What They’re Not Telling You About Trump’s War on Crime
By deploying federal forces in major cities across the country these past few months, President Trump has caused much chattering in the news media. It is practically unprecedented to anyone who isn’t a baby-boomer for the federal government to actually do something about urban crime. So aside from the obvious significance of such a move, the sheer audacity of Trump’s actions has become news as well. Things began in August when former DOGE staffer Edward Coristine, known as “Big Balls,” was assaulted in Washington, DC by ten or so black thugs in an attempted carjacking. After this, Trump vowed to send the National Guard into the nation’s capital, and the federal anti-crime movement was born. So far, he has sent or tried to send federal forces into DC, Chicago, Los Angeles, Memphis, and Portland, and possibly soon New Orleans. In typical Trumpian fashion, he has stated that he hopes American cities can become training grounds for the US military.
Of course, this is not all about fighting crime. Sending troops into cities conveniently dovetails into Trump’s immigration crackdown vis-à-vis ICE as well as his responsibility to quell urban unrest (which he failed to do in his first term but is thankfully making up for now). But fighting crime has become a big part of it, not least to sell what he is doing to the American people. (Who are largely buying it, by the way.) Coincidentally or not, most of the cities within Trump’s crosshairs are Democrat strongholds. And predictably, the Democrats are resisting him tooth and nail. For instance, judges have been blocking him, cities and states have been suing him, local police have not been assisting him, and Democratic mayors and governors have been speaking out against him. Chicago mayor Brandon Johnson has called for the arrest of ICE officers, while Illinois governor JB Pritzker has hinted darkly that ICE officers will face retribution once Democrats regain power.
There has been much speculation as to why. Of course, Trump Derangement Syndrome plays a part. Whatever Trump does, the Democrats somehow feel obliged to do the opposite. The current government shut down may well be an example of that. Ego probably has a lot to do with it as well. It must be humiliating for Democratic mayors and governors to sit back and watch their bête noir in the White House not only highlight the problems festering under their noses, but solve them publicly. We should also keep in mind that although ICE was not formed to fight street crime, it is targeting criminal illegal aliens first and foremost. So ICE and Trump’s anti-crime initiative are closely linked.
Real Clear Politics came as close as anyone to explaining the deeper reasons why Democrats are having tantrums over Trump’s drastic measures to clean up their own cities. According to RCP, feds fighting crime in cities “threatens Democrats’ municipal monopolies on political power.” Democrats need their overwhelming urban majorities to maintain statewide power and to challenge for dominance on the national stage.
For Democrats, control of cities’ huge populations means control of the states in which these are located. As examples: New York City makes up 44.3% of New York state’s population; Chicago is 21.6% of Illinois’ population; Albuquerque is 26.5% of New Mexico’s; Portland is 15.3% of Oregon’s. And these are just single-city examples; in some states, control of several big cities (e.g., Minneapolis and St. Paul are 12.8% of Minnesota’s population; Denver and Colorado Springs are 20% of Colorado’s population) make for similarly overwhelming percentages.
Why this is so important for Democrats nationally can be seen from 2024’s presidential election results. Between the coasts, Democrats were barely competitive, losing over 70% of the electoral votes cast outside California, Washington, New York, and Massachusetts.
While this is undoubtedly true, the article gets a little fuzzy when explaining exactly how federal crime-fighting threatens Democrat electoral monopolies in cities. There aren’t that many criminals and illegal aliens being taken off the streets, certainly not enough to affect vote tallies. The best it can say is this:
Most Americans see crime as a serious problem, and significantly more city residents see it as extremely or very serious. Crime is therefore a perfect wedge issue for enticing city voters to abandon the Democratic political monopolies surrounding them.
Showing city voters an effective Republican response on such a central issue could also illustrate the viability of other Republican policy alternatives – on schools, basic services, taxes, and spending – now effectively nonexistent in many big cities. Having long lived under political monopolies, seeing the viability of policy competition could lead to demands for local political competition too – all to Democrats’ extreme detriment.
So according to RCP, Democratic urbanites might become so gobsmackingly enthralled by Donald Trump’s dazzling success in rooting out crime in their own backyards that they might start giving the Republican Party a second look. This will force Democrats to dedicate resources to shoring up their home turf during the next election rather than attacking Republicans on theirs.
Such a prospect is optimistic to say the least. Yes, Donald Trump has made inroads with non-white voters. But Trump is a generational talent in politics. No other Republican will be able to match him, and by 2028, I predict that the Democratic voting base will revert to form. RCP fails to realize that if fighting crime were the key to winning votes, then city Democrats would have felt the pressure to crack down on crime years ago—but they never did. Taking the obverse tack, if not fighting crime were the key to losing votes, as this article suggests, then why have urban voters been voting Democrat in their crime-infested hellholes for the past many decades?
Clearly, being tough on crime has no bearing on citywide elections. Indeed, being tough on crime can even work against a candidate. There really is no evidence to the contrary, and the only rational explanation is that urban blacks from their leadership on down like crime the way it is—high.
This is such a counter-intuitive thing for most people, especially whites, that an explanation is in order. Blacks are defensively ethnocentric despite how unspeakably violent they can get with one another. They have a strong sense of ethnos, which is likely fueled by resentment over their manifest inferiority to other races. To salve this is their inexorable drive for power, which they will exploit the system as much as humanly possible to get. In order to achieve power they must have representation. In order to get representation, they must have precincts, districts, and municipalities that will reliably vote for their people. And the people who will most reliably vote for their people are . . . wait for it . . . their people—i.e., blacks. The black diaspora in the United States understands that voting districts composed of unbreakable black supermajorities have become absolutely crucial for the success of black leadership on the national stage. Assimilation is entirely out of the question.
Consider how Democrats are currently fretting over the likelihood that a conservative-majority Supreme Court will weaken a key section of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. According to Reuters, Section 2 of the law prohibits “voting maps that would result in diluting the voting power of minorities, even without direct proof of racist intent.” This last part has led to abuse on the part of Democratic lawmakers in Louisiana, who have gerrymandered outrageously artificial districts in their state which, fortuitously for them, contain black supermajorities. Blacks are basically using the Voting Rights Act as a weapon to bolster their electoral power while curtailing the electoral influence of whites. So far, it’s been working for them.
Black people make up about a third of the population in Louisiana, and white people make up a majority. The state has six U.S. House districts. Louisiana’s Republican-led legislature added a second Black-majority district in response to a judge’s ruling that an earlier map it had approved containing just one Black-majority district likely harmed Black voters in violation of Section 2.
See Tate Brown and John Doyle further discuss the topic. A fascinating conversation.
This recent attempt to gut Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act challenges black municipal dominance, the lynchpin of black national prestige. And Trump’s anti-crime initiative does the same, not because the voters might abandon the Democrat Party, but because nicer, crime-free neighborhoods and cities will entice non-blacks to move back in and make these places less black. Crime is a way, perhaps the best way, to keep black cities black and to underpin the malignant monolith of black political power in America.
This is why Democrats, and blacks in particular, are siding with the criminals against Donald Trump in his war on crime.
https://counter-currents.com/2025/10/what-theyre-not-telling-you-about-trumps-war-on-crime