As sand-colored Humvees rolled down Washington DC streets against the wishes of local leaders, mayors around the country planned for what they would do if the Trump administration comes for them next.Donald Trump’s disdain for Democratic-run cities featured heavily in his 2024 campaign. The president vowed to take over DC – a promise he attempted to fulfill this week. Earlier this year, he sent national guard troops to Los Angeles amid protests despite California opposing the move, which led to a lawsuit from the state.City leaders say there are appropriate ways for the federal government to partner with them to address issues such as crime, but that Trump is using the pretext of crime and unrest to override their local authority, create chaos and distract from a bruising news cycle about his ties to Jeffrey Epstein.Many cities have worked to bring down violent crime rates – they are on the decline in most large cities, though mayors acknowledge they still have work to do to improve the lives of their residents.“President Trump constantly creates a narrative that cities like Seattle are liberal hellholes and we are lawless, and that is just not the fact,” said Bruce Harrell, the mayor of Seattle. “We are the home of great communities and great businesses. So his view of our city is not aligned with reality. It’s to distract the American people from his failures as a president.”By sending in the military, some noted, Trump was probably escalating crime, contributing to distrust in the government and creating unsafe situations both for residents and service members.Even Republican mayors or mayors in red states have said they don’t agree with Trump usurping local control for tenuous reasons. The US Conference of Mayors, currently led by the Republican mayor of Oklahoma City, David Holt, pushed back against Trump’s takeover of DC, saying “local control is always best”.“These mayors around the country, by the way, from multiple ideological backgrounds, they love their city more than they love their ideology,” said Jacob Frey, the mayor of Minneapolis.Mayors told the Guardian they are ready to stand up for their cities, legally and otherwise, should Trump come knocking. They are working with their chiefs of police to ensure they agree on the chain of command and coordinating with governors in the event the national guard is deployed. Because Trump has so frequently brought up plans to crack down on cities, large Democratic cities have been strategizing with emergency planning departments and city attorneys.But Trump has shown he’s willing to bend and break the law in his pursuits against cities. The Pentagon is reportedly planning to potentially put national guard troops at the ready, stationed in Alabama and Arizona, to deploy to cities experiencing unrest. He has indicated this is just the beginning of an assault on cities. His attorney general sent letters to a host of Democratic cities this week, threatening to arrest local leaders if they don’t cooperate with federal authorities on immigration enforcement.The idea that troops could be on the ground for any number of reasons in cities around the US should alarm people, said Brett Smiley, the Democratic mayor of Providence, Rhode Island.“This is not something that we should be used to, and we shouldn’t let this administration break yet another norm or standard in our society, such that a couple years from now, we don’t think twice about when we see troops in our cities,” Smiley said.Why Trump is going after citiesThe roots of Trump’s battle with cities stretch back to his first administration, and they align with common narratives on the right about how cities today have fallen off because of liberal policies. Project 2025, the conservative blueprint, called for crackdowns on cities, including withholding federal funds to force compliance with deportation plans.His campaign promises included a commitment to “deploying federal assets, including the National Guard, to restore law and order when local law enforcement refuses to act”. In a video from 2023, he explained: “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.”In 2020, he reportedly wished he cracked down much harder and faster on protesters and rioters during the demonstrations after George Floyd’s murder. Now, he’s using smaller problems – anti-immigration protests and crime against a government employee – to declare emergencies.Minneapolis, where the protests began after a police officer killed Floyd, has at times made Trump’s list of rundown cities. Frey, a Democrat, said he didn’t know whether 2020 protests played a role in Trump’s current actions.“I don’t think anybody can pretend to know what’s in Donald Trump’s head,” Frey told the Guardian. “It’s an utter mess of idiocy. I don’t know what he’s thinking. I don’t know what he’s thinking or what the rhyme or reason is. I mean, clearly there’s a focus on Democratically run cities.”When Trump called out other cities on his radar, he named blue cities run by Black mayors – Baltimore, Oakland, Los Angeles, Chicago.“The fact that my city and all the others called out by the president on Sunday, led by Black mayors, are all making historic progress on crime, but they’re the ones getting called up – it tells you everything that you need to know,” Baltimore’s mayor, Brandon Scott, said in a press call this week.DC is differentThe federal government can often partner with cities to address crime – several Democratic mayors noted that they worked with the Biden administration on this front successfully. But those partnerships are mutually agreed upon collaborations, not overrides of local policing.“We’re not anti-federal help. We’re anti-federal chaos,” Frey said.Detroit’s mayor, Mike Duggan, said in a statement that his city is seeing its lowest homicides, shootings and carjackings in more than 50 years, crediting a partnership with federal agencies and the US attorney as a major part of that success.“This partnership is simple and effective: DPD does the policing and the feds have strongly increased support for federal prosecution,” Duggan said. “We appreciate the partnership we have today and are aware of no reason either side would want to change it.”Mayors are not saying they have solved the issue of violent crime, Scott said, though they are acknowledging they have reduced it and will continue to work toward further reductions. “We need folks that want to actually help us do that, versus try to take and show force and make us into something other than a representative democracy that we all are proud to call home,” he said.Mayors throughout the US made a clear distinction between Trump’s authority in Washington DC compared to other cities. Washington has a legal provision in the Home Rule Act of 1973 that allows for a president to take over its police department during an emergency on a temporary basis, though Trump is the first to use this power. Other cities have no similar concept in law.Even with the Home Rule Act, Washington officials sued Trump after his attempt to replace the city’s police chief, saying the president was mounting a “hostile takeover” of DC police. Trump and the city agreed to scale back the federal takeover on Friday, keeping DC’s police chief in place.“We know when people want to say they’re going to be a dictator on day one, they never voluntarily give up that aspiration on day two,” Norm Eisen, an attorney who frequently sues the Trump administration, said in a press call this week. “That is what you are seeing in the streets of the District of Columbia.”Cities are preparingIn Minneapolis, Frey said the city has prepared operational plans with police, fire and emergency management and readied itself legally.“Our chief of police and I are lockstep, and he reports up to the commissioner of safety, who reports up to me,” Frey said. “There’s no lack of clarity as to how this reporting structure works, and it certainly does not go to Donald Trump. Doing something like that in Minneapolis, it would be just a blatantly illegal usurpation of local control were this to happen here. Of course, we would take immediate action to get injunctive relief.”Trump’s decision to send in national guard troops to Los Angeles is also legally questionable. Governors typically direct guard troops. The California governor, Gavin Newsom, sued Trump for using the military for domestic law enforcement in defiance of the Posse Comitatus Act. The case was heard by a judge this week.Harrell, of Seattle, said he is confident he will be able to protect his police department and the city’s residents if Trump sends troops.“What I have to do is make sure that the people under my jurisdiction as mayor feel confident in an ability to fight his overreach, and that our law department is well geared to advance our legal arguments,” he said.Scott, of Baltimore, said he was prepared to take every action “legally and otherwise”.Still, there is some uncertaintyand unsteadiness about how cities can respond if Trump calls up the national guard.“It’s very difficult to know what our options are, because we’re in unchartered territory here,” Smiley, of Providence, said. “It’s unprecedented and I don’t know what my options are with respect to preventing troops from coming in, which is one of the reasons that I’m trying to be so proactive about making it clear that it’s not necessary, it’s not wanted.” More
