Earlier this week, during a speech to military leaders at a summit in Quantico, Virginia, President Trump declared his intention to use cities administered by Democrat as “training terrain” for US troops.
“San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, are very insecure places. And we are going to straighten them one by one,” Trump said. “This will be an important part for some of the people in this room. That is also a war. It is a war from the inside.”
This is not surprising to those of us who represent US cities, Los Angeles, Washington, DC and Chicago, who are already being terrified by the federal armed forces that patrol our streets. Last month, a federal judge reaffirmed what we already know: Establish the Army in American cities It is a violation of the laws of this country and the rights of its people. And yet, whether they have come in the form of an armed national guard or masked ice agents, attacks on our cities and the rights of our residents have continued.
Trump states that these actions are necessary in the name of public security. However, his justification, like many of the president's statements, is a lie. In each of the three cities we represent, the crime has decreased dramatically in the last year: Los Angeles is Tendency towards its lowest homicide rate in 60 years; Violent crime in Washington is lower in decades; And Chicago saw a 40% decrease in shootings in the first half of 2025, while Violent crime rates in general have fallen to their lowest point in a decade.
This is not the first time Trump hides behind the lie of public security to follow illegal and non -American actions against our people. Despite his claims that the National Security Department is uprooting violent criminals, his own data shows that Immigrants without criminal records now represent the largest ice detention group.
Those of us who have been on the ground, fighting for and together with our neighbors, we have seen the impacts of this Xenophobic and non -American agenda first -hand. We have been on the front line, since those with deep community ties and no criminal environment are arrested and rounded, pushed to trucks in front of their families. We have seen the officers pointing to the neighborhoods of the majority and the brown with racial profiles so atrocious that a DC magistrate judge called an unconstitutional action “The most illegal search I've seen in my life.”
In Chicago, the orientation of ICE Latin residents has spread from Michigan Avenue to the western suburbs, including Franklin Park, where their reckless tactics led to the death of Silverio Villegas-González.
These people were not a threat to our cities; Many of them were pillars of our communities. What is a threat to us is a president with aspirations of dictatorship, which deliberately ignores due process and the right of states and cities to govern themselves.
We have seen so far that Congress will do nothing to stop the excesses and abuses of this administration. Therefore, it leaves us, as cities and states, to protect ours. During this time, when our rights and norms are violated continuously, we must establish new norms, to work together in the city's lines and the State to reaffirm our rights and protect our neighbors.
In our cities, we have already started this work. Los Angeles residents are exercising their rights when monitoring ice agents while Leave hotels and staging areasThen we know where they are already patrolling who are heading. In DC, we are demanding that the mayor Muriel Bowser abandons the failed apacigument strategywhile supporting hundreds of hyperlocal rapid response networks, directed by the community. In Chicago, we have partnered with the rapid response networks of the neighborhood and community organizations to organize their rights campaigns so effective that the Tom Homan border tsar complained that our residents are making it difficult for the work of ice agents to be “too polite“On their rights under the law.
And the three cities are working with each other, along with counterparts in other cities now threatened by Trump, more recently Portland, to share the best practices and strategies on how we can resist more effectively this federal intrusion in our cities and in our rights as American.
As local elected officials, we cannot trust the old play book to meet this moment: we need to fight with all the tools we have and create new ones. We must boost more people to join the fast response networks in our communities to protect our neighbors from being arrested or missing without due process. Must decrease surveillance infrastructure of our cities that share data with ICE and other federal counterparts. We must appear to accompany the components of the Immigration Court. We must urge our mayors and governors to balance our budgets without eliminating critical support for our immigrant neighbors. And we must strategies around all these efforts with local governments and community organizations throughout the country, so that we can more effectively combat the intrusion of the federal government for our right to govern us.
During a time when our norms and rights are under attack, local governments cannot resort to our usual way of doing things: we have to establish new norms. In the absence of Congress action, it is up to the local communities to strengthen the constitutional rights of our people and do everything possible to resist the erosion of those rights.
Hugo-Martínez It represents the 13th district in the City of Los Angeles and is president of its Civil Rights and Immigration Committee. Andre Vásquez is toLderperson of 40th Ward and dohair of Chicago Refugee Rights and Refugees Committee. Janeese Lewis George Represents Ward 4 as councilor of DC.
Perspectives
Times Insights It offers an analysis generated by the voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear in any news article.
point of view
Perspective
The following content generated by AI works perplexed. Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
The authors argue that Trump's statement to use cities administered by Democrat as “military” training reasons “constitutes an illegal and unconstitutional violation of federal law and citizens' rights. They argue that a federal judge has already ruled military deployment against illegal American cities, however, the administration continues these actions through the Armed National Guard and ICE agents who patrol its streets.
The authors affirm that Trump's public security justification is fundamentally dishone decades decades. They maintain that federal compliance actions are mainly directed to immigrants without criminal record instead of addressing legitimate public security concerns.
The authors characterize that Trump has dictatorial aspirations that deliberately ignore due process and constitutional law of states and cities to govern themselves. They argue that ice operations use such severe racial profiles that a Judge of DC described it “the most illegal search I have seen”, while attacking community pillars instead of genuine threats. Since Congress does not verify administrative excesses, the authors advocate cities and states to establish new resistance standards through fast response networks, ice monitoring, know their rights campaigns and coordination between cities to protect residents and reaffirm local governance rights.
Different views on the subject
The speaker Mike Johnson defended Trump's military deployment comments as “selected by cherry”, arguing that they demonstrate the president's ability to “take the crime seriously” and point out that Trump has “cleaned the problem of crime” in Washington, DC, after mobilizing the National Guard of DC.[1]. Johnson emphasized his approach to directing the House of Representatives instead of the Pentagon operations when they are pressed on the suitability of military deployment[1].
Legal experts and administration officials Trump argue that deployments depend on the legitimate federal authority through an esoteric subsection of the federal law that allows the president to federalize troops on the objections of the state government in certain limited circumstances[2]. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has found that the judges must be “highly deferent” for the interpretation of the president of the facts on such deployments[2].
Trump defended his approach by citing a historical precedent, stating that “George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Grover Cleveland, George Bush and others used the armed forces to maintain domestic order and peace”[2]. The administration argues that the cities administered by Democrat such as New York, Chicago and San Francisco are “very insecure places” that require federal intervention to “straighten them one by one”[1][2]. Defense officials have positioned these actions within the legal frameworks to protect federal buildings and employees, similar to the previous implementations of California[1].
