Some Red States Are Trying to Take Control of Their Blue Cities
Trump’s federal takeover of D.C. was just one example of Republicans curbing local autonomy under the banner of public safety.

After 30 days, President Donald Trump's federal takeover of Washington, D.C., has ended. But the use of federal troops in policing American cities could just be starting.
On Tuesday, the president said he was finalizing negotiations with a Republican-run state for a potential deployment. "We're working it out with the governor of a certain state that would love us to be there, and the mayor of a certain city in that same state," Trump told reporters. "We'll announce it probably tomorrow." While no location has been announced, the president's next destination could be New Orleans, Louisiana, given that he floated the idea of deploying the National Guard to the city last week.
If this is the course of action that Trump decides to take, the National Guard will join ranks with Troop NOLA, a specialized police force established in 2024 by Republican Gov. Jeff Landry. Since its creation, the initiative has played a central role in Landry's wider crime crackdown, making roughly 500 arrests, confiscating nearly 200 illegal firearms, and recovering over 50 stolen cars, according to Fox 8. The governor also used his emergency powers to deploy Troop NOLA officers to the French Quarter following a deadly attack on January 1, framing the move as necessary for law and order.
This dynamic isn't unique to Louisiana; several Republican-led states have similarly moved to expand state control into Democratic-run cities, often citing concerns over crime and public safety. In Mississippi, a similar pattern has taken shape. In recent years, the Capitol Police force in Jackson has undergone major expansion, growing to 148 officers—the Jackson Police Department has 258—and patrolling roughly 24 of the city's 114 square miles. While The Washington Post reports that some city residents have welcomed this police presence, critics have maintained that heightened law enforcement has led to a spike in police abuses—including several high-profile cases in which Capitol Police officers have been charged with manslaughter and civil rights violations.
In addition to boosting law enforcement presence, Mississippi's state government has also taken steps to bypass local control over the judiciary by establishing a separate state-run court in Jackson. The court, which opened in January with over $730,000 in taxpayer dollars for FY 2025, will "adjudicate misdemeanor offenses and traffic citations investigated by the State Capitol Police," reports the Clarion Ledger. It will also oversee initial felony offenses introduced by the Capitol Police. The prosecutor and judges of this court are appointed by state-level officials rather than through local elections.
Those who support the court have argued the move was necessary, in order "to address a spike in crime and Jackson's court backlogs," according to The Washington Post. Republican Gov. Tate Reeves called it "another major addition to ensuring law and order in our capital city."
But Mississippi and Louisiana aren't alone. In Missouri, Georgia, and Indiana, Republican-led legislatures have moved to seize control of local policing and prosecutors—often targeting Democratic jurisdictions under the banner of crime control. Critics say it marks a broader shift from limiting government to consolidating it. And in many cases, they argue, this decision isn't about improving governance but about maintaining political control.
Whether Trump will enact a federal intervention in another U.S. city remains uncertain. Such a move would deepen a trend already underway in many Republican-led states—curbing local autonomy under the banner of public safety.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Why would a red state try to control a blue city?
Let the blue city stew in the mess it made.
The voters in the blue cities made their decision of who they wanted to control them, so let the voters there enjoy their choice.
Also, if the red states want kick the blue cities in the groin, how about denying them state (and possibly) federal funding.
If Big Government is the answer to all of societal woes as the blue cities preach, then the blue cities should be able to produce enough capital to solve these problems.
Or are the socialist cheerleaders in the blue cities incapable of generating enough capital to feed their municipal governments?
A bunch of blue cities have been doing rather well. The safest large US cities are among the blueist, including San Francisco, Boston, and New York City.
Look at the stand up comedy act we got here.
Facts don't care about your feelings.
what "facts" are those?
Lowest homicide rates among large US cities in 2024 were in Honolulu, San Diego, San Jose, El Paso, Boston, and New York City.
Yeah...no.
Not even close.
Correct, not close. Exactly correct.
Tallest midget contest.
Build a wall around the city, fill it with water
Keeps idiots like you out!
NYC should deny the resentful Red Counties in the rest of the State, and the many Red States, the taxes it pays which are well in excess of what it receives back.
The State of Maryland ran the police department in Baltimore City from 1853 to 1978, except for a year and a half during the American Civil War when it was effectively under military occupation by the Union Army.
So Reason has an intern that hasn’t read either the US or any state constitutions, and are completely ignorant of US history?
Drivel.
I propose changing "Michigan" to "The United Cities, Townships, and Villages of Michigan".
This would not happen if blue governments were not demonstrating themselves utterly incompetent at governing.
See my comment above. Lots of blue cities are doing great.
Can't wait for the follow up article on how blue States have controlled and abused their red areas for decades.
In New York State, NYC has dominated State politics for generations. NYC taxes pay for the schools of much of the Red areas, most of which are now economic basket cases.
Hochul is the first upstster Governor to be elected since Franklin Roosevelt.
We "could" also suffer a massive earthquake, but that doesn't fuel TDS, does it?
I mean, they might blame the Bad Orange Man for displeasing the Elder Gods, who knows?
Sounds good, states aren't the federal government, they have legitimate police authority and jurisdiction.
But Mississippi and Louisiana aren't alone. In Missouri, Georgia, and Indiana, Republican-led legislatures have moved to seize control of local policing and prosecutors—often targeting Democratic jurisdictions under the banner of crime control.
Why is this controversial? How many blue-city police departments are or have been under consent decrees?
A related question - how many red City police departments have ever had one imposed?
What's the ratio per city?
It's a good question... I just know the blue city decrees because those have made the biggest splashes (as they tend to be the biggest cities) and I live in one that was under a decree for 10 years.
In Missouri, we tried giving St. Louis and KC back local control of their police departments, several years ago, and both violent and property crime skyrocketed, while prosecutions went down.
So, St. Louis got local control of its police department in 2013.
Here is data on the crime rate in St. Louis and in Missouri since 2013:
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/cities/us/mo/st-louis/crime-rate-statistics
You can see that the crime rate in St. Louis tracks the crime rate for the rest of the state. Yes crime did increase in St. Louis from 2013-2017. But crime increased in the entire state over that time period. If you look at the percentage change, it is comparable in both cases.
So it's difficult to attribute a cause-effect relationship here, that local control is what caused an increase in crime in St. Louis.
It's so weird that you stopped at 2017.
Hypothetical question here, Reason. If a city was controlled by a criminal organization like the mafia or a cartel, with the people being oppressed and victimized, would it be wrong in your view for the state or even the federal government to intervene?
Depends. On Tue and Thur is bad, on Mon and Fri it's good.
If the Organized Crime is Republican, as it famously was in Philadelphia for the first half of the 20th Century, then MAGA would oppose it.
The organized crime? Yeah probably.
We're in the 21st Century, try and keep up.
“Some Red States Are Trying to Take Control of Their Blue Cities”
Good. It’s about time.
How much local autonomy is there in cities with no-go zones?
How much local autonomy is there when the citizens want one thing and local politicians want to let criminals free to prey on them?
Also, are we doing 'local control is good' today? Because a couple days ago it was bad that local zoning boards where trying to work around state zoning laws that allowed things the locals didn't want?
If the citizens "want one thing", then they can vote out the politicians who are not delivering that "one thing" to them, in the next election. I think that's how democracy is supposed to work. Why is a state takeover necessary?
Baltimore was taken over by the Federal Government in 1861 because its leaders wanted to secede and wage war against the US.
Please cite a no go zone anywhere in any US city.
https://heyjackass.com/2025-homicide-map/
Yeah I was going to bring up the zoning issue. Last I checked every city in the country is a political subdivision of the state and subject to the legislature, laws and regulations thereof. There is nothing troubling about a state being involved in a city's criminal justice system and it continues to be local control because blue city voters can throw out the state politicians at the ballot box. Really pointless article. I can only assume that the author is trying desperately to save the local Soros prosecutors that Reason endorses and have been an abysmal failure.
See, this is how the Right is becoming totalitarian.
It isn't enough that they win national elections. It isn't enough that they control the governor's mansion and a supermajority in the state legislature. They must force the entire state to submit to their will, even the blue enclaves.
This obviously has more to do with eliminating local autonomy than it does with crime. Just looking at violent crime rate for cities (not parishes) in Louisiana - New Orleans ranks 9th for violent crime in Louisiana - behind Opelousas, Marksville, Monroe, Alexandria, Independence, Bogalusa, Crowley, and Franklinton. For property crime rate, New Orleans ranks 13th in Louisiana - behind some of the above listed as well as Bastrop, Gonzales, Breaux Bridge, West Monroe, Ponchatoula, Nachitoches, etc. Those are FBI statistics - reported to them by local/state police.
This obviously has nothing to do with local/state crime or with local/state politics. Having the feds take over New Orleans is about NATIONAL politics.
Personally - I think that if a state calls in the feds to take over a city or something, then that state should cease to exist. It should be split into two or three or however many pieces. Call it the state of Louisiana and the state of Mardi Gras or whatever. If it can't govern itself, it can't govern itself. If a particular political party is incapable of governing a place where it can be elected, then that place should be forcibly wrested from its control. I have really had enough of local/state political parties demonizing NATIONAL issues in order to further a local/state agenda because they are too fucking incompetent to govern themselves.
As an aside - maybe the US has spent too long pretending that 'states' are the only legal sub-entities that have a reasonable basis for existence. The only reason states exist is because some inbred monarch from way back arbitrarily gave some inbred noble from way back a land charter. Long before there was a notion of a 'republican form of government' which is antithetical to some monarchical decision.
But that nomaly is why the US legally adopted something called 'Dillon's rule' - Municipal corporations owe their origin to, and derive their powers and rights wholly from, the legislature. It breathes into them the breath of life, without which they cannot exist. As it creates, so may it destroy. If it may destroy, it may abridge and control So municipalities are entirely subservient to a state legislature.
The alternative legal doctrine is sometimes called 'home rule' or the Cooley Doctrine - It is axiomatic that the management of purely local affairs belongs to the people concerned, not only because of being their own affairs, but because they will best understand, and be most competent to manage them. The continued and permanent existence of local government is, therefore, assumed in all the state constitutions, and is a matter of constitutional right, even when not in terms expressly provided for. It would not be competent to dispense with it by statute.
This seems like a legitimate issue of where the original authority of a particular governance entity arises. Does it originate from the individual - or from the people - or from a legislature?