Over the past few weeks, Donald Trump has been floating the idea of federal intervention in Chicago. He recently called the city the “murder capital” of the U.S. and even claimed over the years that “Afghanistan is a safe place by comparison.”
By August 21, 2025, Chicago had already recorded over 260 homicides, according to data from The Global Statistics. That number is actually lower than in previous years, but it’s still staggering, and still puts Chicago near the top of the list for most violent cities in America.
Despite the grim numbers, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker has pushed back hard on Trump’s talk of sending in the National Guard, calling it political theater and an overreach of federal power. Pritzker insists the situation isn’t dire enough to warrant outside intervention and says crime is actually on the decline.
But are people buying that?
Not really. A recent poll by The Illinoize found that 67% of Illinois residents disapprove of how the state is handling crime. Only 27% approve. That’s a serious confidence problem, and it speaks volumes about how residents feel about their safety, especially in and around Chicago.
In that context, it’s not crazy to ask whether federal involvement might help. Trump recently said, “We’re going in,” and whether or not that’s bluster, it reflects a growing sentiment among frustrated citizens: maybe local leadership isn’t getting the job done.
If a federal “takeover” were to occur, it probably wouldn’t involve martial law or tanks in the streets; more likely, it would involve the National Guard or other federal law enforcement agencies working with Chicago police in targeted areas. That could mean extra patrols in high-crime neighborhoods, support for investigations, or backup in areas where the city is overstretched.
Some argue that this would set a dangerous precedent, or that it’s just political showboating. But at the same time, how long are people supposed to wait for things to turn around? If the city and state leadership can’t bring crime down and restore public trust, what’s the alternative?
It’s not ideal to have federal troops involved in city policing. However, for many residents, the current situation is far from ideal as well. Maybe it’s time to admit that and be open to outside help if it can make a difference.
I don’t completely agree with Trump’s policies. But just look at what’s going on. Year after year, we’ve watched governors and mayors promise change, throw money at the problem, and then walk away when nothing improves. Crime stays high, communities stay scared, and people in charge keep pointing fingers instead of fixing things.
At some point, we need to stop worrying about who’s saying it and start asking what actually works. If local leaders have failed again and again to keep people safe, why not consider outside help, even if it comes from someone we don’t personally support? Isn’t it time to put results ahead of politics?
