Onboard Air Force One, a stark warning echoed: the National Guard stands ready to return to cities grappling with rising crime. The former President indicated a willingness to redeploy forces to Chicago, Los Angeles, and Portland, framing the move as a response to escalating unrest.
The specter of the Insurrection Act loomed large in the conversation. He suggested it remained a powerful, though currently unused, option – a tool employed by nearly half of all presidents throughout American history, including his predecessor, George H.W. Bush, on numerous occasions.
He pointed to previous deployments as evidence of success, claiming a significant reduction in crime rates in both Portland and Los Angeles during earlier interventions. He asserted that the withdrawal of federal support would inevitably lead to a resurgence of criminal activity, creating the conditions for a renewed response.
A specific rebuke was directed at the governor of Illinois, accusing him of failing to address the state’s crime problems despite a prior federal effort that reportedly lowered crime by 25%. He highlighted a recent period of intense violence in Illinois, citing a single day with seventeen murders and seventy-seven shootings.
The narrative extended to Los Angeles, where he credited federal intervention with preventing a complete loss of control during earlier riots, potentially even saving the city from losing its bid to host the Olympic Games. He emphasized the police commission’s acknowledgment of the critical role played by federal forces.
He reiterated that the redeployment of the National Guard would be contingent on a demonstrable increase in crime, framing it not as an escalation, but as a necessary reaction to deteriorating conditions. The Insurrection Act, he implied, would be considered if circumstances demanded a more forceful response.
The Supreme Court’s recent decision to deny a request to maintain a Texas National Guard presence in Chicago, intended to protect ICE agents, was also addressed. He characterized the ruling as a setback, but one that did not preclude future action.
He concluded with a promise of a potential return, hinting at a future deployment that could be “much different and stronger,” triggered by a predictable surge in crime. The message was clear: the federal government remains prepared to intervene in cities facing significant public safety challenges.
