Donald Trump threatens Democrat-led cities with Insurrection Act as opponents claim ‘escalation of violence’

He’s been accused of launching an “invasion” across several cities in his bid to bring down crime, but now the legal headaches are multiplying as the nation continues to split at the seams politically.

The Republican leader’s rhetoric accelerated after a judge in Oregon temporarily blocked National Guard deployments in Portland. The historically left-wing city was targeted alongside Chicago and Los Angeles for having large immigrant populations.

Their respective states’ Democratic leaders have largely resisted federal co-operation with ICE, meaning Trump’s plan to rid each city of illegal immigrants has hit some roadblocks.

Surges of federal agents have been met with street protests amid ongoing accusations of heavy-handed tactics.

But Trump has demonstrated he’s not afraid of using emergency powers as a means to an end.

“We have an Insurrection Act for a reason. If I had to enact it I would do that,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. “If people were being killed and courts were holding us up or governors or mayors were holding us up, sure I would do that.”

For many of Trump’s supporters, fear of authoritarianism was a driving force in rejecting the Democrats. Now, the president they voted for is openly mulling the use of emergency powers to override local authorities, and cities are being flooded with federal immigration agents accused by officials of “thuggery” and unlawful detentions.

It appears to be another case of disagreement over which issue is more devastating to the US as a whole. In this case, Trump believes it to be rampant illegal immigration, but his opponents disagree that he should be harnessing the military and emergency powers to address it. Others dismiss the entire initiative as racism on the Trump administration’s part.

Trump slammed for ‘escalation of violence’

Illinois Governor JB Pritzker has been very vocal for some time on the issue, warning that Trump’s actions amounted to a deliberate “escalation of violence” designed to justify the use of emergency powers.

“They should stay the hell out of Illinois,” Pritzker said, accusing federal agents of excessive force.

The state lawyer general also argued the deployments were “unlawful and unconstitutional,” claiming Trump was punishing political enemies.

In September, the governor even said there was “no emergency in Chicago” that required the National Guard’s intervention.

Earlier this week, he said Trump’s team had called him warning that they’d be sending in troops if he failed to take a stronger stance on crime in his city.

“This morning, the Trump Administration’s Department of War gave me an ultimatum: call up your troops, or we will,” Pritzker wrote on X. “It is absolutely outrageous and un-American to demand a Governor send military troops within our own borders and against our will.”

He labelled it “Trump’s invasion” and further accused the President of “rewriting history”.

Oregon officials mounted a similar fight. Judge Karin Immergut, who is actually a Trump appointee, temporarily blocked Portland deployments, putting to the President that “this is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law.” The White House immediately lodged an appeal following the bold statement.

Despite the backlash, there is a strand of public support for Trump’s aggressive approach. Chicago has long been branded by critics as a city plagued by crime, with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem describing it as “a war zone” with gunshots folding into the regular background noise for some suburbs.

For Trump’s base, the willingness to send troops into Democratic strongholds signals a tough-on-crime stance. It plays into the Trump voter base’s longstanding frustrations with what they see as weak local governance.

That sentiment may explain why the White House is pushing so hard, even as legal challenges stack up. With a number of the President’s campaign promises struggling, a big win against crime and illegal immigration would be seen, at least internally, as a major win.

The nation is unsurprisingly divided on the issue, though a slim majority are against the use of the National Guard.

A CBS poll found 58 per cent of Americans oppose deploying the National Guard to cities, with the remaining 42 per cent seeing it less as authoritarian overreach and more as a necessary intervention.