Chicago Stands Firm: No, Mr. President, You Can’t Police Us With Troops

Aug 26, 2025

Illinois leaders reject a military “fix” to a crime problem that’s already easing—backed by law, data, and civil-liberties watchdogs warning of executive overreach.

Chicago’s mayor and Illinois’ governor are telling the White House to stand down on talk of deploying troops to the city—on constitutional grounds and because the numbers don’t support an “emergency.” “The city of Chicago is not calling for American troops to occupy American cities. It’s not democratic. It’s unconstitutional,” Mayor Brandon Johnson said, calling the idea “illegal and costly” (NPR Illinois, 8/24/2025)1. The ACLU calls the threats “unjustified and dangerous,” warning that using the military for civilian policing erodes core freedoms (ACLU, 8/25/2025)2 . Translation (clearly labeled commentary): If you need the Insurrection Act to juice a press conference, you don’t have a public safety plan—you have a power grab.

The law, not the bravado: What a president can (and can’t) do

The Posse Comitatus Act generally bars using the military for domestic law enforcement; the Insurrection Act is the main exception—and it’s notoriously broad and outdated3.
The Insurrection Act gives presidents wide discretion with few guardrails, which legal experts say invites abuse and demands reform4.
America’s emergency-powers system is sprawling and under-checked; Congress has left too many levers for unilateral action that bypasses normal constraints5.

Commentary: If your legal strategy leans on an 1807 statute with Swiss-cheese limits, maybe don’t call it “strict law and order.”

Chicago’s electeds to the White House: Hard pass

“The city of Chicago is not calling for American troops to occupy American cities. It’s not democratic. It’s unconstitutional… illegal and costly,” said Mayor Brandon Johnson (NPR Illinois, 8/24/2025)6.
Gov. JB Pritzker warned the threat looks like “a test of the limits of [presidential] power and a trial run for a police state,” adding Illinois hasn’t requested troops and sees no emergency (NPR Illinois, 8/24/2025)7.
Civil-liberties leaders say deploying troops without a legitimate basis “manufactures ‘emergencies’ to expand [executive] power,” risking violations of constitutional rights (Hina Shamsi, ACLU press release, 8/25/2025)8.

Commentary: If you’re staging a “rescue,” start by phoning the people you’re rescuing. And bring data.

The premise collapses: The crime data

Chicago recorded 572 homicides in 2024, down from 615 in 2023—the lowest annual total in a decade (city data summarized by Fox 32, 12/31/2024)9.
Shooting incidents and victims declined in 2024 versus 2023, continuing a multiyear drop from 2021 peaks (City data portal)10.
Some violent crimes (like aggravated assault) remain elevated, but overall lethal violence is moving down, not spiraling (City data portal; Fox 32, 12/31/2024)1112.

Commentary: Calling in troops because violence is falling is like bringing a sledgehammer to fix a faucet—loud, dangerous, and not the tool the job calls for.

Civil liberties red flags: We’ve seen this movie

ACLU: Threatening to send “armed federal agents and military troops into our communities is unjustified and dangerous,” undermining the principle that the military must not police civilians (Press release, 8/25/2025)13.
On D.C. deployments, the ACLU called it a “brazen abuse of power meant to intimidate,” reminding officials that federal agents and troops are bound by the Constitution (Press release, 8/17/2025)14.
Federalizing Guard troops for protest response is “unnecessary, inflammatory, and an abuse of power,” creating legal and ethical jeopardy for servicemembers (Press release, 6/8/2025)15.

Commentary: If your “safety plan” tramples the First and Fourth Amendments, it’s not public safety—it’s a constitutional problem.

What it means

Chicago’s refusal isn’t political theater; it’s governance grounded in law and facts. The Insurrection Act’s vague carve-out to Posse Comitatus was never meant to greenlight routine military policing of U.S. cities16. With homicides and shootings down, the factual basis for extraordinary force is weak at best17. Civil liberties groups are signaling they will sue immediately, and legal experts say Congress must fix the statutory holes that allow executive overreach in the first place18.

What’s next

Legal posture: If the White House tries to override Illinois, expect swift litigation over Insurrection Act claims and constitutional limits1920.
Oversight: Watch for congressional scrutiny and reform bills to narrow the Insurrection Act and rein in emergency powers21.
Transparency: Monitor formal orders and coordination; vague threats often signal political messaging—not lawful, operational plans22.

Do something about it (now)

Know the guardrails: Brennan Center explainers on the Insurrection Act and emergency powers2324.
Track rights risks: ACLU statements on D.C. deployments and nationwide threats2526.
Check the numbers yourself: City of Chicago crime data portal and 2024 summary reporting27.

Timing: Watch daily for any formal order or legal filing this week; contact your U.S. representatives before Congress returns from recess to demand Insurrection Act and emergency-powers reform.

Reader question: Should any president be able to deploy troops into a state without that state’s consent—and if so, under what tightly defined conditions that courts can actually review?