Donald Trump appears to have charmed — or coerced — Washington DC’s Democratic Mayor Muriel Bowser. Rather than oppose the President’s deployment of federal law enforcement in the capital, she has said it is “greatly appreciated”. Whether he can repeat this success in other cities into which he has planned to send federal law enforcement, such as Chicago and Baltimore, remains dubious, given any president’s outsize leverage over the nation’s capital.

On Tuesday, Bowser announced an executive order that compels DC cooperation with federal law enforcement “to the maximum extent allowable by law within the District”. In a previous life, the Mayor enthusiastically established Black Lives Matter Plaza and declared the capital a “proud sanctuary city”. She has since painted over the former and flip-flopped on the latter. Thanking Trump for his latest law-and-order move is just the latest sign that Bowser has come a long way, to say the least.

Axios compared the Mayor to Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum on Wednesday, suggesting Bowser is strategically cooperating with Trump as a lesser-of-two-evils approach that, while potentially humiliating, ensures a better political outcome in the long term. In announcing the executive order, the Mayor’s office made sure to note that local officials “will communicate the District’s requests that federal partners adhere to established policing practices that maintain community confidence in law enforcement officers, such as not wearing masks, clearly identifying their agency, and providing identification during arrests and encounters with the public”.

If Trump is going to send in the troops whether DC Democrats like it or not, it’s not crazy for Bowser to try and score whatever concessions possible by flattering the President. It’s unclear whether the Mayor actually negotiated those priorities on masks and identification with Trump or not, though it will be obvious soon enough.

Other Democrats, such as Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker and California Gov. Gavin Newsom, are betting on the opposite approach and resisting Trump entirely. Unlike Bowser, though, it’s easier for cities which don’t serve as the nation’s capital to reject a surge of federal law enforcement because they aren’t compelled by laws like Home Rule in the District.

With regard to Chicago, Trump confirmed at the White House on Tuesday that federal troops were “going in”, though he stopped short of revealing a timeline. Pritzker responded as he’s done for the last several weeks by arguing that “the President’s absurd characterizations don’t match what’s happening here.” He went on: “There’s no emergency that warrants deploying troops in Chicago. He’s insulting Chicagoans by calling our home a hellhole — and anyone who takes his word at face value is insulting them, too.”

Whether Chicago is a hellhole is technically a different question to whether it’s in a state of emergency that “warrants deploying troops”. Just over Labor Day Weekend, as Pritzker protested Trump, 58 people were shot in the city, including eight who were killed. “Hellhole” is in the eye of the beholder, of course, but in one of the most prosperous countries to ever exist, Chicago’s crime rate is a threat to the lives and properties of thousands of residents every year.

Former Republican congressman Joe Scarborough seems to think Pritzker in particular has a better option. “I actually think that JB Pritzker should do something radical,” Scarborough said on his MSNBC show on Tuesday morning. “I think he should pick up the phone, call the President and say, ‘You know and I know you don’t have the Constitutional authority to deploy the National Guard here, and to police my [city]. You can do that in DC, you can’t do that in Chicago. But let’s partner up. These are the most dangerous parts of my state.” He added: “We would love to figure out how to have a partnership that’s Constitutional, that respects the sort of balance of federalism between the federal government and the state government. And let’s work together to save lives.”

In other words, Pritzker should be more like Bowser — even if Trump’s leverage is diminished outside the capital — according to Scarborough. Pritzker, like Newsom, appears to be mulling a presidential bid in 2028. Both men are likely correct that it will be easier in a primary election dominated by the party’s base, which is further Left than the general electorate, to stand having raised money and built up goodwill with the grassroots by fighting Trump.

Of course, Scarborough is right that Trump loves nothing more than making deals and is happy to give a little to look like he’s getting his way. There will be a protracted legal battle, perhaps all the way up to the Supreme Court, over whatever Trump decides to do in Chicago. Pritzker is spoiling for that match-up. Chicago might be better off with cooperation, but Pritzker seems convinced his primary ambitions will be better off with obstruction.

---

Emily Jashinsky is UnHerd‘s Washington correspondent.

emilyjashinsky

---