Donald Trump’s alleged fascist crackdown is finally here — federal troops are on the streets of major U.S. cities with almost certainly more on the way.

First, they came for Los Angeles, then, for Washington, D.C., and next, if reports are to be believed, Chicago.

There’s no doubt that Trump loves the optics and sense of strength that comes with deploying the National Guard to U.S. cities, while many of his political enemies love the thrill of decrying the arrival of the dystopia they’ve always warned about.

The Guard troops obviously aren’t Trump’s equivalent of Mussolini’s squadristi or Hitler’s brownshirts — brawlers and enforcers operating outside the law to crush a political party’s opponents.

They are a well-trained, entirely lawful military force that isn’t engaging in street fights or arresting dissidents. The Guard’s role has, mostly, been to stand in front of federal buildings and other public landmarks. In Washington, D.C., they walk along Metro platforms and generally make themselves visible (they are often seen drinking coffee and taking photos with tourists).

In short, they’ve been a benign presence, although still a political flashpoint.

For Trump, the Guard deployments are an emblem of the restoration of public order. Nothing says the lawman is back in town quite like Humvees parked in front of Union Station and camouflaged federal troops walking the streets. That the troops are overkill makes them even more potent as a symbol — Trump really means it.

That they generate a reaction from his opponents is even better, since it prompts them into attacking a token of lawfulness in places that suffer from endemic disorder.

So, Trump feels an urge to take the show on a national tour, with the Windy City or perhaps Baltimore as the next stop. This is a bad idea. D.C. and L.A. present unique circumstances not replicated in other cities.

Legally, D.C. is an easy question. Although Congress has granted D.C. home rule, the federal government has plenary power over the district. The president of the United States has direct authority over the D.C. National Guard, and can also take control of the city’s police department. Constitutionally and legally, Trump is on solid ground.

Since D.C. has a unique status and the feds have taken over the police department, there has been useful collaboration between the federal and local law-enforcement officials. (The early returns have been encouraging, with the city seeing a moderate dip in crime.)

None of this would apply to Chicago or Baltimore. The federal government has no special role in governing them, and politically hostile mayors would maintain full control of their police departments. The emphasis would surely be on resistance to unwelcome federal intrusions rather than reluctant cooperation.

Now, this was true in L.A., as well, but the riots and obstruction of federal immigration enforcement there gave Trump the authority to federalize members of the California National Guard and protect federal assets.

Unless similar unrest breaks out in Chicago or Baltimore, Trump is going to have to stretch for a legal justification for deploying the National Guard, and risk a high-profile legal reverse.

Regardless, the National Guard has limited utility as a police force. Its boots on the ground can create a sense of a safer environment, and perhaps, at the margins, free up local police resources for other duties. But what places like Chicago need is more intensive policing in high-crime areas. The National Guard is not going to — nor should it — become de facto cops making gang and drug arrests in the South and West Sides of the city. (The FBI and DEA, on the other hand, could actually help).

At the end of the day, there is no easy cure for the flagrant misgovernance of cities like Chicago. It is a long-term, deep-rooted ideological and political phenomenon that won’t be easily reversed, whether the troops in camouflage show up or not.

© 2025 by King Features Syndicate