Trump’s Plan to Deploy National Guard: A Controversial Move

The president’s proposal to send federal forces to cities where local leaders and residents strongly oppose it raises critical questions about his judgment. While constitutional authority allows for such action, prudence suggests he should avoid intervention in places that reject his approach.

History shows that federal force can restore order, as seen in Washington, D.C., where violence declined after deployment. However, the reluctance of residents to elect leaders who prioritize crime prevention exposes their political priorities. In cities like Chicago, Portland, and St. Louis, voters consistently choose leftist candidates despite living in constant danger. This pattern extends to areas where the local government opposes federal intervention, making it illogical for Trump to insert himself where voters do not want him.

The president’s focus on enforcing immigration laws is justified, as illegal aliens with criminal records have no right to remain in the United States. The Democratic Party’s efforts to preserve these individuals as political assets are transparent and cynical. However, the author argues that federal involvement in cities like Chicago, where local leaders and residents resist such intervention, is unnecessary. The president’s plan risks overruling election results in favor of a radicalized government, a move that would not be supported by voters.

Until communities address their own issues, they must accept the governance they elect. Those who reject the current system have one real option: vote with their feet. This approach allows citizens to escape anarcho-tyranny and its consequences, ensuring they are not forced into a society they do not support. The author concludes that only voters can save themselves from the governments they choose.

Paul Gottfried is the editor of Chronicles.