Will we stop a dangerous precedent?
By federalizing Washington, D.C., police, activating the National Guard and bulldozing homeless encampments with just a day’s notice, Trump has flexed a new kind of presidential muscle: the authority to override local governments at will — a move that raises serious constitutional concerns. Now, Trump is openly talking about expanding this playbook to cities like Chicago, New York and Philadelphia.
This is not about restoring order — it is about consolidating power. Notice how he spares Republican-led cities with higher crime rates while targeting Democratic strongholds. Public safety has always been a local responsibility. This pattern is clear: Trump’s law-and-order agenda is less about public safety and more about partisan punishment.
For more than two centuries, presidents of both parties have respected the principle of local control over policing. Reagan deferred to New York during its crime crisis; Obama stayed out of Ferguson. Trump, by contrast, is centralizing authority in ways we associate with authoritarians like Putin or Orbán.
The danger isn’t just today’s troop deployments — it’s the precedent they set. If a president can occupy cities he dislikes while ignoring those led by allies, local democracy becomes a pawn of national politics. Congress’ silence only deepens the risk by normalizing executive overreach.
When federal power displaces local accountability, it’s ordinary citizens who pay the price: residents losing their voice, communities bulldozed without notice, public safety decisions dictated from afar.
If this precedent takes hold, no city will be safe from becoming a pawn in presidential politics. Congress and the courts must draw the line now. Otherwise, we risk losing the very principle that local self-government — and our federal system — was built to protect. The question is no longer whether Trump is testing the limits of executive power — but whether we are willing to stop him before those limits disappear altogether.
Mike Murray
Roselle