervention.
Read More
President Trump claimed to have spoken with Governor Newsom the previous day, criticizing Newsom’s handling of recent protests and crediting federal intervention for preventing a catastrophic situation in Los Angeles. Newsom swiftly and publicly denied any such conversation, highlighting the lack of communication between the two. This exchange underscores the escalating tensions between the state and federal governments, fueled by ongoing protests and the deployment of federal troops to Los Angeles. The disagreement centers on the severity of the protests and the justification for the federal response.
Read More
Kristi Noem’s stance on federalizing the National Guard shifted dramatically depending on the political affiliation of the governor involved. She vehemently opposed President Biden’s potential deployment to Texas, citing it as an attack on states’ rights. However, she enthusiastically supported President Trump’s deployment to Los Angeles, justifying it as necessary to ensure public safety and immigration enforcement. Noem’s rationale for this reversal centered on her assessment of each governor’s decision-making capabilities. This contrasting response highlights a significant partisan divide in views on federal intervention in state affairs.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood