Category World News

Officials in the US city of Chicago were bracing for a possible deployment of the United States National Guard on Friday, as part of President Donald Trump’s wider crackdown on crime and immigration – notably, many point out, in Democratic strongholds.

Last week, CNN, citing unnamed officials, reported that the controversial military deployment could take place by Friday and that the National Guard might be ready to patrol the city on Saturday.

At the same time, a major federal immigration operation involving officials from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is also expected to begin in the city.

Last Sunday, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, a Democrat, claimed the Trump administration had not informed him of the deployment plans, and that such a move would amount to an “invasion” of the state.

On Saturday last week, Chicago’s Mayor Brandon Johnson signed an executive order directing Chicago police not to collaborate with National Guard troops or federal agents. The order also urged federal agents to wear body cameras and reveal their faces rather than wear masks, as they have done during previous, “military-style” immigration raids under Trump.

Trump deployed the National Guard in Los Angeles in June, and in Washington, DC, in August, purportedly to fight surging crime rates, but residents and state officials have complained that such moves are undemocratic and say that over-policing will erase trust between local police and communities.

What is the National Guard?

The National Guard is a state-based reserve force totalling 430,040 soldiers and airmen who are serving part-time, rather than full-time. It includes the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard units. National Guard members often hold a civilian job in addition to their military duties.

Each US state and entity has its own National Guard unit, and all together make up the US National Guard. The Guard can be activated for federal missions, such as under Trump’s recent directives, meaning it is dually-controlled by states and the federal government.

The National Guard’s origins go back to colonial-era militias that formed during British rule, with the first colony-wide militia forming in Massachusetts in 1636. Those militias later evolved into an organised, national structure following US independence.

What happened in Los Angeles?

In June, Trump deployed nearly 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 US Marines to Los Angeles to quell public protests against ICE raids. California Governor Gavin Newsom described the move as “political theatre”.

A court ruled on Tuesday that the deployment was illegal. It was the first time since 1965 that a president had federalised National Guard troops to address unrest in a state without a governor’s permission. President Lyndon B Johnson, at the time, sent troops to Selma, Alabama, to protect civil rights protesters from violence.

What happened in Washington, DC?

On August 12, Trump announced at a White House press conference that he was temporarily taking control of Washington, DC’s Metropolitan Police Department under Section 740 of the rarely invoked District of Columbia Home Rule Act, which allows federal control of police during an emergency.

Government officials said the DC force would be in place till November, according to a report on Thursday from ABC News.

Trump additionally deployed 800 National Guard troops to the city to “rescue” it from what he said was a crime and homelessness surge.

“I’m announcing a historic action to rescue our nation’s capital from crime, bloodshed, bedlam and squalor and worse,” Trump said in his announcement. “This is Liberation Day in DC, and we’re going to take our capital back.”

Trump has also said that his administration will seek the death penalty for murder cases in the city.

Washington, DC, is classified as a unique federal district and is a Democratic stronghold. As US president, Trump has direct control over the District of Columbia National Guard and can use the DC police force for 48 hours, or up to 30 days if he notifies Congress. However, Congress has not been formally notified of the recent moves.

DC Mayor Muriel Bowser initially criticised the deployment, describing it as “unsettling and unprecedented” on August 11. She added that although violent crime had spiked in the city in 2023, recent data shows crime rates have been falling and that violent crime is at a 30-year low.

Bowser has since tried to cooperate with federal agents by setting up an operations centre to coordinate communications between federal agencies and local law enforcement. The centre was established under Bowser’s “Safe and Beautiful Emergency Operations Center” (SBEOC), which is a play on Trump’s lingo.

One of the centre’s tasks is to ensure federal agents maintain policing practices that instil confidence in residents, such as not wearing masks, identifying their agencies and providing identification when interacting with people.

Despite that, on August 27, Bowser told reporters that there was a “break in trust” between communities and the police due to the presence of federal agents who wore masks and were not always identifiable. Bowser said she was “devastated” because some residents in the city said they were living in fear.

Why does Trump say it is necessary to deploy troops to cities?

Trump has argued that it is essential to combat crime in Los Angeles, DC and other cities. Despite widespread criticism and legal challenges, he has defended his decision, saying some troublemakers have to be handled by soldiers.

“Frankly, they were born to be criminals,” Trump said on Wednesday, when he confirmed the Chicago deployment would happen but did not give dates. “And they’re tough and mean, and they’ll cut your throat, and they won’t even think about it the next day. They won’t even remember that they did it. And we’re not going to have those people.”

The president has also pointed to what he says are the positive results from the DC federal takeover. Speaking at a conference on Tuesday, Trump said the city was now safe and that restaurants were enjoying booming businesses.

“We have no crime,” Trump said. “You’re not going to be shot.”

Republican lawmakers have backed Trump’s actions, especially in DC, where some are proposing a “Make Our Streets Safe Again Act” to target crime and address homelessness.

“President Trump’s unyielding leadership and strength, coupled with proper congressional oversight, ensures that Washington, DC, will reclaim its rightful place,” US Representative Harriet Hageman, a Republican, said at a news conference on Tuesday.

Where else has Trump threatened to deploy the National Guard?

Trump and officials from his administration have floated possible plans to deploy the National Guard in Democratic-led cities including Chicago, Baltimore, Boston and New York.

On Tuesday, Trump stated at a conference that he has “an obligation to protect this country, and that includes Baltimore”.

On August 22, he told reporters in the Oval Office that “Chicago is a mess”, and that his administration “will help with New York”.

The day before, ICE’s acting director said agents would “flood” Boston to remove immigrants in the so-called “sanctuary city”, referring to municipalities that limit cooperation with federal law enforcement on immigration issues.

Officials in Baltimore and Chicago, meanwhile, insist that crime rates have fallen in their cities.

In July, Baltimore’s police department said there had been a significant drop in gun violence compared to last year. The city’s Mayor Brandon Scott also told reporters on Monday that by September 1, 2025, 91 homicides and 218 non-fatal shootings were recorded. He said it was the lowest yearly homicide rate in over 50 years.

Also on Monday, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson said at a conference that overall crime rates had fallen in the city by 21 percent. “We will not have our police officers, who are working hard every single day to drive down crime, deputise to do traffic stops and checkpoints for the president,” he said.

How bad is crime in Chicago?

With a population of 2.7 million, Chicago has long had a national reputation linked with high crime rates, particularly gun violence. Legal experts say that reputation has some basis, but that crime rates are not unconnected to the era of racial segregation.

In reality, however, crime rates in Chicago vary depending on the crime type, and generally mirror those in other major cities, according to analysis by CBS News, which cited data from the Chicago Police and the FBI.

Last year, the city had 18,327 reported cases of violent crime, which translates to 695 per 100,000 people. In comparison, Oakland had 1,925 cases per 100,000; Detroit, 1,781; Little Rock, 1,672; and Baltimore, 1,606. Houston, which has a smaller population of 2.3 million, recorded a total of 26,628 violent crimes or 1,148 crimes per 100,000.

According to data from the DC-based Council on Criminal Justice (CJC), Chicago did see a 369 percent [nearly fivefold] increase in violent crime, property and drug offences between 2019 and 2023, driven mainly by a surge in vehicle thefts that was recorded in several other large cities in the same period. Many US cities similarly recorded high crime rates during the COVID-19 pandemic.

More recently, the CCJ reported that overall crime in Chicago by June 2025 was down compared to 2024.

In a year-on-year analysis, the CCJ noted that violent crimes such as homicides had reduced by 33 percent compared to last year. Aggravated assaults fell by 16 percent, gun assaults by 27 percent, robberies by 35 percent, carjacking by 51 percent and domestic violence by 10 percent.

An exception to the downward trend was sexual assault cases, which only reduced by one percent between June 2024 and June 2025.

What do critics of Trump’s hardline approach say?

Trump’s deployment of troops in Los Angeles, Washington, DC, and the looming Chicago deployment have faced criticism and legal challenges from law experts, officials and residents. Some say it constitutes the formation of a “police state”, the sidelining of state authorities, and overreach. Others say it is over-policing that could have an adverse impact on relations between communities and local law enforcement.

“This is an active military takeover of the capital,” protesters who assembled outside Congress in DC on Thursday wrote in an open letter to lawmakers, which they handed out.

“It is a textbook indicator of backsliding democracy and intensifying authoritarianism … This might come off as alarmist, but in the last 100 years of history, the pattern is clear and we are witnessing it in real time,” the letter stated.

California Governor Gavin Newsom and the state’s Attorney General Rob Bonta have also argued that Trump’s decision to deploy federal military agents violates the Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts the use of the military for civilian law enforcement.

This week, US District Judge Charles Breyer ruled that the Los Angeles deployment was unprecedented, an overstep of presidential authority, and ultimately, illegal. The case had been filed in June by the state of California.

“There were indeed protests in Los Angeles, and some individuals engaged in violence,” Breyer wrote, referring to Trump’s insistence that the anti-immigration-raid protests constituted a “rebellion” that needed to be quashed.

“Yet there was no rebellion, nor was civilian law enforcement unable to respond to the protests and enforce the law,” Breyer wrote in his judgement.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is a masterful consumer watchdog, established after the 2008 financial crash. It has helped many millions of people who were betrayed by Wall Street and Main Street over the years. It fights unsurprisingly for its life in Trump’s America.

A preliminary injunction that had temporarily stifled the Trump administration’s plan for widespread layoffs was lifted by a federal appeals court on August 15, 2025, causing a significant setback to the bureau. The DC Circuit ruled in a 2-1 decision, which means the axe may still fall and placed a temporary stay in place while a new hearing is being considered. However, the CFPB’s future appears at best uncertain for the time being.

Not by accident, the bureau’s peril. The plan is that. Trump enlisted the new “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) to assist him in putting his stamp on the CFPB from the moment he entered the White House. Elon Musk, X and Tesla’s owner, then launched a swift attack on DOGE. The issue was with how the CFPB has already provided Americans with more than $ 21 billion since its founding, far beyond its intended purpose. The US lost about 8.7 million jobs and lost millions of homes during that meltdown, prompting Congress to take action. The Dodd-Frank Act, which established the CFPB as an independent watchdog over banks, lenders, and credit card companies, was signed by President Obama as a response, which was the kind of “efficiency” target DOGE wanted to eliminate.

The CFPB has been providing guidance on both old and new financial products from the beginning, managing consumer complaints through an online database, conducting research, creating regulations, and issuing recommendations. Additionally, it investigates, litigates, and enforces consumer protection law violations against businesses.

The bureau’s third director, Rohit Chopra, almost had an overuse for the betterment of itself. It won numerous high-profile victories, including a $ 120 million settlement with Navient for abusive student-loan practices in 2024 and a $ 3.7 billion order against Wells Fargo, including a $ 1.7 billion civil penalty, for illegally repossessing cars, freezing accounts, and more.

The CFPB’s push to regulate fintech platforms was what really irritated the tech snobs. Silicon Valley was enraged by its decision to policize peer-to-peer apps and digital wallets in addition to proposed privacy protections. With its goals in peer-to-peer payments, Apple Pay, Google Pay, PayPal, Cash App, and X all suddenly encountered CFPB scrutiny. Big Tech desired the least amount of scrutiny with it.

Some of the biggest donors to businesses that are subject to CFPB investigations or are under threat of violating its regulations have a straight line in their dealings with Trump’s campaign and inauguration. Elon Musk, who owns Tesla, is the subject of numerous consumer complaints in the CFPB’s database, and has contributed more than $250 million to Trump campaign initiatives. At least $5 million was previously supported by LendUp, a payday-style lender that the CFPB sued for deceptive practices, and it was the result of court-ordered consumer payments totaling nearly $40 million.

The administration has indicated that it will only employ a statutory skeleton crew to protect millions of households from corporate abuse and overreach, but the bureau’s staff has only received a brief reprieve for the time being. The CFPB gives Wall Street a win while Americans accept the bill while defusing and fang.

Consumer costs are already starting to appear. A Texas federal court lifted the $8 cap on most credit-card late fees, which the CFPB had predicted would save households more than $10 billion annually after Trump’s team took control of CFPB policy at the Bureau’s own request. The 2024 overdraft rule, which would have cap fees at $5 or required banks to only charge their break-even costs, was also overturned by Congress and the president, which the CFPB claimed could save consumers up to $5 billion annually. The administration reduced Wise US Inc’s civil penalty from about $2.025 million to roughly $45, 000, and it terminated the majority of a $60 million Toyota Motor Credit order. That is wiped away by consumer relief funds worth tens of millions.

Consumers are left to take care of themselves. For most Americans, we are returning to the good old days, when rules are tilted toward Wall Street, and medical or student loan debt causes a decline in credit access.

That is, unless states take action. States can still combat some of the predatory practices and products the bureau pursued despite having the resources and, in some cases, the robust authority to protect consumers in the same way the CFPB did. The Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI), modeled on the CFPB, was established after Trump weakened the bureau in his first term.

Senate Bill 1512, which would establish a state-level consumer protection regime similar to California’s approach, was introduced by Illinois legislators on February 4, 2025, but it is still in committee and has not advanced. Other blue states are thinking about re-adopting recently revoked CFPB guidelines or using similar strategies.

In some places, strong protections will be present, but weaker ones will be, which hurts families in weaker states and makes businesses to adhere to various laws state by state. As Silicon Valley and Wall Street celebrate the CFPB’s demise, hard-working families, veterans, and seniors will suffer as a result of rising corporate profits. Trump, Musk, and their allies are envisioning a future where Americans are being told to “tighten their belts” and corporate predators are free.

Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s unofficial tribunal accused the UK of aiding Israel’s war crimes and being a coercessor of the genocide. Although its conclusions have no legal weight, those who saw the suffering in Gaza have had vivid testimony.

French President Emmanuel Macron announced on Thursday that 26 countries had promised to send troops or provide other military assistance to Ukraine after the war ends in a bid to guarantee security in the country.

Macron’s announcement came after a meeting of the so-called “coalition of the willing” in Paris on Thursday.

So what is the coalition, what has it announced, and how have Ukraine and Russia reacted?

What is a ‘coalition of the willing’?

A coalition of the willing is a temporary international group created to solve a specific issue or achieve a particular military or political goal.

This coalition comprises countries that share the common goal of providing Ukraine with security guarantees. They are predominantly European nations, but also include Australia, New Zealand, Japan and Canada.

The coalition was first announced by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer last March.

Back then, Starmer said the coalition would comprise countries that are willing to join forces and devise a sustainable peace plan for Ukraine, to take effect after a peace deal is signed.

What was agreed at the meeting in Paris?

Leaders of 35 countries attended the meeting. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen were among leaders to attend in person, while others attended online.

In Paris on Thursday, 26 coalition members agreed to send troops or provide other assistance to Ukraine after its war with Russia is over.

“We have today 26 countries who have formally committed – some others have not yet taken a position – to deploy a ‘reassurance force’ in Ukraine, or be present on the ground, in the sea or in the air,” Macron told reporters after the meeting.

Macron did not name the 26 countries, nor did he specify the number of troops that would be deployed.

“We are ready, we the Europeans, to offer the security guarantees to Ukraine and Ukrainians the day that a peace [accord] is signed,” Macron said.

Troops would not be sent to the front lines, but they would aim to prevent future conflict from breaking out.

He added that the United States’s contribution to the security guarantees would be finalised in the coming days.

Some European countries, including Germany, Spain and Italy, have not yet committed to sending their own troops but have offered to help in other ways, such as financially or by providing training.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz told the summit that Germany’s decision to send troops would depend on whether the German parliament approves such a move, and the nature of US involvement in the security guarantees.

“The focus must be on financing, arming and training the Ukrainian armed forces. Germany has become Kyiv’s most important partner in this area. The German government is prepared to expand this,” Merz said, according to spokesman Stefan Kornelius.

How has Ukraine responded?

Zelenskyy made a series of posts on his X account recapping the meeting and lauding the progress that was made on Thursday.

In a post, Zelenskyy wrote: “The Coalition of the Willing is working very actively – military, political, advisory levels. We already understand the basis for real security guarantees. The framework is there. Guarantees are not only about ‘someday’ – they are also about the present.”

In another post, Zelenskyy continued, saying the basis for the plan, in terms of forces and concrete steps, is ready.

“We define which countries will take part in particular security components: who on land, who in the air, who at sea, who in cyberspace, who, even without their own forces, can contribute financially.”

Precise details about these guarantees have not yet been made public.

How has Russia responded?

Russia has rejected the notion of foreign troops entering Ukraine, even after a peace deal is struck.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Friday that any Western troops on the ground would be deemed “legitimate targets” by the Russian military.

“If some troops appear there, especially now during the fighting, we proceed from the premise that they will be legitimate targets,” Putin said at the Eastern Economic Forum in the far eastern city of Vladivostok.

Russia earlier rejected any discussion of the deployment of foreign forces in Ukraine.

Maria Zakharova, Moscow’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson, said on Thursday that Moscow refused to consider the idea of an international post-conflict security force “in any form”.

Zakharova told reporters: “Russia is not going to discuss the fundamentally unacceptable and security-undermining foreign intervention in Ukraine in any form, in any format.”

Where do peace negotiations stand?

During his election campaign last year, US President Donald Trump repeatedly promised to promptly end the war in Ukraine if he were elected.

However, a peace agreement appears to remain out of reach as Zelenskyy, Putin and Trump have been unable to agree on terms so far.

On March 19, the US, Ukraine and Russia agreed to a 30-day ceasefire, suspending attacks on Russian and Ukrainian energy infrastructure.

Then, on March 25, they announced the Black Sea agreement, pausing the military use of commercial ships and the use of force in the region.

However, both sides have accused each other of breaking these agreements, which have since expired.

Where does the US stand in all of this?

On August 18, Trump met European leaders at the White House to discuss how to bring an end to the war in Ukraine. During this meeting, Trump reversed his earlier calls for a ceasefire in Ukraine, saying a peace agreement would be preferable.

One week before, Trump had met with Putin for a three-hour summit in Alaska, where Putin rejected the idea of a ceasefire before reaching a peace deal and urged Ukraine to surrender territory in the east.

Since then, the US has taken a number of actions to increase pressure on Russia to reach a peace agreement. As part of his trade tariff wars, Trump announced that he was doubling India’s tariffs from 25 percent to 50 percent because of its purchase of Russian oil. He has suggested that such measures may be in store for other Russian allies as well.

“You’re going to see a lot more. So this is a taste,” Trump said in the Oval Office on August 8, after initial tariffs were placed on India.

In July, Trump struck a deal with European NATO countries to sell more US weapons, such as Patriot missile air defence systems, for Ukraine’s use on the front lines. He said Ukraine’s European allies would foot the bill for these weapons.

And, this week, he revealed his irritation with Putin during a news conference in Washington.

“Whatever his decision is [on reaching a peace deal with Ukraine], we’ll either be happy about it or unhappy,” Trump said. “And if we’re unhappy about it, you’ll see things happen,” he said.

Following the Paris summit on Thursday, Trump held a meeting with European leaders in which he is understood to have rebuked those countries which are still buying oil from Russia, although these are mainly countries which are not members of the coalition, such as Hungary and Slovakia.

The EU as a whole is still purchasing a small volume of Russian crude oil, but the European Commission is aiming for a complete phase-out of Russian oil and gas imports by the end of 2027.