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.
I heard Trump's gonna send the national guard into Honolulu.
TIme to sign back up for the National Guard.
National Guard has been patrolling NYC for quite some time. It is all for show as they can't arrest anyone.
What % of the aldermen in St. Louis are Republican? Chicago? Baltimore?
Yeah. Retard charliehall doesn’t get that the relative rates mean little and high rates occur in blue cities.
I don't know about St. Louis but there has not been a Republican elected to the Baltimore City Council since 1937.
Needs more qualifiers.
FIFY
Charliehall - 5 blue "large cities" with minimum black populations are safe!
Me - after 5 seconds of googling
https://realestate.usnews.com/places/rankings/most-dangerous-places
https://usafacts.org/articles/which-cities-have-the-highest-murder-rates/
Yeah...no.
Not even close.
Correct, not close. Exactly correct.
Bullshit is your native language, eh?
Odd how murderously violent those cities are, ain't it?
You don't see red cities with "shit maps" to avoid people shitting in public all over the place.
Tallest midget contest.
Your source is LESS honest than a pathological liar. The bluer the city, the LESS safe it is.
"The safest large US cities are among the blueist, including San Francisco, Boston, and New York City"
Two of those three are majority white and one of them has a large but aging Asian population.
There IS an America in between coastal cities where rich white libs can live in gated communities.
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.
I hope NYC does that.
We can then just stop all food and block all deliveries of food to them.
See who caves first.
NYC is a city of sheer pussies. Have been for a while now.
We can just fly it in. We have two airports. And in any case the farmers need every market they can get and would break your blockade.
NYC to no longer take in fuel and food deliveries?
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".
hasn’t read either the US or any state constitutions
Or the last 50 yrs. of DNC policy of shitting on Federalism at every turn because of racism, universal healthcare, etc., etc.
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.
Such a weird cherry pick considering that 19 of the top 20 cities with violent rates are all democrat. There are three shit cities for every "great" one you name. And of those great ones there is massive out migration and extreme homelesness problems. Some of the highest taxes in the nation. etc.
"there is massive out migration and extreme homelesness problems. "
Not in NYC.
"Not in NYC."
Uh huh
https://www.google.com/search?q=migration+out+of+nyc&oq=migration+out+of+nyc&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyCQgAEEUYORiABDIHCAEQABiABDIHCAIQABiABDIICAMQABgWGB4yCAgEEAAYFhgeMggIBRAAGBYYHjIICAYQABgWGB4yCAgHEAAYFhgeMggICBAAGBYYHjIICAkQABgWGB7SAQgzOTQ3ajBqN6gCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
"Safest large cities" even if correct, does not imply "doing great". Could well be a tallest midget sort of thing.
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.
Civil discourse typically includes some honesty, but you have none. And I'll add you have no honor either.
I just posted a totally factual comment. I am not the dishonest one here.
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.
The data on the chart stops at 2018.
If "local control" is the cause of greater crime in St. Louis, then explain why local control did not lead to a crime increase in St. Louis significantly different than the rest of the state.
They don't have ANY data available for the past 8 years? That's weird too. Isn't it?
Trust me bro!
You're actually making my point for me. If local control leads to more crime, it should have been evident in the data from 2013 to 2018. The fact that it isn't, means that other factors are at work.
Jeff you are by nature obtuse and that's not a bad thing per se but do need to recognize the outcome of this, you say one thing like the first comment above that So it's difficult to attribute a cause-effect relationship here then follow it up in the next comment with The fact that it isn't, means that other factors are at work. it's what make them not actually want to engage you seriously you try to oil in or out of a discussion with hedged statements and words to make it work for whatever point
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/
That you respond with name calling shows that you can't cite any.
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.
it continues to be local control because blue city voters can throw out the state politicians at the ballot box.
No they can't, because the blue city voters only get the opportunity to vote on the politicians in the blue city districts.
The state politicians dilute the power of the cities through gerrymandering, and then once they have enough power, they take away the cities' authority to govern themselves. It is a partisan power grab.
Cite
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.
The city is in the state. The state realizes the problems in the state and the citizens complaints emanating from cities points the problems directly at the cities, not the farm lands or rural areas.
The city leadership is failing the people and the state can, should and hopefully will, step in.
When you vote democrat, do you vote for anarchy? And then when law and order comes about you decree injustice?
When you vote for a prosecutor, do you vote for the candidate who will not follow the rule of law and uphold the oath of the office and instead do the bidding of the Oligarch/fascist Soros foundation?
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?
"US legally adopted something called 'Dillon's rule' -"
Only some states. And in others, Home Rule overrides the Dillon Rule in most localities.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_rule_in_the_United_States
Louisiana is the most misgoverned state and it is one of the most Republican.
Please do not ignore the FACT that the books are being cooked, the crimes are not being reported. When someone enters jail with the police and then walks away without charge and no crime is logged it throws your statistical argument completely out the window.
6.5% of the population commit 52% of the crime
Hey, don't bring up what portion of the population in Alabama and Mississippi are a certain color. That would be racist. Also, a high proportion of a certain color in many big cities. Come on man, don't be racist. I am a good person and against bad people.
Dumbass Jeffy probably doesn't understand this .
We don't have voter ID laws because apparently the DNC is certain that it's racist to assume black people know where their local DMV is, but when an opposition candidate has charges filed against him and a state moves to kick him off the ballot without a conviction, that's just due motherfucking process. And you're worried that red states are taking their tribal blue shitholes to task for their crimes, that's a problem you need to fix?
Quit insulting people with your 12-yr.-old-level historical awareness and go fuck yourself Reason.
So I guess you have to decide:
A) I love anarchy so much I want my blue cities to become ganglands with so much freedom that only criminals can exercise it, and I want that to spread like cancer; or
B) Maybe a little law and order isn't so bad. Heck, maybe even A LOT isn't so bad.
See, like most things social/political, it's a pendulum. It's always going to swing in one direction or the other, usually in response to swinging too far in one direction. Right now, we're too far deep into the ACAB/Criminal Impunity direction.
This society is broken. Crime keeps winning. Its victims are shifting away from tolerance and forgiveness, and moving towards fear and hatred and vengeance. And when that happens, hatred becomes the norm. We cannot have that. Because there is precious little that breaks people out of that, beyond hope.
And for hope, we need to prove that hope exists. And for that, outside of divine intervention, we need a major show of force from the righteous, the good, and the ordered.
And in American society, that has to be the law. Because if not them, then who. It has to be a force of order. To stem the tide of evil, evil has to know fear. And it has to be a greater fear than that which evil would impose upon their victims. Criminals need to be terrified of the law. You tell them I'm coming, and Hell's coming with me.
Because when they're not terrified, and when they cross the Rubicon in their brazenness, something far more terrifying WILL ultimately come for them.
+1
A) has already occurred in California.
It ain’t pretty I’m here to tell you.
Sadly, our Governor is out there campaigning and, many folks seem willing to buy his BS.
God help us!
I live in CA and confirm that the national guard sent by Trump engaged in a massive genocide of nonwhite people and seized state government buildings to take control. "Remember J6, Remember the Alamo" they yelled as they burned the CA flag.
Oh wait, none of that happened. I was under more government control in one day of covid lockdown then 30 days under the NG.
Is this overreach? Probably. But what should really concern libertarians is that some people, especially the nonwhite demo, may actually LIKE the national guard visibly patrolling their streets in the most dangerous areas. Then the libs start to take notice.
You don't want federal police in your state? Then do your job. The number of North Korean refugees stabbed to death in Korea is like zero. And that's quietly among the most negligent nations on earth. The democrats are an embarrassment.