Over the weekend, President Donald Trump shared a controversial AI-generated image of himself as Lt. Col. Bill Kilgore, the notorious cavalry commander from the 1979 film “Apocalypse Now.” The image shows Trump in a Stetson hat against a backdrop of a burning Chicago skyline filled with black helicopters.
This post, captioned with the phrase, “I love the smell of deportations in the morning,” was shared on Truth Social, alongside the ominous message: “Chicago about to find out why it’s called the Department of WAR.”
Trump’s intentions to deploy the National Guard into major American urban areas have ignited a fierce debate among the public and political leaders. His recent decisions to dispatch military convoys to Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. — along with threats to take similar actions in cities from Baltimore to San Francisco — have left Americans split on whether he is attempting to safeguard residents in Democratic-controlled cities or to instigate a form of warfare against them.
When Trump first sent troops into Los Angeles in June, he argued that federal immigration agents needed protection from locals allegedly trying to obstruct their operations. By August, he utilized crime rates as justification for deploying the National Guard to Washington, D.C., echoing claims of a public emergency.
Now, as he associates issues of crime and immigration with Chicago, he is employing militaristic rhetoric and imagery that challenge long-standing norms in American politics.
As Trump continues to label Democratic-led cities as poorly managed “hellholes,” the American public is being forced to confront a pivotal question about democracy: Is Trump merely executing his electoral mandate to enhance deportations and combat crime, as his supporters assert, or is he paving the way for a new chapter in American authoritarianism?
Critics of Trump express concern that he is inflating crime rates in cities to gain political leverage. They argue that his troop deployments to Los Angeles and D.C. are an attempt to erect a military police state that targets opponents, undermines due process, and breaks down the long-standing distinction between military and domestic law enforcement.
As Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, pointed out, “This is how authoritarians behave; this is not how the leader of a free democracy behaves.” Goitein emphasized that Trump is emulating authoritarian leaders globally who exploit crime as a pretext to centralize power and curtail rights.
On the other hand, conservative voices dismiss these concerns, arguing that Trump’s deployment of troops fulfills a campaign promise. They emphasize that he was elected on a platform focused on mass deportations and fighting crime in urban areas.
James E. Campbell, a political science professor emeritus at the University at Buffalo, noted, “There’s a problem to be dealt with there.” He acknowledged Trump’s constitutional authority to employ the National Guard, stressing that this power is part of the presidency as outlined in Article II of the Constitution.
Despite this authority, some cities have voiced opposition to the National Guard’s involvement — further complicating the legality of Trump’s actions.
Legally, the courts will clarify what Trump is permitted to do, but he appears to believe he can position Democratic leaders defensively, especially as polls indicate that most Americans are increasingly concerned about crime.
When Illinois’ Democratic Governor J.B. Pritzker criticized Trump’s plans for Chicago, suggesting the president was “threatening to go to war with an American city,” Trump responded by insisting he was not seeking conflict. “We’re not going to war,” Trump told reporters at the White House. “We’re going to clean up our cities.”
Democrats argue that Trump is playing on fears about crime in cities for political gain. They highlight statistics showing that homicides and other violent crimes have decreased in many urban areas over recent years.
A recent analysis from the Council on Criminal Justice revealed that the national homicide rate has declined since the pandemic peak of 2020-21, although the research highlighted that several cities still confront homicide rates that exceed those before 2020.
Despite these statistics, crime remains a significant political issue for many Americans. A survey from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research indicated that 81% of Americans and 68% of Democrats view crime as a “major problem” in larger cities.
Interestingly, while 55% of Americans in the AP poll approved of military and National Guard assistance to local police in major cities, fewer than one-third supported federal troops taking over city police departments.
Throughout the 2024 election, Trump has consistently threatened to use the National Guard to combat crime, stating in his Agenda47 campaign platform: “In cities where there has been a complete breakdown of law and order, where the fundamental rights of our citizens are being intolerably violated, I will not hesitate to send in federal assets including the National Guard until safety is restored.”
However, public reaction to the deployment of the National Guard in L.A. was mixed. After a clash in the predominantly Latino city of Paramount involving immigration agents, Trump ordered 2,000 National Guard soldiers to L.A. — a decision made against the wishes of California Governor Gavin Newsom.
Historically, sending the National Guard without a governor’s consent is unusual; the last similar instance occurred in 1965 when President Lyndon B. Johnson federalized the Alabama National Guard to safeguard civil rights marchers.
In August, Trump expanded his military presence to Washington, D.C., claiming he would assume control of the local police department and utilize National Guard forces to help manage law enforcement. He described the city as being “overtaken by violent gangs, bloodthirsty criminals, roving mobs of wild youth, drugged-out maniacs, and homeless people.”
D.C.’s elected District Attorney, Brian Schwalb, refuted Trump’s claims, stating, “There is no crime emergency” in the nation’s capital. He pointed out that violent crime in D.C. had reached a 30-year low last year and is down 26% this year.
Despite the statistics, Trump used isolated incidents of particularly violent crime to position Democrats defensively. Notable murders in D.C. within a brief span — including two Israeli embassy staff members and a congressional intern — served to bolster his narrative.
Turning his sights toward Chicago, Trump highlighted a violent Labor Day weekend that left nine individuals dead and over 50 injured. While Chicago does deal with challenges associated with violent crime, city officials emphasized that homicides and shootings have indeed decreased, with the city on track to achieve its lowest homicide rate in decades.
Mayor Brandon Johnson announced that homicides in Chicago had dropped by 30% within the past year, noting that his police department has confiscated 24,000 firearms since his tenure began in May 2023, most originating from Republican-led states.
“The stunt that this president is attempting to execute is not real. It doesn’t help drive us towards a more safe, affordable, big city,” Johnson stated last month, urging Trump to reinstate $800 million in violence prevention funds that the federal government cut in April.
Following his troop deployment in D.C., Trump claimed seemingly miraculous outcomes in crime reduction. “D.C. was a hellhole and now it’s safe,” he stated mere weeks after sending in troops. “Within one week, we will have no crime in Chicago.”
Experts have weighed in on Trump’s strategy, with Adam Gelb, president and chief executive of the Council on Criminal Justice, suggesting that while such abrupt interventions may yield short-term changes, they may not be sustainable.
“That’s what history tells us: we can have short-term impact with shocks to the system like this, but they tend to be fleeting,” Gelb conveyed.
When asked about the possibility of a long-term impact from his tactics, Gelb admitted uncertainty about the outcomes of such an unprecedented approach in American urban areas.
“It hasn’t been tested,” he said regarding the deployment of large numbers of troops in cities.
Trump appears to be betting on the idea that Americans may become more accepting of military involvement in response to crime if these tactics are perceived to yield results. “Most people are saying, ‘If you call him a dictator, if he stops crime, he can be whatever he wants,’” Trump remarked in a Cabinet meeting recently.
He insisted, “I am not a dictator, by the way,” adding, “I’m the president of the United States. If I think our country is in danger — and it is in danger in these cities — I can do it.”
Experts like Daniel Treisman, a political science professor at UCLA, observe that Trump embodies an extreme example of a leader who seeks to disregard constraints on power and intimidate adversaries in a well-established democracy.
Treisman noted particular concern regarding the Trump administration’s strategy to purge professionals from key federal agencies in favor of loyalists.
His insight aligns with concerns raised in the book “Spin Dictators: The Changing Face of Tyranny in the 21st Century,” where Trump’s tactics have been compared to those deployed by leaders like Viktor Orbán in Hungary and Nayib Bukele in El Salvador.
Despite an underlying public sentiment that supports Trump’s assertions about crime, some believe this does not justify undemocratic actions. Elizabeth Goitein warned, “There’s no such thing as electing a president to undo democracy and violate the rule of law.” She emphasized that Trump cannot claim he was elected to disregard the Constitution.
image source from：latimes
