Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker announced this week in a fiery speech that Texas National Guard troops planned to deploy in Chicago—on top of amped-up federal law enforcement operations headed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other agencies. This came the same day a California federal judge ruled that President Trump’s deployment of the military in that state had been unlawful. And then Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s office quickly denied that it was preparing to send troops.
Los Angeles. Washington, D.C. Chicago.
We New Yorkers know it’s a matter of when, not if. Trump and his entourage have at this point also explicitly promised to bring aggressive deployment of both federal agents and the military to NYC, and there’s no reason to doubt that they’ll try. So where does that leave the nation’s premier immigrant city, the city of the president’s birth, which has had something of an uneasy stalemate with the administration as it’s gone full force elsewhere?
I just published a long piece in City & State precisely about the relative silence from the Adams administration when it comes to the city’s preparations for the potential escalation of operations here. (And yesterday brought one insinuation of why: That the Trump administration might offer candidates Adams and Curtis Sliwa cabinet positions if they drop out of the election to clear a path for Andrew Cuomo to beat Queens Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani.)
Basically, the Adams upper echelon has been making the case that no aggressive deployment is necessary in New York City, and that they can effectively constrain it via a closer relationship with the Trump administration than other cities have, though they are still making contingency plans in secret. Where this leaves us is that community organizations, businesses, houses of worship, and individuals are going to have to start thinking about what they’re going to do in this eventuality themselves.
Where that tactically leaves us
The main thing is to take some of the examples already laid out by populations in the cities that have been occupied with this type of paramilitary and military operation thus far, namely L.A. and D.C. In those cities, groups of local residents confronted federal agents and soldiers pretty consistently and limited their ability to operate freely. New York City is far denser than those cities, and an aggressive federal and military presence would probably be much more visible. There are quite significant choke points where agents could, for example, set up checkpoints, such as major subway hubs. That also means they’ll be very exposed and can be made subject to consistent scrutiny.
- Do not spread misinformation. The biggest pitfall for well-meaning New Yorkers here is to inadvertently spread misinformation, cause panic or muddy the waters while trying to help. During the first Trump term, I was consistently irked by social media reports that federal immigration agents were, for example, setting up checkpoints at subway stations at a time when that was not ICE’s practice at all. Now, of course, these types of tactics might well be deployed on the streets of New York City, but it is nonetheless extremely important to verify the information that you’re putting out there.
- Describe and record and bear witness. If you think you see a federal operation or patrol in progress, try to actually confirm that the people you are seeing are federal agents. Try to be as specific and actionable as possible when describing what you’re observing. For example, note whether they are checking identification as people come off the train, pulling drivers aside, responding to questions, and so on. If it seems safe to do so, record these operations, as video evidence of the administration’s actions has been one of the most useful tools for not just community members, but us journalists, judges, and others to ascertain exactly what is going on.
For example, federal judges have blocked many of ICE’s roving tactics in L.A. because they were able to establish pretty conclusively that the agency was engaged in widespread racial profiling, targeting people essentially without warrants or any reasonable suspicion. Both documenting what is going on and being as vocal as you personally feel comfortable in demanding information from federal agents are useful, especially if you yourself are a U.S. citizen without something like an active warrant and therefore in a better position to intervene.
- Be prepared. It’s important to understand that this will have a significant impact on the city as a whole. There will be no way of really escaping it because even if it doesn’t directly impact you or your family and friends, there are domino effects to having this type of aggressive state presence in the city. Both L.A. and D.C. have seen significant economic impacts as workers stay home and many businesses, such as restaurants, see plummeting patronage. In these cities, parents have reportedly been afraid to take their children to school and once-bustling areas are deserted. I don’t know how to really head that off except to have a city government that aggressively pushes back in court and in practice, which I’m not sure is necessarily in the cards given reports that Trump’s advisers have been discussing hiring Adams directly. We should be making sure everyone is aware of their legal rights at a minimum, which still matter even in the face of an authoritarian movement.
To get a little more big-picture about things, one of the most crucial factors in whether any given society fully tips into authoritarianism is the level of public support or visible public opposition to it. Our institutions have, by and large, gotten a middling grade here. Some of our most prominent universities, businesses, cultural institutions, news media, and the entire legislative branch of the federal government have bent the knee to the Trump autocratic push (while others have admirably held fast and pushed back). There are certainly plenty of conversations to be had about the best path forward electorally and organizationally for Democrats and civil society writ large, but active and consistent popular dissatisfaction is a baseline.
Let’s look at the recent examples of Poland and Brazil, which slid toward authoritarianism before being pulled back at least in part by sustained, mass public discontent and the widespread rejection of once-popular ruling regimes and leaders, often downstream of direct material decisions that were unpopular and hurt economic and social stability. I’d argue that Trump is positively speed-running this, taking actions that are actively dynamiting the consumer economy and raising prices while engaging in police state tactics that are unpopular and likely to get more-so. He’s acting like a leader with immense popular support, and he just doesn’t have it. Thus, it’s important that people both know and display that they’re not on board.
