Street Takeovers and Militarization: America’s Cities Under Federal Control in 2025

By Dr. Wil Rodriguez

For TOCSIN Magazine

The New Reality on American Streets

In October 2025, American cities are experiencing an unprecedented federal response to illegal street takeovers that has sparked a constitutional crisis and ignited fierce debates over civil liberties, state sovereignty, and the appropriate role of military forces in domestic policing. What began as a public safety crisis has evolved into something far more consequential: the militarization of urban America.

President Donald Trump announced in August 2025 that he would place Washington D.C.’s police under direct federal control and deploy the National Guard to the streets, an extraordinary flex of federal power that stripped city leadership of its ability to make law enforcement decisions. Since then, the administration has moved aggressively to deploy National Guard troops in multiple cities, citing street takeovers as part of a broader justification for federal intervention.

Milwaukee: Ground Zero for the Debate

Following a weekend of street takeovers in early September 2025, Milwaukee found itself grappling with the idea of deploying the National Guard, with local leaders and residents expressing sharply divided opinions. Milwaukee Police Association President Alex Ayala became the face of this debate when he publicly welcomed the idea.

“We have all these incidents that are out of control; we don’t have the staffing for it. I am sure the National Guard will do a great job in helping us out,” Ayala stated. Vice President JD Vance indicated during a stop in La Crosse that the administration would consider the request, saying “we would love to actually help cut down on the crime in this community”.

However, the proposal ignited immediate backlash. Governor Tony Evers responded with “We can handle this ourselves,” emphasizing his role as the head of the National Guard in Wisconsin. Milwaukee Mayor Cavalier Johnson recognized the critical role the U.S. military plays in the country but firmly stated that “their role does not belong in American cities”.

Fire and Police Commission Chair Miriam Horwitz went further, calling such a deployment unconstitutional. Community activists vowed to take to the streets in protest if troops were brought to the city. “We don’t want this, and also, if you bring it here, we are going to protest. We are going to be in the streets. We are not going to let you terrify us out of who we are,” warned activist Casey Serrano.

Massachusetts: “Zero Tolerance” Without Federal Troops

In Massachusetts, a string of street takeovers in Fall River, Randolph, Boston, and Middleborough in October 2025 led to a burnt police cruiser, confrontations with law enforcement, and injuries. Governor Maura Healey took a different approach, declaring “zero tolerance” for street takeovers while simultaneously rejecting federal military intervention.

Healey called Trump’s National Guard deployments “a waste of resources,” stating “Donald Trump, engaging the National Guard, sending the National Guard to other states, that costs you. That’s on you. You’re going to pay for that as a taxpayer”.

Instead, Healey directed Massachusetts State Police to provide more resources to cities and towns grappling with street takeovers, demonstrating that states could address the problem without federal military presence.

Washington D.C.: The Federal Takeover Laboratory

On August 11, 2025, Trump sent 800 National Guard members to Washington D.C., declaring a “crime emergency” despite city data showing violent crime had dropped to a 30-year low. What unfolded in the nation’s capital provided a troubling preview of federal intervention.

Six Republican states announced deployments of more than 1,100 Guard troops to Washington, with Louisiana sending 135 soldiers, Mississippi dispatching 200, and Tennessee contributing 160. By late August, National Guard members deployed to D.C. began carrying sidearms, with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth directing guard members to carry their assigned weapons including M4 rifles and M17 handguns.

The mission expanded far beyond traditional law enforcement. National Guard troops have been tasked with “beautification” efforts including painting over graffiti, picking up trash, removing driftwood, spreading mulch, painting fences, and packaging food. As of October 1, approximately 2,200 National Guard members were in D.C., with deployment expected to run through November 30.

Legal challenges mounted quickly, with D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb filing suit to block what he called a “hostile takeover”. At an emergency hearing, federal Judge Ana Reyes suggested she would grant the request unless the Justice Department rewrote its memo to leave the existing police chief in charge.

Chicago and Illinois: Constitutional Confrontation

The constitutional crisis reached its apex in Chicago. On October 4, 2025, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth mobilized 300 members of the Illinois National Guard to Chicago, along with about 200 members of the Texas National Guard. The stated mission: protecting ICE facilities and personnel during immigration enforcement operations.

For U.S. District Judge April Perry, the case came down to credibility: Should she believe local law enforcement officials who said they had protests well in hand, or the Trump administration’s claims of “brazen new form of hostility” targeting federal law enforcement?

After a hearing lasting more than three hours, Judge Perry delivered a stinging rebuke. She concluded the Trump administration’s “perception of events” around Chicago “are simply unreliable” and stated she had seen “no credible evidence that there is danger of rebellion in the state of Illinois”.

Perry noted that “in the last 48 hours, in four separate, unrelated legal decisions from different neutral parties, they all cast significant doubt on DHS’ credibility and assessment of what is happening on the streets of Chicago”. She temporarily blocked the administration from deploying National Guard troops in Illinois.

Governor JB Pritzker celebrated the ruling: “The court confirmed what we all know: There is no credible evidence of a rebellion in the state of Illinois. And no place for the National Guard in the streets of American cities like Chicago”.

The judge found the administration violated the 10th Amendment, which grants certain powers to states, and the 14th Amendment, which assures due process and equal protection. However, the administration quickly appealed, and the legal battle continues.

The Constitutional Crisis: Posse Comitatus and State Sovereignty

Legal experts have argued the deployments violate the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which generally bars the National Guard and other branches of the U.S. military from being used in civilian law enforcement.

Experts say Trump’s decision to deploy the Guard as a blanket response to crime represents a stunning departure from governing norms and the Guard’s intended mission. Joseph Nunn, an attorney at the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program, noted that “the people who drafted the Constitution were extraordinarily suspicious of military power”.

A review of Chicago Tribune archives found only 18 events in which Illinois governors activated the National Guard within Chicago, and only two involved a sitting U.S. president—both during the 19th century. Illinois National Guard officials confirmed they were “not aware of the state’s National Guard forces ever being federalized for an in-state response without the Governor’s request and concurrence.”

The Trump Administration’s Expanding Vision

In late August 2025, Trump signed an executive order tasking Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth with establishing “specialized units” in the National Guard specifically trained and equipped to deal with public order issues—the clearest sign yet he intends to expand the military’s role in domestic law enforcement activities.

Trump told reporters in the Oval Office that guard forces are “really proud to be a part of defending the nation’s capital” and are “ready to go anywhere” with “less than 24 hours’ notice”. He left the door open to deploying military to other cities like Chicago, though suggested he might wait for governors to request troops—or not.

In just four months, Trump has suggested or ordered sending federal intervention to nearly a dozen cities—all run by Democratic mayors and in states mostly run by Democratic governors.

Street Takeovers: The Justification

While federal officials cite street takeovers as part of their justification for military deployments, the connection between the takeovers and the actual Guard missions remains unclear. In Washington D.C., troops have focused on beautification and protecting federal facilities. In Chicago, the stated mission involves ICE protection during immigration operations.

Critics have called the deployments “dangerous political theatre that imperils democracy in the nation’s capital and beyond”. The Center for American Progress stated: “The Trump administration’s overreach is not going to make Washington, DC safer and is dangerous political theatre.”

Trump has justified his takeover by pointing to high crime rates, though data from Washington D.C. shows a 30 percent drop from 2023 to 2024, which has continued to fall.

The Human Impact: Fear in Immigrant Communities

The military presence has created palpable fear in urban communities, particularly among immigrant populations. Census data shows about one in five Chicago residents are foreign born.

Jackson, a Venezuelan immigrant using only his first name because of his immigration status, said with tears in his eyes: “And now with the National Guard things will be even more complicated. It’s super scary to even go grocery shopping”. He has three children and a wife, and recently stopped going to his construction job out of fear.

Chicago resident Eric Harvey, whose neighborhood recently experienced a large ICE raid, expressed anger at the deployments: “You snatching kids and people that get up and go to work every day—that’s who you grab, you not grabbing no criminals”.

Hundreds of Chicagoans have taken to the streets to protest. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson told NPR his office would “do whatever it takes to resist Trump’s attacks on his city”.

Economic and Resource Consequences

The military deployments come with significant costs. Videos of masked agents conducting operations have gone viral, and data from online dining platform OpenTable showed a 25% drop in D.C. restaurant reservations in the days after Trump’s takeover.

Governor Healey’s concerns about resource allocation have proven prescient. National Guard forces are at the forefront of responding to natural disasters, and troops could be needed more urgently at home during Atlantic hurricane season. When South Carolina deployed 200 troops to D.C., the governor noted that “should a hurricane or natural disaster threaten our state, these men and women can and will be immediately recalled home.”

The Armed Presence: A Dangerous Escalation

Perhaps most concerning is the evolution from unarmed to armed military presence. While the Pentagon and Army initially said troops would be unarmed, with weapons remaining in armories, the reality changed rapidly. The District of Columbia National Guard confirmed troops “may be armed consistent with their mission and training,” though details about when and where armed Guard members could be deployed remained unclear.

A Joint Task Force spokesperson said troops are authorized to use firearms for “personal protection” only, meaning self-defense—and “not for policing”. But the distinction between armed soldiers on American streets for “personal protection” versus “policing” offers little comfort to residents navigating their daily lives under military occupation.

A Nation Divided: The Political Chasm

The response to National Guard deployments has split almost entirely along partisan lines. Republican governors have enthusiastically contributed troops, while Democratic governors and mayors have uniformly opposed the interventions.

Two dozen states with Democratic attorneys general or governors signed a court filing in support of legal challenges by California and Oregon against Guard deployments.

Meanwhile, activists and civil rights organizations have raised alarms about the precedent being set. The prospect of a president deploying military forces to American cities over the objections of local and state officials represents a fundamental shift in American governance.

Street Takeovers: The Original Problem

Lost in the constitutional debates and political theater is the original problem: dangerous illegal street takeovers that continue to disrupt communities and endanger lives. Cities like Milwaukee, Boston, Fall River, and others have experienced these events in recent months, causing property damage, blocking emergency vehicles, and creating genuine public safety concerns.

Milwaukee experienced nearly 20 street takeovers over one weekend in early September 2025. Massachusetts saw multiple incidents that included confrontations with police and injuries. These are real problems requiring real solutions—but the militarization of America’s streets may be worse than the disease it purports to cure.

What Happens Next?

As of October 2025, the legal and political battles continue. Courts in multiple jurisdictions are weighing challenges to National Guard deployments. The temporary restraining order in Illinois is set to expire, with further hearings scheduled. Washington D.C.’s lawsuit seeking to end troop deployment awaits resolution.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration shows no signs of backing down. The creation of specialized National Guard units for “public order issues” suggests a long-term strategy for federal military intervention in American cities. The president has made clear his willingness to act unilaterally, with or without state cooperation.

The Fundamental Question

America faces a fundamental question about its identity and values: Is the solution to urban crime and disorder the deployment of armed military forces on city streets? Can a democracy long survive when federal troops patrol neighborhoods over the objections of local and state governments?

The nation’s founders were extraordinarily suspicious of military power, having experienced British military occupation before the Revolution. The Constitution’s careful balance between federal and state authority, and the Posse Comitatus Act’s restrictions on military domestic law enforcement, reflected hard-won wisdom about the dangers of militarization.

Street takeovers are a genuine problem that demands solutions. Enhanced penalties, better coordination between law enforcement agencies, community engagement, infrastructure modifications, and youth intervention programs all have roles to play. But the answer cannot be military occupation of American cities.

Conclusion: Democracy Under Strain

In October 2025, thousands of National Guard troops patrol American streets in multiple cities. Some are armed with rifles and sidearms. They conduct operations at ICE facilities, guard federal buildings, paint fences, and pick up trash. They serve at the direction of a president who has made clear his intention to expand military involvement in domestic affairs, regardless of local opposition.

Federal judges have begun pushing back, questioning the administration’s credibility and finding constitutional violations. State and local officials resist. Immigrant communities live in fear. Protesters march. Restaurant revenues decline. The costs—financial, social, and constitutional—mount daily.

Street takeovers provided a convenient pretext, but the stakes extend far beyond illegal car stunts. What is at risk is nothing less than the character of American democracy: Will we remain a nation where civilian authorities control domestic policing, or will we become a country where armed troops patrol our cities at the president’s discretion?

The answer to that question will define America for generations to come. And in late 2025, that answer remains frightening uncertain.

Reflection Box

In this moment of constitutional turbulence, the line between protection and control grows dangerously thin. The militarization of civic life challenges the very premise of democracy: that power should be exercised through consent, not coercion. As citizens, leaders, and thinkers, we must question not only the policies of the moment but the trajectory of the nation’s soul. — Dr. Wil Rodríguez

Read more thought-provoking analyses and global reflections at tocsinmag.com