Donald Trump’s statement on August 22, 2025, has once again brought debates on security and federal intervention to the forefront of United States (U.S.) politics. Following the deployment of 800 National Guard troops to Washington, the announcement that similar steps would be taken in Chicago signaled a hardening of the president’s approach to security. Trump described Chicago as “a disaster” and remarked, “when we are ready, we will start there.”[i] This rhetoric has resonated deeply in both political and social spheres.
The official justification for the military deployment in Washington was the rise in crime rates. Trump claimed that “everyone was being killed and robbed” in the capital and asserted that restaurants were closing down. However, data from the Department of Justice revealed a 35% decrease in violent crimes after 2023. Thus, a significant disparity emerged between Trump’s rhetoric and the official statistics. This has suggested that the president’s security policies were driven more by political objectives than by empirical data. Notably, in the 2024 elections, Washington voted 92.5% in favor of Democratic candidate Kamala Harris, which laid the groundwork for Trump to adopt a particular stance toward the capital.[ii] In this way, the security issue has also become a tool for political confrontation.
Trump’s security policies have not been limited to Washington and Chicago. It is known that the National Guard had previously been deployed in Los Angeles as well. Despite opposition from California Governor Gavin Newsom, the deployment of federal forces in the city heightened tensions between the state and federal governments. This case demonstrated that Trump’s security approach undermined the balance of power within the federal system. Although the U.S. Constitution grants states broad authority over their own security policies, the president pushed these boundaries and sought to consolidate central control. Consequently, Trump’s governing style has been interpreted as displaying authoritarian tendencies.
The planned intervention in Chicago carried significant symbolic importance, as the city has long been a stronghold of the Democratic Party. Trump’s remark that the city had “an incompetent mayor” pointed to a partisan conflict beyond the issue of security.[iii] In particular, his statements implying that African American women voters supported him revealed how the president blended social perceptions with political rhetoric. In this context, security policies also became an extension of the election campaign.
The Trump administration expanded the “good moral character” requirement in the naturalization process, thereby increasing pressure on immigrants. A directive sent to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officers instructed them to assess immigrants’ positive and negative traits in a more comprehensive manner. This policy heightened uncertainty in the immigration process and sparked concerns, particularly among Latin American communities. These measures demonstrated that security policies were being pursued in parallel with an anti-immigration stance.
The intertwining of security and immigration issues in this manner revealed that the theme of “restoring order” was central to Trump’s political vision. By portraying crime rates as higher than they actually were, the president sought to legitimize his interventions. In doing so, he exerted pressure on both immigrant communities and cities governed by Democrats. While this approach increased the presence of security forces in the short term, it deepened societal polarization in the long run. This is because the security issue ceased to be a neutral administrative matter and instead became a battleground for partisan conflict.
Trump’s rhetoric has also raised serious concerns regarding democratic balance. The federal government’s attempts to control local governments through military measures, declaring them “incompetent,” have undermined America’s established institutions.[iv] In a democratic system, the legitimacy of security policies should rest on transparent data and cooperation with local authorities; however, Trump pursued this process through his own political rhetoric. In doing so, he turned the security issue into a component of his electoral strategy.
Trump’s actions in the summer of 2025 have also been interpreted as a strategic move ahead of the 2026 Senate elections. He sought to project an image to the public as a leader “making the country safe again.” However, his statements contradicting official data have shown that this image is baseless. As noted by both the media and academic circles, violent crime rates had already been declining, yet Trump’s creation of an extraordinary sense of crisis was viewed as a political tactic aimed at fueling public fears.
Trump’s move also resonated significantly on the international stage. While American democracy has long been hailed as a global model, the highly visible deployment of federal forces in city centers drew various criticisms. European media, in particular, commented that the U.S. was engaging in practices that contradicted its professed commitment to democratic values. Human rights organizations argued that such interventions suppressed citizens’ fundamental rights and freedoms. Consequently, the global reputation of the United States became contested due to Trump’s security policies, causing the Washington administration to lose moral authority on the international arena.
From a societal perspective, these developments have rendered the relationship between minority groups and the state even more fragile. African American and Latino communities perceived the security measures as directly targeting them. In cities such as Chicago and Los Angeles, these groups have historically been more exposed to police violence. Trump’s statements and the increased military presence reinforced the perception that the state had lost its impartiality. Moreover, this situation reignited longstanding debates over racial inequality. The increasingly harsh suppression of protests has created fear rather than trust and increased the fragility of social peace. Thus, security measures have weakened social cohesion rather than strengthened it.
In conclusion, Trump’s plan to deploy the National Guard to Chicago can be understood not merely as a security measure but also as a political message. Moreover, the tightening of immigration policies forms an integral part of this approach. All these developments cast a shadow over the impartiality of democratic institutions in the United States. While Trump’s security policies may appear to establish order in the short term, they ultimately reinforce societal divisions in the long run. Consequently, they have created lasting damage in both the realms of security and democracy.
[i] Atwood, Kylie, “EE.UU. anuncia que está haciendo un ‘control continuo’ a más de 55 millones de extranjeros con visas”, CNN en Español, https://cnnespanol.cnn.com/2025/08/22/eeuu/eeuu-control-55-millones-extranjeros-visas-trax, (Access Date: 24.08.2025).
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Ibid.
[iv] Ibid.
