Trump’s Fantasy of Violent Blue Cities Collapses in Court: Judges Find No Carnage, No Rebellion, No Warzone

For nearly a decade, Donald Trump has pushed a vision of America’s Democratic-led cities as collapsing war zones—chaotic, burning, and barely under control. Since his 2016 campaign, he has warned of “American carnage,” a grim picture he carried into the White House. Now, that narrative is being dismantled in federal court—often by judges Trump himself appointed. His rhetoric is finally facing legal scrutiny, and so far, it isn’t holding up.

In just the past week, two federal judges rejected Trump’s justification for using military force in Chicago and Portland. Both rulings delivered the same message: what Trump describes simply isn’t reality. In Chicago, Trump’s depiction of the city bordered on parody. He once shared a meme comparing it to Apocalypse Now, with helicopters flying over a burning skyline.

His administration even claimed the city faced a “rebellion” serious enough to justify deploying federal troops. Judge April Perry disagreed. She found no rebellion, no breakdown of order—just protests of around 200 people, which local law enforcement easily managed. She called the Department of Homeland Security’s version of events “lacking credibility” and “simply unreliable,” even asking pointedly, “What if the president is relying on invalid evidence?”

In Portland, it was Trump-appointed Judge Karin Immergut who dealt the next blow. Trump had described the city as “war ravaged” and teetering on insurrection, but Immergut’s ruling tore that story apart. While protests had erupted earlier in the summer near an ICE facility, by the time Trump sent in troops, those demonstrations had mostly fizzled out. “The protests have been such a minor issue,” she wrote, “that normal nightlife in downtown Portland has required more police resources than the ICE facility.” She concluded bluntly, “The President’s determination was simply untethered to the facts.”

Just weeks earlier, Judge Charles Breyer—a Clinton appointee—had dismissed Trump’s claims that Los Angeles was “under siege.” Breyer said the protests there were nothing close to an insurrection—more like what happens after a Dodgers or Lakers championship. “There was no rebellion,” he said. “Nor was civilian law enforcement unable to respond.” He even compared Trump’s statements to the 1894 Pullman Strike, a true national rebellion that disrupted commerce, noting that Trump’s version didn’t come close.

Trump’s exaggerations haven’t been limited to cities. He has repeatedly claimed there’s an “invasion” at the southern border, using that language to justify sweeping immigration powers under the Alien Enemies Act. But judges have called that claim equally baseless. Judge Leslie Southwick, appointed by George W. Bush, ruled that the situation doesn’t meet any legal definition of an invasion. “A country’s encouraging its residents to enter illegally,” he wrote, “is not the modern-day equivalent of sending an armed, organized force.” Similarly, Trump-nominated Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. rejected Trump’s argument that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua constituted an invasion, writing that they “do not fall within the plain, ordinary meaning of ‘invasion’ or ‘predatory incursion.’”

None of this is to say the U.S. doesn’t have real problems. There was an assassination attempt on Trump. Democratic officials have faced threats and violence. And yes, some major cities still struggle with crime.

But the numbers tell a different story: red states have consistently higher violent crime rates than blue ones, and in many places—including Chicago—crime has actually fallen. What’s missing from Trump’s narrative is proportion. He isn’t describing serious but manageable challenges; he’s depicting a full-blown national emergency to justify sweeping power for himself.

Now, judges from across the political spectrum—Democrats and Trump appointees alike—are forcing a reckoning. They’ve reviewed the evidence, examined the law, and reached the same conclusion: Trump’s claims are built on a fantasy. He’s waging war against a phantom menace, and the courts aren’t letting him rewrite reality to fit his narrative.