Multiple news outlets have reported that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is preparing to deploy its Special Response Teams to five major cities, including Chicago.
Mayor Brandon Johnson’s chief of staff, Cristina Pacione-Zayas, informed reporters last week about the federal agency’s intentions to use tactical teams and advanced equipment, reminiscent of recent operations in Los Angeles.
This planned intervention comes amid sporadic but violent protests against ICE, prompting a significant increase in federal presence in these areas.
Last Thursday, U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem addressed reporters in Los Angeles, asserting the government’s resolve.
“We are not going away,” Noem declared.
“We are staying here to liberate the city from the socialists and the burdensome leadership that this governor and that this mayor have placed on this country and what they have tried to insert into the city.”
Noem’s comments underline a contentious stance from the federal government, suggesting an intention to ‘liberate’ citizens from their elected state and local representatives.
Immediately following her remarks, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla, a Democrat from California, encountered a troubling situation when he attempted to address Noem.
He was forcibly removed from the media event by federal police and subsequently handcuffed after he identified himself to the Secretary.
Speculation grows on how this federal ‘liberation’ narrative will manifest in Chicago and Illinois should ICE deploy in full.
In a related context, a three-judge federal appeals panel recently placed a hold on a district court’s order that would have required the federal government to relinquish control over 4,000 National Guard troops currently in Los Angeles.
Federal law permits the president to federalize state National Guards when regular forces are insufficient to enforce U.S. laws.
A hearing on this lower court ruling is forthcoming, setting the stage for a potential federalization of Illinois National Guard troops as well.
Governor JB Pritzker voiced strong opposition during a congressional committee hearing last Thursday, stating he would stand against federal actions that threatened the safety and well-being of residents.
“I would rather that he came and arrested me than do that to the people of my state,” he proclaimed.
However, there are concerns about the effectiveness of state-level resistance against federal authority, particularly in light of similar actions taken in California, where Governor Gavin Newsom is navigating a heightened federal presence due to ICE operations.
Newsom has filed lawsuits aimed at stopping the federalization of National Guard troops in his state, arguing that such actions exacerbate local tensions rather than alleviate them.
Despite strong posturing, some political analysts express skepticism about whether Newsom can serve as an effective bulwark against federal overreach.
Concerns persist regarding Newsom’s communication strategies, which often yield compelling soundbites but may lack practical application.
Earlier this month, Newsom suggested California could withhold $80 billion in federal payments — a claim that drew skepticism for its feasibility.
A spokesperson for Newsom previously emphasized the distinction between tweets and tangible policy, highlighting the disconnect between public statements and actionable governance.
Moreover, this is the same governor who experienced disillusionment when the federal government denied aid following devastating wildfires in Southern California, despite his attempts to garner support during an earlier brief collaboration with President Donald Trump.
In light of these developments, tensions between state and federal leaders are expected to escalate, particularly if President Donald Trump perceives any actions that could be framed as advantageous.
Political insiders worried that the current administration is operating with a campaign mindset, failing to grasp the complexities of governing.
One insider noted, “They don’t get [that governing is] not like the black and white of campaigning. They are living on election night.”
As the federal government intensifies its efforts in major cities, the landscape of governance and community relations continues to evolve, raising critical questions about the balance of power and the rights of citizens under local, state, and federal jurisdictions.
Rich Miller, who also publishes Capitol Fax, a daily political newsletter, highlights that the implications of these developments will resonate deeply in areas that bolster sanctuary policies like Illinois.
image source from：https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/2025/06/13/chicago-state-brace-for-intense-ice-activity
