Analysis: The common thread in Trump's latest moves: squeezing big blue cities | CNN Politics
us.cnn.com -- Sunday, August 17, 2025, 6:29:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: Presidential Campaigns, Democratic Party Responses, Immigration Policy & Border Issues
Donald Trump Immigration Federal agencies US military
See all topics
Follow
President Donald Trump is moving systematically to tighten his grip on Democratic-leaning big cities -- the geographic center of resistance to his agenda -- by undermining their autonomy and eroding their political strength.
Those militant goals are the common thread that links the high-profile initiatives Trump has launched in recent days to seize control of law enforcement in Washington, DC; pressure red states to draw new congressional district lines; and potentially pursue an unprecedented "redo" of the 2020 census.
These new efforts compound the pressure Trump is already placing on major cities with an agenda that includes aggressive immigration enforcement; cuts in federal research funding to universities central to the economy of many large metros; and threats to rescind federal funding for jurisdictions that resist his demands to impose conservative policies on immigration, education, homelessness and policing.
Trump is pursuing this confrontational approach at a time when major metropolitan areas have become the undisputed engines of the nation's economic growth -- and the nexus of research breakthroughs in technologies such as artificial intelligence, which Trump has identified as key to the nation's competitiveness. The 100 largest metropolitan areas now account for about three-fourths of the nation's economic output, according to research by Brookings Metro, a center-left think tank. Yet Trump is treating the largest cities less as an economic asset to be nourished than as a political threat to be subdued.
Mark Muro, a senior fellow at Brookings Metro, said Trump's approach to the nation's largest cities is "colonial" in that he wants to benefit from their prodigious economic output while suppressing their independence and political clout. This administration is "treating America's great economic engines as weak and problematic colonial outposts," Muro said. "They view them as the problem, when (in reality) they are the absolute base of American competitiveness in the battle against China or whoever (else)."
Antagonism toward major cities has long been central to Trump's message. Several times he has described American cities with mayors who are Democrats, members of racial minorities, or both, as dystopian "rodent-infested" "hellholes." Trump in 2024 nonetheless ran better in most large cities than in his earlier races, amid widespread disenchantment about then-President Joe Biden's record on inflation, immigration and crime.
Still, as Trump himself has noted, large cities, and often their inner suburbs, remain the foundation of Democratic political strength and the cornerstone of opposition to his agenda. A series of dramatic actions just in the past few days shows how systematically Trump is moving to debilitate those cities' ability to oppose him.
DC Mayor Muriel Bowser attends a news conference on August 11 about President Donald Trump's plan to place Washington police under federal control and deploy National Guard troops to the nation's capital.
Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP
Normalizing 'militarized cities'
The most visible way Trump is pressuring big cities is by deploying federal law enforcement and military personnel into them over the objections of local officials. In his first term, Trump sent federal law enforcement personnel into Portland, Oregon, and Washington, DC, in the aftermath of George Floyd's 2020 murder.
But after he left office, Trump, who does not often publicly second-guess himself, frequently said that one of his greatest regrets was that he did not dispatch more federal forces into cities. In his 2024 campaign, he explicitly pledged to deploy the National Guard, and potentially active-duty military, into major cities for multiple purposes: combating crime, clearing homeless encampments and supporting his mass deportation program.
In office, Trump has steadily fulfilled those promises. When protests erupted in Los Angeles in June over an intense Immigration and Custom Enforcement deportation push, Trump deployed not only the National Guard (which he federalized over the objection of California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom), but also active-duty Marines. Then, the administration used those forces not only to guard federal buildings, but also to accompany ICE (and other agencies) on enforcement missions -- including a striking deployment of armored vehicles and soldiers in tactical gear to a public park in a heavily Hispanic neighborhood.
The underlying immigration enforcement that precipitated the LA protests constituted a different show of force. As a recent CNN investigation showed, ICE is relying much more on street apprehensions in cities in blue states than in red states, where it is removing more people from jails and prisons. The administration says that imbalance is a result of "sanctuary" policies in blue states and cities limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. But civil rights groups see the administration's confrontational blue-state approach as an attempt to intimidate both local officials and immigrant communities. (The fact that ICE last week conducted an immigration sweep directly outside a Newsom press conference bolstered the latter interpretation.)
Whatever the rationale, research by the University of California at Merced suggests the administration's enforcement approach is hurting blue cities. Using census data, the school's Community and Labor Center recently found that from May to July the number of California workers holding a private-sector job fell by about 750,000 -- proportionally an even greater decline than during the 2008 Great Recession. Hispanic people and Asian Americans accounted for almost all the falloff.
Sociology professor Ed Flores, the center's faculty director, said he believes the decline is "absolutely" tied to economic disruption flowing from "the presence of ICE and the way that (people) are being apprehended" on the street.
New York City, too, has seen a notable drop in the labor force participation rate among Hispanic men.
Members of the National Guard face off against people protesting an ICE immigration raid at a licensed cannabis farm near Camarillo, California, on July 10.
Mario Tama/Getty Images
Now, with the military (if not ICE) presence in LA winding down, Trump has sent hundreds of National Guard troops into Washington, DC, while also utilizing a section of federal law that allows him to temporarily seize control of the city's police department.
In his news conference last week announcing the DC moves, Trump repeatedly said he would supplement the National Guard forces, as he did in LA, with active-duty troops if he deems it necessary. And he repeatedly signaled that he is considering deploying military forces into other cities that he described as overrun by crime, including Chicago, New York, Baltimore and Oakland, California -- all jurisdictions with Black mayors. "We're not going to lose our cities over this, and this will go further," Trump declared.
Most experts agree that Trump will confront substantial legal hurdles if he tries to replicate the DC deployment in other places. "What they are doing in DC is not repeatable elsewhere for a number of reasons," said Joseph Nunn, a counsel in the national security program at the Brennan Center for Justice.
Nunn said Trump can order this mission because of the DC National Guard's unique legal status. On the one hand, Nunn noted, the DC Guard is under the president's direct control, rather than the jurisdiction of a state governor. On the other, he said, the Justice Department has ruled that even when the president utilizes the DC Guard, its actions qualify as a state, not federal, deployment. That's critical because state guard deployments are not subject to the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act's ban on federal military forces engaging in domestic law enforcement.
If Trump tries to deploy the National Guard to address crime in the big cities of blue states, such as Chicago or New York, Nunn argued, he would face a catch-22. Since there's virtually no chance Democratic governors would agree to participate, Trump could only put troops on those streets by federalizing their states' National Guard or using active-duty military, Nunn said. But, he added, "once they are working with federalized National Guard or active-duty military forces, the Posse Comitatus Act applies" -- barring the use of those forces for domestic law enforcement.
Trump could seek to override the Posse Comitatus Act's ban on military involvement by invoking the Insurrection Act. The Insurrection Act has not been used to combat street crime, but the statute allows the president to domestically deploy the military against "any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy."
Trump answers questions during a White House press conference on August 11.
Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
Richard Briffault, a Columbia Law School professor who specializes in the relationships among different levels of government, agreed that invoking the Insurrection Act to justify sending the National Guard into cities over mayors' objections would shatter the generally understood limits on the law's application.
But he also believes that precedent provides no firm assurance that this Supreme Court, which has proved extremely receptive to Trump's expansive claims of presidential authority, would stop him. Trump "could try" to win court approval of military deployments to fight crime by citing the Insurrection Act's language about "'domestic violence' and 'unlawful combinations'" and then claiming that is "depriving the people of their right to security," Briffault said.
Whatever the legal hurdles, more widely deploying the military on domestic missions would bring substantial consequences. Mayor Jerry Dyer of Fresno, California, who spent 18 years as the city's police commissioner, says that putting military forces onto the streets of more cities would create problems of coordination with local officials and trust with local communities. "Whenever you start sending federal resources into local jurisdictions and actually take over the policing of that jurisdiction, it can become very disturbing to that community and quite frankly can create some neighborhood issues and ultimately a lack of trust," said Dyer, who co-chairs the Mayors and Police Chiefs Task Force for the US Conference of Mayors.
Even more profound may be the implications of numbing Americans to the sight of heavily armored military forces routinely patrolling the streets of domestic cities -- an image that historically has been common only in authoritarian countries. New York University historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a leading scholar of authoritarian regimes, wrote last week that the ultimate aim of Trump's domestic deployments "is to habituate Americans to see militarized cities and crackdowns against public dissent in cities as normal and justified." Step by step, she argued, Trump is seeking "to disempower and delegitimize all Democratic municipal and state authorities."
How the redistricting war is marginalizing cities
In less obvious ways, the battle that has erupted over redistricting -- and the likely fight approaching over the census -- constitutes another Trump-backed effort to "disempower" large metropolitan areas.
The unusual mid-decade congressional redistricting that Texas Republicans are pursuing at Trump's behest would increase the number of Republican-leaning US House seats largely by reducing the number of districts representing the state's biggest metropolitan areas, including Dallas, Houston and Austin, which all lean Democratic.
The new map would further dilute the political influence of Texas' major metro areas, even as they have accounted for about four-fifths of the state's population and economic growth over recent years, said Steven Pedigo, director of the LBJ Urban Lab at the University of Texas' Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs.
"The growth in Texas has been driven by urban communities, but those communities are not going to be represented in these additional maps," Pedigo said.
In that way, the new Texas map extends the strategy that Republicans there, and in other growing Sun Belt states, used in the maps they drew after the 2020 census, said John Bisognano, president of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee.
Empty seats are seen as a Texas House meeting is called to order at the state Capitol in Austin on August 5. Texas Democratic lawmakers fled the state to protest a proposed Republican redistricting plan.
Brandon Bell/Getty Images
States such as Texas and Florida that added the most House seats and electoral votes after the 2020 census -- and are poised to gain the most again after 2030 -- are adding population primarily among non-White people and in Democratic-leaning metro areas, Bisognano noted in a recent memo. Yet both of those groups will be denied the additional House representation generated by that population growth if the Republicans controlling Sun Belt state governments continue to draw district lines that splinter metro populations and favor rural ones. "They are subjugating (metro voters) to produce a partisan outcome that is not reflective of the people of those cities," Bisognano said.
The calls from Trump and Vice President JD Vance to "redo" the 2020 census, partly to exclude undocumented immigrants, could marginalize cities even more.
Even if Trump could surmount the many legal and logistical obstacles to conducting a mid-decade census, a reapportionment of House seats and electoral votes that excluded undocumented immigrants would not result in the shift of influence from blue to red states that many conservatives envision. John Robert Warren, a University of Minnesota sociologist, concluded in a 2025 paper that if unauthorized immigrants were excluded from the 2020 census, California and Texas would each lose a House seat and New York and Ohio would each gain one. "It would make literally zero difference," Warren said. "If you assume Texas and Ohio go red and California and New York go blue, then it's just a wash."
Excluding undocumented immigrants from the count, though, could offer Trump another way to squeeze urban centers. Many agricultural communities have substantial undocumented immigrant populations, but half of all undocumented immigrants live in just 37 large counties, according to estimates by the Migration Policy Institute. "Within a state that Republicans control, by not including (undocumented people), it would be much easier to draw Republican districts because you would have a smaller minority population base to work with," said Jeffrey Wice, a redistricting expert at New York University's law school. Not only congressional representation but also the many federal funding sources tied to population would shift toward rural areas if the census undercounts the urban population, he noted.
Wice, who formerly consulted for Democrats on redistricting, says blue states and cities can't assume Trump won't pursue any of these possibilities, no matter how far-fetched they now seem. The same is surely true on the deployment of federal force into blue places. The New Republic's Greg Sargent recently published an internal Department of Homeland Security memo that described the joint ICE-National Guard mission in Los Angeles as "the type of operations (and resistance) we're going to be working through for years to come." (Emphasis added.)
During World War II, the German siege of Leningrad famously lasted nearly 900 days. Big blue American cities may be counting down the hours as anxiously for the 1252 days remaining in Trump's second term.
Sign Our PetitionThe recent analysis from CNN Politics regarding Donald Trump's initiatives targeting Democratic-leaning big cities reveals a strategic maneuver designed to undermine urban centers that pose a significant challenge to his political agenda. By systematically squeezing these metropolitan areas, Trump not only seeks to diminish their autonomy and political strength but also to reshape the landscape of American governance in a manner that consolidates power within his administration. This commentary will delve into the historical context of urban governance, the implications of Trump's tactics, and the ongoing struggles faced by cities that are often at the forefront of social justice movements.
Historically, urban centers have played a pivotal role in shaping American political and social landscapes. From the labor movements of the early 20th century to the civil rights struggles of the 1960s, cities have been breeding grounds for progressive change. However, they have also found themselves at odds with conservative ideologies that often seek to downplay or dismantle the very infrastructures that support diverse populations and democratic participation. Trump's approach echoes a long-standing pattern where political leaders target urban areas, often characterized as bastions of liberalism, in an attempt to consolidate control and push back against progressive agendas. This dynamic is not merely a contemporary issue; it is steeped in a history of urban-rural divides and a failure to understand the vital contributions cities make to societal well-being.
The recent moves by Trump, such as the efforts to exert control over law enforcement in Washington, D.C., and to threaten federal funding for cities resisting his policies, represent a deepening of this antagonism. The implications of these actions extend beyond mere political theater; they threaten to destabilize the critical functions of urban governance. When cities are stripped of their ability to manage their own affairs, not only is their political autonomy compromised, but essential services that residents rely on—such as public safety, education, and healthcare—also face jeopardy. As highlighted by experts like Mark Muro from Brookings Metro, this approach can be seen as a colonial mindset, viewing cities as sources of economic output to be exploited while simultaneously repressing their political agency.
Moreover, Trump's rhetoric towards urban centers has consistently leaned toward dehumanization, as evidenced by his derogatory descriptions of Democratic-led cities as "rodent-infested hellholes." Such language serves to reinforce harmful stereotypes that contribute to systemic racism and classism, painting urban environments as failures rather than as communities grappling with complex socio-economic issues. This rhetoric not only fuels division but also distracts from the real challenges faced by these cities, such as income inequality, lack of affordable housing, and systemic racism. In this context, it becomes crucial for advocates of social justice to counter these narratives with factual information that highlights the resilience and innovation present in urban areas, as well as their indispensable role in driving economic growth and social progress.
The implications of Trump's attacks on cities resonate deeply with ongoing social struggles, particularly those related to immigration, policing, and educational equity. Aggressive immigration enforcement in urban areas often targets vulnerable populations, exacerbating existing inequalities while undermining the social fabric that binds diverse communities together. Furthermore, the threat to cut federal funding for jurisdictions pursuing progressive policies directly undermines efforts to address systemic issues such as homelessness and access to education. These actions underscore the importance of solidarity among urban residents and their allies in resisting regressive policies and advocating for solutions that promote equity and justice.
In conclusion, the systematic targeting of big blue cities by the Trump administration reflects a broader strategy to consolidate power while undermining the political strength of urban centers. This approach not only threatens the autonomy of cities but also perpetuates a cycle of inequality and marginalization that has historical roots in the politics of division. As the nation grapples with complex social challenges, it becomes imperative for advocates to amplify the voices of urban communities and to actively resist narratives that seek to diminish their strength. By framing these discussions within the context of historical struggles for justice and equity, we can better equip ourselves to counter regressive policies and advocate for a more inclusive and equitable society.
Donald Trump's recent maneuvers to exert control over Democratic-leaning urban centers reflect a deliberate strategy to undermine the political autonomy and economic importance of these major cities. This analysis not only highlights the implications of such actions but also offers insights into the historical context surrounding them. The motivations behind this approach reveal a deep-seated antagonism towards metropolitan areas that have increasingly become the heart of progressive policies, economic growth, and cultural diversity. As citizens and engaged members of the political discourse, it is crucial to understand these dynamics and consider actionable responses to counteract such authoritarian tendencies.
Historically, urban centers have been the epicenters of societal progress, often leading the charge on issues ranging from civil rights to environmental protection. The tension between rural and urban America is not new; it has roots in the country’s founding, with urban areas often seen as bastions of liberal thought and innovation, while rural regions have been associated with conservative values. Trump's rhetoric and policies seem to leverage this divide, painting cities as problematic while benefiting from their economic outputs. As noted in the article, Trump's administration views major cities as "colonial outposts," extracting value while suppressing their political voice. This colonial mindset reflects a broader historical view of urban areas as sites of economic exploitation rather than as vital partners in national progress.
To combat these actions, we must first recognize the economic significance of our major cities. The Brookings Metro data illustrates that these metropolitan areas contribute three-quarters of the nation's economic output. By framing urban centers as vital to national prosperity rather than threats to conservative agendas, we can shift the narrative. Engaging in discussions that emphasize the interdependence of urban and rural economies can foster a greater understanding among constituents on both sides. This reframing can help build alliances that transcend traditional political boundaries, encouraging a more unified approach to governance that benefits all Americans.
Moreover, grassroots organizing and civic engagement in urban areas are essential. Communities must resist Trump's attempts to undermine local autonomy through proactive measures. This can include mobilizing local coalitions, advocating for protective legislation, and ensuring that residents are informed about their rights and the resources available to them. For instance, cities can implement policies that shield them from punitive federal actions, such as sanctuary city laws for immigrants or policies that protect local funding for education and public health. These measures empower communities to stand firm against federal overreach while highlighting the importance of local governance.
Additionally, we must encourage a culture of solidarity among residents of urban centers. The political landscape can be transformed by fostering a sense of shared purpose and identity that transcends party lines. Initiatives that bring together diverse groups—whether through community service, public forums, or cultural events—can create a stronger, more resilient urban fabric. Such efforts can help counteract the divisive narrative propagated by the Trump administration and reinforce the idea that cities are not only safe havens for progressive thought but also critical to the nation's social and economic fabric.
In conclusion, Trump's approach to big cities reveals a calculated effort to diminish their political autonomy while benefiting from their economic contributions. By understanding the historical context and the economic realities of urban centers, we can formulate a collective response that values local governance and resists authoritarianism. Engaging in grassroots activism, fostering solidarity, and reframing the narrative around urban areas are vital steps in reasserting the importance of these cities as engines of progress. Through these actions, we can not only safeguard the political strength of urban centers but also enrich our national discourse, ensuring that all voices are heard and valued in the American democratic process.
The situation described in the article highlights a critical moment for those who believe in the empowerment of democratic institutions and the autonomy of urban centers. Here is a detailed list of ideas and actions we can take to counter the strategies that seek to undermine cities and their political strength:
### What can we personally do about this?
1. **Educate Yourself and Others**: Understanding the implications of the current political landscape is essential. Share articles, host discussions, or start a book club focused on urban policy, democracy, and the importance of local governance.
2. **Engage with Local Political Structures**: Attend city council meetings, town halls, and community forums. Make your voice heard regarding local policies and resist efforts to undermine city governance.
3. **Support Local Grassroots Organizations**: Contribute time or resources to organizations that work to protect civil rights, promote fair immigration policies, and advocate for equitable funding for cities.
### What Exact Actions can we personally take?
1. **Sign and Share Petitions**: - **Petition to Protect City Funding**: Use platforms like Change.org to find petitions advocating for the protection of federal funding for local jurisdictions resisting Trump’s policies. - Example: "Protect Our Cities" petition on Change.org.
2. **Write to Elected Officials**: - **U.S. Senators and Representatives**: Contact your state’s U.S. Senators and House Representatives. Use the following template for communication: - **Subject**: Urgent Need to Protect Urban Autonomy - **Message**: ``` Dear [Senator/Representative Name],
I am writing to express my concern over the recent actions taken by the Trump administration that undermine the autonomy and political strength of our major cities. These cities are vital engines of economic growth and innovation, and I urge you to take a stand against policies that threaten their funding and governance.
Please advocate for the protection of federal funding for our cities and support initiatives that empower local governments to serve their communities effectively.
Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter.
Sincerely, [Your Name] [Your Address] [Your Email] ```
- **Sample Contacts**: - **Senator Elizabeth Warren** (MA) - Email: senator_warren@warren.senate.gov - Mailing: 2400 JFK Federal Building, 15 New Sudbury Street, Boston, MA 02203 - **Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez** (NY-14) - Email: ocasiocortez.house.gov/contact - Mailing: 144 E 26th St, Suite 101, New York, NY 10010
3. **Organize or Participate in Local Rallies**: Join or organize rallies that promote city autonomy and oppose federal overreach. Use social media to mobilize community members and amplify your message.
4. **Contact Local Leaders**: Write to your mayor and city council members, urging them to push back against federal policies that threaten local governance. - **Sample Message**: ``` Dear Mayor [Name],
I am concerned about the increasing federal pressure on our city and the potential loss of autonomy. I urge you to stand firm against these threats and ensure that our city remains a place of innovation and inclusivity.
Thank you for your leadership.
Sincerely, [Your Name] ```
5. **Support Local Candidates**: Get involved in local elections by volunteering for candidates who support urban interests and resist federal interference.
6. **Engage in Online Advocacy**: Use social media platforms to raise awareness about the importance of protecting city autonomy and share information about actions people can take.
7. **Join Local Advocacy Groups**: Find organizations like the League of Women Voters or local coalitions that fight for urban issues and volunteer your time or resources.
### Conclusion
By taking these actions, we can collectively push back against efforts to undermine the power and autonomy of our cities. It’s essential to stay informed, mobilize our communities, and advocate for policies that protect local governance and promote equity. Every action counts in this ongoing struggle for democracy and justice.