On Friday, August 22, 2025, former President Donald Trump once again thrust himself into the national spotlight by defending his controversial deployments of federal forces to American cities—this time, turning his attention to Chicago. Trump, speaking with characteristic bravado, insisted that residents of Chicago, particularly African American women, are "screaming for us to come" and are eager for a military crackdown on crime. According to Trump, these citizens are "wearing red hats, just like this one," a clear nod to his signature campaign merchandise. "African American ladies, beautiful ladies are saying, 'Please, President Trump, come to Chicago, please,'" Trump claimed, as reported by multiple outlets including Acyn and xray_media.
Trump’s assertion, delivered with his trademark flair, was met with a storm of skepticism and outright disbelief—especially on social media. Many questioned the veracity of his anecdote, pointing out his lack of popularity in Cook County, Illinois, where he garnered just 28.4% of the vote in the 2024 presidential election. Critics were quick to highlight that, if anything, the voices Trump claims to hear are more likely those of local officials and community leaders asking the federal government to stop cutting funding for violence prevention programs, not to send in troops.
In fact, as White House Xray noted on X (formerly Twitter), "Those 'beautiful ladies' he claims to hear? They're actually mayors screaming for him to stop defunding their violence prevention programs." This criticism is bolstered by recent statistics showing that Chicago has managed to cut homicides by 30% and shootings by 40% since 2024 through local initiatives—without federal military intervention.
Trump’s comments are not isolated. They come on the heels of a similar move in Washington, D.C., where he had deployed the National Guard for 30 days starting the week before August 22, 2025, in response to what he described as lawlessness in the capital. During the same Friday appearance, Trump recounted a story about a friend who lives in Washington, D.C. This friend, Trump said, used to be afraid to walk a ten-block stretch, describing it as a "chain of hell." But now, thanks to the National Guard presence, Trump claims his friend feels "totally safe" and has even started dining out four nights in a row—something he allegedly hadn't done in four years.
Yet, the data paints a different picture. Despite Trump’s claims of improved safety, restaurant bookings in Washington, D.C. have actually plummeted since the federal takeover. This detail, reported alongside Trump’s anecdote, raises questions about the true impact of militarized interventions on city life and local economies. Critics argue that the presence of armed federal troops on city streets may deter residents and visitors alike, rather than fostering a sense of security.
Social media reaction to Trump’s remarks was swift and biting. Commentators from across the political spectrum took to platforms like X to express their disbelief and anger. One user, Denison Barb, wrote, "African American ladies don't want to be stopped and 'shaken down' by the National Guard just for walking down the streets in their neighborhood." Others, such as Joe Walsh, were even more blunt: "He’s not a king. No Kings in America. And we don’t put our military on our streets. Not in this country. Oh, and…he’s lying - 'African American ladies are saying please President Trump, come to Chicago.' Bullshit. He lies as he breathes."
Some critics took the opportunity to recall Trump’s fraught history with communities of color. One viral post asked pointedly, "Are these the ones he called lazy, didn’t want them counting his money, pulled them off the casino floor or wouldn’t rent to them?"—a reference to past allegations of discriminatory practices in Trump’s business dealings. Others, like Leslie McLaughlin, challenged the very premise of Trump’s narrative: "Beautiful African American ladies of Chicago please let us know if you are asking for this help? Do you really want armed guards wandering your streets arresting mostly POC?"
The skepticism wasn’t limited to social media. Policy experts and local leaders have repeatedly emphasized that effective crime reduction in cities like Chicago comes from community engagement, investment in social programs, and local policing strategies—not from federal military interventions. As Theophilus M remarked online, "Trump’s cartoon version of Chicago says it all, imaginary beautiful ladies begging him to send in troops. Real leadership would mean working with communities and local leaders, not fantasizing about being a savior while using the military as a campaign prop."
Despite the backlash, Trump doubled down on his approach, suggesting that after Chicago, another city would be next in line for a federal crackdown. "After we do this, we will go to another location and make it safe too. Chicago is a mess. That will probably be our next one after this. They are screaming for us to come," he declared. The statement, while dramatic, did little to reassure those who see his tactics as political theater rather than genuine problem-solving.
Trump’s rhetoric is part of a broader pattern. Throughout his political career, he has often portrayed American cities—especially those led by Democrats or with large minority populations—as chaotic and in need of outside intervention. This narrative, critics argue, serves both to stoke fear among his base and to justify extraordinary measures that many see as federal overreach. The recent deployment of the National Guard in Washington, D.C., for example, was justified by Trump on the grounds of rampant lawlessness, yet many local residents and business owners reported feeling more anxious, not less, with soldiers patrolling their neighborhoods.
Meanwhile, the actual data from Chicago tells a story of progress through local effort. The city’s 30% reduction in homicides and 40% drop in shootings since 2024 are the result of targeted community programs and cooperation between residents, police, and city officials. These achievements, critics say, are at risk if federal intervention undermines trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve.
Supporters of Trump’s approach, however, argue that desperate times call for desperate measures. Some believe that federal intervention is necessary to restore order in cities plagued by violence, and they see Trump’s willingness to take bold action as a sign of strong leadership. Yet, even among conservatives, there is debate about the wisdom and legality of deploying the military or federal agents for domestic law enforcement purposes.
The debate over Trump’s claims and tactics is likely to intensify as the 2026 midterms approach. For now, the former president’s vision of "beautiful African American ladies" in red hats pleading for military intervention remains, at best, unsubstantiated—and, at worst, a divisive political fantasy that distracts from the real work of building safer, more just American cities.
With Chicago’s local solutions showing measurable progress and Washington, D.C.’s restaurant scene reportedly suffering under the shadow of the National Guard, the nation is left to grapple with the question: whose voices are truly being heard, and at what cost?
