Militarizing the Streets

On CBS' Face the Nation, Kentucky senator Rand Paul was asked about President Trump's allegation that Portland, Oregon is "under siege from attack by Antifa and other domestic terrorists."  In part, he responded

I do think, though, that it's important, when people start talking about labeling people, that we realize everybody, the worst among us, even those accused of heinous crimes, will get due process.

It may be unfair to criticize a GOP member of Congress who is not on bended knee and aching to satisfy the bi- uh, Donald Trump. However, Paul, also:

Rand Paul: "Chicago is a nightmare. It is literally a war zone." pic.twitter.com/sKiMpLZmxE

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 28, 2025

Host Margaret Brennan asked Senator Paul about Portland, whereupon the latter oddly and awkwardly pivoted to Chicago and stated

I think he has the legal authority to send troops to protect federal buildings and federal proceedings, such as courts. And that's been around since the civil rights era. We have acknowledged that the federal government will sometimes come in, despite what states say.

I do think it's better when the states agree to it, for example, I mean, in Chicago. Chicago is a nightmare. It is literally a war zone. And the people being hurt the worst are those who are poor and living in these communities. I have been to the most dangerous precinct in Chicago, and it's just despair and sadness.

Donald hasn't been in Chicago since he stayed at Trump Tower downtown during the 2024 presidential campaign. He hasn't been in Baltimore, either, though he has complained about crime there and has been offered a tour by Maryland governor Wes Moore. Tough guy.

Fortunately, though to Trump insignificantly, Chicago is no war zone. (Democratic strategists and consultants warn other Democrats not to talk about a decline in crime in major cities. Democratic politicians are warned that they are expressing indifference and a lack of  sensitivity if they do so. However, facts are facts, and Chicago is no war zone.

Under the US Constitution, only Congress can declare war. Therefore, if Donald Trump declares cities such as Portland are "ravaged by war," would sending soldiers there constitute a declaration of war contrary to the Constitution?  

It would be, but Donald's words are meant to inflame passions and coupled with other statements, are intended to rally the troops, to keep them at the ready, as was "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by."

There is another, more important reason, closely related to the point by a Never Trump Republican:

Shouldn't Schumer and Jeffries tell Trump:

Sorry, can't make it to the White House tomorrow! You say a major city is so 'war-ravaged' as to require deploying federal troops authorized to use 'Full Force' against U.S. citizens. So we're heading off to Portland to take a look.

— Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) September 28, 2025

The near-term purpose is to use soldiers against citizens and other residents. The mid-term objective is to station soldiers in major American cities so that we the people will get accustomed to seeing them there and accept that situation as normal. There are elections (presumably) coming up in thirteen months and the Trump Administration very likely intends to station uniformed, armed personnel strategically during the balloting. 

There is no time to waste in creating an effective photo-op. Prominent Democrats should challenge the President to visit those cities he believes are "war zones," preferably with a local and/or state official accompanying him. If Trump takes them up on the offer, it can easily be turned into a Democratic win; if he declines, as he did for Baltimore, Democrats should pounce.

It would be easy for those local and state officials to prove that the city visited is no war zone, and it is astounding that no Democrat aside from the governor of Maryland has publicly offered this opportunity to Donald. It's critical to be there and can be devastating strategically to appear as if you're avoiding the area. (Think President George W. Bush and Hurricane Katrina.) 

If a Democrat or two does do that, the public will respond positively. Also, we may find that a few redeemable Republicans, such as Rand Paul, might reassess their undying support for President Trump. (That's a joke.)

Share |