The political climate in Chicago has reached a fever pitch this week, as a conservative media firebrand called for the "execution" of the city’s mayor, Brandon Johnson, following the mayor’s vocal resistance to President Donald Trump’s threats to deploy federal troops to the city. The controversy, which has unfolded over the first days of September 2025, has sparked heated debate about federal authority, states’ rights, and the boundaries of political rhetoric in America.
It all began when President Trump, fresh from deploying the National Guard in Los Angeles in June and Washington, D.C., in August, turned his attention to Chicago. According to the Chicago Sun Times and New York Times, Trump described Chicago as “the worst and most dangerous city in the world” and repeatedly threatened to send in the military to combat violent crime. On September 2, 2025, speaking from the Oval Office, Trump declared, “we’re going in,” though he did not specify when the deployment would occur.
Mayor Brandon Johnson, a Democrat who has made public safety a cornerstone of his administration, quickly pushed back against Trump’s threats. He told reporters on September 2, “the president wants his own secret police force to do publicity stunts” to distract from what he described as the administration’s “failures.” Johnson’s stance was echoed at a rally on September 1, where he proclaimed, “No militarized force in the City of Chicago!”
The mayor’s resistance did not sit well with some conservative commentators. On September 3, Matt Walsh, a Daily Wire host and self-described “theocratic fascist,” took to his widely-followed podcast, The Matt Walsh Show, to accuse Johnson and other Democratic leaders of making a “deliberate effort” to worsen violent crime in Chicago. “They’ve gone out of their way to make violent crime much, much worse in Chicago,” Walsh claimed. He continued, “This is a deliberate effort that they’ve embarked on.”
Walsh’s criticism quickly escalated. He argued that while states are not required to assist the federal government in carrying out policy objectives, “it’s also true that states and local government cannot actively interfere with the federal government’s decision to enforce the law. That is not states’ rights. That is treason.” He went further, asserting, “Brandon Johnson should be arrested, charged with treason, convicted, and then given the requisite punishment for a capital offense.” He then conceded, “Will that ever happen? Probably not.”
These incendiary remarks drew swift condemnation and reignited national debate over the limits of political speech. Legal scholars and civil rights advocates pointed out that the U.S. Constitution defines treason much more narrowly—as “levying war” against the United States or “adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” Merely resisting a federal policy or criticizing the president, they argued, does not meet that threshold.
Despite the heated rhetoric, the reality on the ground in Chicago tells a more nuanced story. According to city data analyzed by the Chicago Sun Times, violent crime in Chicago has actually decreased by almost 22 percent in 2025 compared to the previous year. In fact, the city saw the fewest homicides in June, July, and August—a total of 123—since 1965. This trend stands in stark contrast to the narrative of escalating violence that has been advanced by some commentators and the Trump administration.
Still, Trump has remained adamant about his plans. The New York Times reported that the administration has been preparing for weeks to launch an immigration crackdown in Chicago, involving 200 homeland security officials and the use of a nearby naval base as a staging area. Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, a Democrat, has strongly objected to the proposed troop deployment. On September 3, Pritzker told CNN that Illinois officials had heard the National Guard could be mobilized by Friday, September 5, and ready to act as soon as Saturday, September 6. Pritzker warned that if Trump pushes forward with the deployment, the state is prepared to challenge the effort in court.
The standoff has become a flashpoint in the broader debate over federalism and the appropriate role of the military in domestic affairs. Supporters of Trump’s plan argue that extraordinary measures are warranted to address violent crime, pointing to recent holiday weekend shootings—eight dead and 50 injured—as evidence of a city in crisis. “I have an obligation,” Trump said, justifying his readiness to intervene in Chicago as a matter of public safety.
Opponents, however, see the threats as politically motivated and counterproductive. Johnson and his allies argue that deploying troops would escalate tensions and undermine local efforts to address crime through community investment and reform. “The president wants his own secret police force to do publicity stunts,” Johnson reiterated, framing the move as a distraction from national issues rather than a genuine solution to local problems.
Matt Walsh’s call for the mayor’s execution—“Brandon Johnson should be arrested, charged with treason, convicted, and then given the requisite punishment for a capital offense”—has only intensified the controversy. Even as he acknowledged that such an outcome was unlikely, Walsh’s rhetoric has been condemned by many as reckless and inflammatory. Critics note that such language can have real-world consequences, especially in an era of heightened political polarization and threats against public officials.
For many Chicagoans, the debate is not just about politics, but about the safety and well-being of their communities. With violent crime rates dropping and the city recording historic lows in homicides, some residents are frustrated by what they see as misrepresentations of their city. Others remain wary of both federal intervention and the potential for local leaders to become political pawns in a national drama.
As the September 6 deadline for potential National Guard mobilization approaches, all eyes are on Chicago. Will Trump follow through on his threats, and will Illinois leaders succeed in blocking federal intervention in the courts? The answers may shape not only the future of Chicago, but also the broader contours of American federalism and political discourse in the months ahead.
The city’s fate, and the tone of national politics, now hang in the balance as Chicago’s leaders and residents brace for what could be a defining moment in the ongoing struggle over power, principle, and the meaning of democracy itself.