Chicago Mayor Warns of Uprising if National Guard Deployed, Rejects “Militarized State”

Chicago, IL — Mayor Brandon Johnson issued a forceful warning over the weekend amid speculation that federal authorities might deploy National Guard troops to the city as part of a nationwide crime crackdown. President Trump had suggested that Chicago could be next in line for enhanced federal law enforcement support, prompting sharp pushback from local officials.

“They don’t have police power,” Johnson told MSNBC emphatically. “The city of Chicago does not need a military-occupied state. That’s not who we are.” He continued: “We’ll take legal action if necessary—but I believe the people of Chicago will rise up alongside me as I work daily to protect our city.”

Governor J.B. Pritzker echoed Johnson’s sentiment, dismissing federal intervention as unnecessary and rooted in a “manufactured crisis.”

A Clash Over Crime and Image

Johnson’s defiant remarks came in the context of a broader political showdown. The administration’s proposal to send federal agents and National Guard personnel to Chicago was met with resistance, as critics warned it would undermine the city’s autonomy and label it a besieged urban battleground.

However, the White House, in a press release on Monday, countered those criticisms with stark crime statistics intended to justify federal action:

• Chicago has led the nation in total murders for the past 13 years.

• For seven years running, it also held the highest per-capita homicide rate among U.S. cities with populations over one million.

• In 2024, its murder rate was three times higher than Los Angeles and nearly five times higher than New York City—higher than in many global capitals.

• Arrests were made in just 16.2% of the city’s nearly 148,000 reported crimes this year.

• Chicago recovered more illegal guns than New York and Los Angeles combined.

• Motor vehicle thefts have doubled compared to 2021.

• Concerns have been raised about inconsistencies in how the city reports homicide statistics.

These numbers formed the crux of the argument supporting enhanced federal involvement—a perspective at odds with the narrative portrayed by city leaders.

Community Voices and Local Frustrations

The ground-level sentiment in Chicago presented a different picture. After a shooting near a senior living facility injured five people, one resident pleaded, “You have seniors that have been shot. Where’s the outcry? We’re asking for police detail because no one knows if this will happen again.”

A pub owner, who had recently been robbed, expressed frustration at the city’s priorities, saying Johnson seems more concerned with school board negotiations and pension issues while crime sweeps neighborhoods unchecked.

Alderman Brian Hopkins didn’t mince words: “We certainly have a crime problem in Chicago.” Another local business owner, who witnessed four armed robberies within an hour, added, “It used to be peaceful. Now walking around seems dangerous.”

A Battle Over Authority and Public Safety

At its core, the debate is not just about crime statistics—it’s about who defines safety and how it’s enforced. With crime rates still raw, many Chicagoans feel overlooked by officials more worried about optics than street-level realities.

Mayor Johnson stressed the city’s resilience: “We’re going to remain firm… The people of Chicago are accustomed to rising up against tyranny.” It was a line that captured both defiance and pride—reflecting a city that has always seen itself as a community first, but which now confronts deep concerns about its future safety.

The standoff between municipal leaders, state officials, and the federal government underscores a growing national reckoning over crime, governance, and public trust. Whether Chicago can chart its own path or will face federal intervention remains an open—and increasingly urgent—question.