Soldiers in Chicago…
Soldiers in Chicago ~ What the Crime Numbers Won't Tell You
When I first read that President Trump had authorized military troops to deploy in Chicago, my immediate question was: why Chicago? I started looking at the crime statistics, and what I found didn't match the administration's narrative. This essay examines what the data actually shows and what these deployments mean for constitutional governance.
The Crime Data Doesn't Support the Deployment Pattern
On Saturday, October 4th, 2025, Governor JB Pritzker received an ultimatum from the Pentagon: activate Illinois National Guard troops for deployment in Chicago, or the federal government would do it for him. By that afternoon, President Trump had authorized 300 National Guard members to deploy to Illinois.
This wasn't the first such deployment of 2025. Troops had already been sent to Los Angeles in June, Washington D.C. in August, and Portland in September. Memphis was added in October. Each time, the administration cited crime as justification.
According to 2024 FBI data, Memphis, Tennessee leads the nation with 2,501 violent crimes per 100,000 residents—nearly six times the national average. Detroit comes in second with 1,781 per 100,000. Baltimore ranks third. Chicago ranks 29th.
Yet for months, President Trump singled out Chicago for his deployment threats. On September 6th, he posted to Truth Social an AI-generated image showing himself dressed as a military commander in front of a burning Chicago skyline with helicopters overhead. The caption read: "I love the smell of deportations in the morning" and "Chicago [is] about to find out why it's called the Department of WAR."
Governor Pritzker responded on X: "The President of the United States is threatening to go to war with an American city."
Cities With Declining Crime Got Troops
Chicago police data showed homicides down 30% and shootings down 40% in the year before Trump's authorization. The Major Cities Chiefs Association reported Chicago had 243 homicides in the first half of 2025 compared to 308 during the same period in 2024—a 21% decrease.
In Washington D.C., where troops deployed in August, the Metropolitan Police Department documented crime at a 30-year low. Homicide rates in 2024 were 68% lower than the 1990s peaks. The administration deployed over 700 National Guard troops anyway, stationing them in tourist areas along the National Mall rather than in neighborhoods with higher crime rates.
When pollsters surveyed D.C. residents in August, nearly 80% opposed the deployment. Local officials stated they had not requested federal military assistance.
Two Different Deployments: With and Without Local Consent
On September 12th, Trump announced on Fox News that National Guard troops would deploy to Memphis. "We're going to Memphis. Memphis is deeply troubled, and the mayor is happy. He's a Democrat. The mayor is happy, and the governor Tennessee, the governor is happy," Trump said during the Fox & Friends broadcast. Then he added: "I would have preferred going to Chicago."
Memphis did have the nation's worst crime rate. Democratic Mayor Paul Young and Republican Governor Bill Lee both publicly welcomed federal help. The city had recorded 145 homicides in the first eight months of 2025. Federal forces arrived in Memphis in October.
Three weeks later came a very different scenario. On Saturday morning, October 5th, U.S. Border Patrol agents shot a woman named Marimar Martinez at 3900 South Kedzie Avenue in Chicago's Brighton Park neighborhood. According to a Department of Homeland Security statement, Martinez—a U.S. citizen—was driving one of multiple vehicles that "rammed" and "boxed in" federal agents on patrol. Block Club Chicago reported it was "not immediately able to verify Homeland Security's account of the incident." Martinez was released from the hospital and taken into FBI custody.
Hours later, Governor Pritzker announced on X that the "Trump Administration's Department of War gave me an ultimatum: call up your troops, or we will." White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson confirmed that Trump had "authorized 300 national guardsmen to protect federal officers and assets."
Pritzker later revealed that the administration was sending Texas National Guard members to Illinois without any communication with his office. "We must now start calling this what it is: Trump's Invasion," he wrote on X.
Mayor Brandon Johnson and Governor Pritzker both opposed the deployment. Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul announced he would file a lawsuit. By Sunday, Illinois and the city of Chicago had sued the Trump administration in federal court.
A Geographic and Political Pattern Emerges
Looking at the deployment locations reveals a consistent pattern: Los Angeles, Portland, Chicago, and Washington D.C. all have Democratic governors and mayors. Most of those mayors are Black. According to documentation of these deployments, troops were mobilized from Republican-led states that themselves contained 10 cities with higher crime rates than Washington D.C.
Memphis—which actually had the worst crime rate—was the only Republican-governed state on the deployment list, and the only city where local officials welcomed the troops.
Trump's Stated Reasoning: "The Enemy From Within"
On Tuesday, September 30th, President Trump addressed approximately 800 of America's top military officials at the Marine Corps base in Quantico, Virginia. He told them he was "using dangerous cities as training grounds" for the military and would be going into Chicago "very soon."
He also said he signed an executive order establishing a National Guard quick reaction force "because it's the enemy from within."
Trump didn't reference foreign adversaries or criminal cartels. In the context of his remarks about Chicago, Portland, and other cities with ongoing protests against immigration enforcement, "the enemy from within" referred to domestic opposition—protesters outside ICE facilities, Democratic governors, and residents opposing his immigration policies.
At the Broadview ICE processing center in suburban Chicago, protesters had been gathering regularly since Trump launched two major immigration enforcement operations: "Operation Midway Blitz" on September 8th, followed by "Operation At Large" a week later. These were coordinated campaigns targeting undocumented immigrants throughout Chicago and Illinois. Federal agents used tear gas and pepper pellets on demonstrators. On September 6th, Broadview police began investigating what they called an "unprovoked attack" by ICE agents who allegedly shot a chemical munition at a WBBM-TV Chicago news van.
Multiple Federal Judges Ruled the Deployments Illegal
On September 2nd, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in California issued a significant ruling: the Trump administration had violated the Posse Comitatus Act—the 1878 law that prohibits using military forces for domestic law enforcement—when it deployed 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to Los Angeles in June.
Judge Breyer ordered the administration to stop using military troops for civilian law enforcement in California.
The White House called Breyer "a rogue judge" trying to "usurp the authority of the Commander-in-Chief" and announced they would appeal.
Retired Major General William Enyart, who served as Illinois's 37th Adjutant General, told Military Times: "The judge ruled that the president failed to show there was a rebellion or inability of civil authorities to respond to the demonstrations, which is the requirement in federal law to use troops over the objections of the governor. Accordingly, he will have the same issue should he try to do this in Chicago, and likely the same result."
In Oregon, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut issued two separate rulings over one weekend blocking Trump's deployment of 200 National Guard members to Portland. She noted that protests at Portland's ICE facility had been "relatively small, contained, and largely sedated" in recent weeks—usually just a couple dozen people gathering at night. After her first ruling on Saturday, the administration attempted to send California and Texas National Guard members to Oregon instead. Immergut issued a second ruling on Sunday, stating she was "certainly troubled by now hearing that both California and Texas are being sent to Oregon, which does appear to be in direct contradiction of my order."
Despite these court orders, the administration continued planning Portland deployments, leading Oregon officials to file additional legal challenges.
What Officials and Civil Rights Organizations Said
On October 5th, as Illinois and Chicago filed their federal lawsuit, Oregon Governor Tina Kotek released a statement: "President Trump's actions are an effort to occupy and incite cities and states that don't share his politics."
The American Civil Liberties Union issued its own statement: "We see the president's strategy for what it is—placing National Guard troops in legal and ethical jeopardy in an attempt to create conflict, sow fear in our communities, and intimidate people from exercising their constitutional rights."
Governor Pritzker stated on September 30th: "We're talking about unprecedented behavior from an individual that, quite frankly, has demonstrated that he's double-minded and unhinged."
Earlier in September, Pritzker had accused Trump of attempting to "normalize military presence in cities to stifle voter turnout in the 2026 midterm elections."
Why This Matters Beyond Party Politics
As I researched these deployments, what struck me most was how the facts contradicted the stated justifications. The cities with the worst crime didn't get troops—or got them only when local officials agreed. The cities with improving crime rates got troops over explicit objections. Federal judges found no legal basis for the deployments. Yet they continued.
These facts establish precedents that transcend any single administration or policy issue:
- A President can deploy military forces to American cities with lower crime rates than alternative locations
- Deployments can continue after federal judges rule them unconstitutional
- Governors' objections can be overridden without meeting legal requirements
- Military force can be used to protect federal agents conducting specific policy operations rather than responding to general public safety emergencies
- Domestic political opposition can be characterized as "the enemy from within" requiring military response
The constitutional framework that has governed federal-state relations and limited military involvement in domestic affairs for nearly 150 years is being tested in real time.
These Events Are Ongoing and Documented
As of early October 2025, National Guard troops remain deployed in multiple American cities. Court cases continue. Additional deployments are planned for New York, Baltimore, San Francisco, and Oakland.
All of these facts are documented in reporting from The Washington Post, NPR, CNN, Military Times, WBEZ Chicago, and other news organizations, as well as in court documents, FBI crime statistics, and official statements from governors, mayors, the White House, and federal agencies.
The question before American citizens isn't whether these events happened—they did and continue to happen. The question is whether we will accept military deployments in cities based on political alignment rather than public safety needs, continuing even after courts rule them unconstitutional.
How we answer that question, through our civic engagement, our support for constitutional limits, and our votes, will determine what precedents govern future administrations of both parties.
The facts are clear. What we do with them is up to us.
