Power Struggle Erupts: Trump's Federal Forces Face State Resistance

Paul Riverbank, 9/1/2025Trump's federal forces clash with state leaders over control of city policing operations.

President Trump's administration, through DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, has launched what they're calling a targeted operation against "the worst of the worst." But let's be clear about what this really means: federal troops and National Guard units being sent into major metropolitan areas, often with minimal coordination with local authorities. I've covered federal-state conflicts for two decades, and this level of tension is unprecedented.

The pushback has been swift and fierce. Take Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker's reaction – he didn't mince words when he called it "an invasion with U.S. troops." Having covered Pritzker's administration, I can tell you this kind of forceful language isn't his typical style. What's particularly telling is his emphasis on the lack of coordination. "They ought to be coordinating with local law enforcement," he said during his Face the Nation appearance, highlighting a breakdown in traditional federal-state cooperation.

Maryland's Governor Wes Moore raised another crucial point that many seem to be overlooking – the fundamental mismatch between the National Guard's training and municipal policing needs. Moore's assessment that "the National Guard is not trained for municipal policing" isn't just political rhetoric; it's a practical concern that deserves serious consideration.

Perhaps nowhere is this conflict more visible than in Chicago, where Mayor Brandon Johnson has drawn a line in the sand. His executive order blocking city police from cooperating with federal forces represents a dramatic escalation in this intergovernmental standoff. "We do not want to see tanks in our streets," Johnson declared, evoking powerful imagery that resonates with many urban residents.

Yet this isn't simply a partisan issue, despite how it might appear at first glance. Secretary Noem has emphasized that these operations target both Republican and Democratic jurisdictions. "Every single city is evaluated for what we need to do there to make it safer," she maintains. And some, like U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro, have praised the initiative's impact in Washington DC.

What I find most concerning about this situation isn't the political theater – though there's plenty of that – but rather the precedent it sets for federal-state relations. As planned deployments target cities like New York, Baltimore, and Oakland, we're watching a real-time stress test of American federalism.

The fundamental question we need to grapple with isn't just about law enforcement strategy; it's about the future of local autonomy in an increasingly centralized nation. As someone who's spent years analyzing these dynamics, I can tell you: this debate won't end with these deployments. It's likely to reshape our understanding of federal authority for years to come.

The American political landscape is witnessing an extraordinary power struggle that cuts to the core of our federal system. As I've watched events unfold over the past weeks, what strikes me most isn't just the deployment of federal forces to American cities – it's the fundamental question this raises about the relationship between Washington and local governments.President Trump's administration, through DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, has launched what they're calling a targeted operation against "the worst of the worst." But let's be clear about what this really means: federal troops and National Guard units being sent into major metropolitan areas, often with minimal coordination with local authorities. I've covered federal-state conflicts for two decades, and this level of tension is unprecedented.The pushback has been swift and fierce. Take Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker's reaction – he didn't mince words when he called it "an invasion with U.S. troops." Having covered Pritzker's administration, I can tell you this kind of forceful language isn't his typical style. What's particularly telling is his emphasis on the lack of coordination. "They ought to be coordinating with local law enforcement," he said during his Face the Nation appearance, highlighting a breakdown in traditional federal-state cooperation.Maryland's Governor Wes Moore raised another crucial point that many seem to be overlooking – the fundamental mismatch between the National Guard's training and municipal policing needs. Moore's assessment that "the National Guard is not trained for municipal policing" isn't just political rhetoric; it's a practical concern that deserves serious consideration.Perhaps nowhere is this conflict more visible than in Chicago, where Mayor Brandon Johnson has drawn a line in the sand. His executive order blocking city police from cooperating with federal forces represents a dramatic escalation in this intergovernmental standoff. "We do not want to see tanks in our streets," Johnson declared, evoking powerful imagery that resonates with many urban residents.Yet this isn't simply a partisan issue, despite how it might appear at first glance. Secretary Noem has emphasized that these operations target both Republican and Democratic jurisdictions. "Every single city is evaluated for what we need to do there to make it safer," she maintains. And some, like U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro, have praised the initiative's impact in Washington DC.What I find most concerning about this situation isn't the political theater – though there's plenty of that – but rather the precedent it sets for federal-state relations. As planned deployments target cities like New York, Baltimore, and Oakland, we're watching a real-time stress test of American federalism.The fundamental question we need to grapple with isn't just about law enforcement strategy; it's about the future of local autonomy in an increasingly centralized nation. As someone who's spent years analyzing these dynamics, I can tell you: this debate won't end with these deployments. It's likely to reshape our understanding of federal authority for years to come.