ReportWire

Tag: federal troops

  • National Guard troops are outside Chicago and could be in Memphis soon in Trump’s latest deployment

    [ad_1]

    National Guard troops are positioned outside Chicago and could also be in Memphis by Friday, as President Donald Trump’s administration pushes ahead with an aggressive policy — whether local leaders support it or not.Video above: Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson says Trump is “out of control”Troops’ presence at an Illinois Army Reserve center came despite a lawsuit and vigorous opposition from Democratic elected leaders. Their exact mission was not clear, but the Trump administration launched an aggressive immigration enforcement operation in the nation’s third-largest city last month, and protesters have frequently rallied at an immigration building in nearby Broadview.Trump has called Chicago a “hellhole” of crime despite police statistics showing significant drops in crime, including homicides.In Tennessee, Republican Gov. Bill Lee has said troops will be deputized by the U.S. Marshals Service to “play a critical support role” for law enforcement, though that hasn’t been defined yet.Memphis Police Chief Cerelyn Davis said a small group of commanders was already in the city, planning for the arrival of Guard troops.Illinois and Chicago are urging a federal judge to stop “Trump’s long-declared ‘War’” on the state. A court hearing on their lawsuit is scheduled for Thursday. An appeals court hearing over the government’s bid to deploy the Guard to Portland, Oregon, is also scheduled for Thursday. A judge there blocked those efforts over the weekend.Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker has predicted that National Guard troops from the state would be activated, along with 400 from Texas. He has accused Trump of using troops as “political props” and “pawns,” and said he didn’t get a heads-up from Washington about their deployment.The Associated Press on Tuesday saw military personnel in uniforms with the Texas National Guard patch at the U.S. Army Reserve Center in Elwood, 55 miles (89 kilometers) southwest of Chicago. Trucks marked Emergency Disaster Services dropped off portable toilets and other supplies. Trailers were set up in rows. Extra fencing was spread across the perimeter.The Federal Aviation Administration ordered flight restrictions over the Army Reserve Center for security reasons until Dec. 6, meaning the Guard could be there for two months.Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson has barred federal immigration agents and others from using city-owned property as staging areas for enforcement operations.The nearly 150-year-old Posse Comitatus Act limits the military’s role in enforcing domestic laws. However, Trump has said he would be willing to invoke the Insurrection Act, which allows a president to dispatch active duty military in states that are unable to put down an insurrection or are defying federal law.Since starting his second term, Trump has sent or discussed sending troops to 10 cities, including Baltimore, the District of Columbia, New Orleans, and the California cities of Oakland, San Francisco and Los Angeles.Most violent crime around the U.S. has declined in recent years, however. In Chicago, homicides were down 31% to 278 through August, police data shows. Portland’s homicides from January through June decreased by 51% to 17 this year compared with the same period in 2024.In Portland, months of nightly protests at a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility continued on Tuesday night. In June, police declared a riot, and there have been smaller clashes since then.Oregon Democratic Gov. Tina Kotek said Tuesday she told Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem there’s “no insurrection” in the state.Noem said on Fox News that she told Portland Mayor Keith Wilson that DHS would “send four times the amount of federal officers” if the city did not boost security at the ICE building, get backup from local law enforcement and take other safety measures.Portland police Chief Bob Day said Tuesday that the department needs to work more closely with federal agents. Fernando reported from Chicago. Associated Press reporters Claire Rush in Portland, Oregon, Adrian Sainz in Memphis, Tennessee, Sarah Raza in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Scott Bauer in Madison, Wisconsin, Ed White in Detroit, and Hallie Golden in Seattle contributed to this story.

    National Guard troops are positioned outside Chicago and could also be in Memphis by Friday, as President Donald Trump’s administration pushes ahead with an aggressive policy — whether local leaders support it or not.

    Video above: Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson says Trump is “out of control”

    Troops’ presence at an Illinois Army Reserve center came despite a lawsuit and vigorous opposition from Democratic elected leaders. Their exact mission was not clear, but the Trump administration launched an aggressive immigration enforcement operation in the nation’s third-largest city last month, and protesters have frequently rallied at an immigration building in nearby Broadview.

    Trump has called Chicago a “hellhole” of crime despite police statistics showing significant drops in crime, including homicides.

    In Tennessee, Republican Gov. Bill Lee has said troops will be deputized by the U.S. Marshals Service to “play a critical support role” for law enforcement, though that hasn’t been defined yet.

    Memphis Police Chief Cerelyn Davis said a small group of commanders was already in the city, planning for the arrival of Guard troops.

    Illinois and Chicago are urging a federal judge to stop “Trump’s long-declared ‘War’” on the state. A court hearing on their lawsuit is scheduled for Thursday. An appeals court hearing over the government’s bid to deploy the Guard to Portland, Oregon, is also scheduled for Thursday. A judge there blocked those efforts over the weekend.

    Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker has predicted that National Guard troops from the state would be activated, along with 400 from Texas. He has accused Trump of using troops as “political props” and “pawns,” and said he didn’t get a heads-up from Washington about their deployment.

    The Associated Press on Tuesday saw military personnel in uniforms with the Texas National Guard patch at the U.S. Army Reserve Center in Elwood, 55 miles (89 kilometers) southwest of Chicago. Trucks marked Emergency Disaster Services dropped off portable toilets and other supplies. Trailers were set up in rows. Extra fencing was spread across the perimeter.

    The Federal Aviation Administration ordered flight restrictions over the Army Reserve Center for security reasons until Dec. 6, meaning the Guard could be there for two months.

    Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson has barred federal immigration agents and others from using city-owned property as staging areas for enforcement operations.

    The nearly 150-year-old Posse Comitatus Act limits the military’s role in enforcing domestic laws. However, Trump has said he would be willing to invoke the Insurrection Act, which allows a president to dispatch active duty military in states that are unable to put down an insurrection or are defying federal law.

    Since starting his second term, Trump has sent or discussed sending troops to 10 cities, including Baltimore, the District of Columbia, New Orleans, and the California cities of Oakland, San Francisco and Los Angeles.

    Most violent crime around the U.S. has declined in recent years, however. In Chicago, homicides were down 31% to 278 through August, police data shows. Portland’s homicides from January through June decreased by 51% to 17 this year compared with the same period in 2024.

    In Portland, months of nightly protests at a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility continued on Tuesday night. In June, police declared a riot, and there have been smaller clashes since then.

    Oregon Democratic Gov. Tina Kotek said Tuesday she told Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem there’s “no insurrection” in the state.

    Noem said on Fox News that she told Portland Mayor Keith Wilson that DHS would “send four times the amount of federal officers” if the city did not boost security at the ICE building, get backup from local law enforcement and take other safety measures.

    Portland police Chief Bob Day said Tuesday that the department needs to work more closely with federal agents.

    Fernando reported from Chicago. Associated Press reporters Claire Rush in Portland, Oregon, Adrian Sainz in Memphis, Tennessee, Sarah Raza in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Scott Bauer in Madison, Wisconsin, Ed White in Detroit, and Hallie Golden in Seattle contributed to this story.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump news at a glance: Trump orders deployment of national guard to ‘war ravaged’ Portland

    [ad_1]

    Donald Trump has ordered the deployment of the national guard to Portland, Oregon, authorizing “full force, if necessary”, ignoring calls from local and state officials who say the president has been misinformed about the scale of a protest outside a federal immigration office.

    The president says that he has directed all necessary troops to be deployed to protect “war ravaged Portland”, claiming that immigration facilities were “under siege from attack by Antifa and other domestic terrorists”.

    Officials in Portland have pushed back against the decision and rejected the president’s characterization.

    “There is no insurrection. There is no threat to national security and there is no need for military troops in our major city,” said Oregon’s Democratic governor, Tina Kotek.

    Here are the key stories at a glance.

    Donald Trump says he is deploying troops to Portland, Oregon

    Donald Trump made the announcement on social media, where he claimed that the deployment was necessary “to protect war ravaged Portland,” and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) facilities he said were “under siege by antifascists and other domestic terrorists”.

    Oregon’s governor, Tina Kotek, rejected the president’s characterization. “In my conversations directly with President Trump and secretary [of homeland security, Kristi] Noem, I have been abundantly clear that Portland and the state of Oregon believe in the rule of law and can manage our own local public safety needs,” Kotek said at a news conference in Portland on Saturday.

    Read the full story

    Portland residents scoff at Trump threat to send military: ‘This is not a war zone’

    A visit to downtown Portland on Saturday, hours after Donald Trump falsely declared the city “war ravaged” to justify the deployment of federal troops, made it plain the US president’s impression of the city, apparently shaped by misleading conservative media reports, is entirely divorced from reality.

    There were just four protesters outside the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) field office in an outlying residential neighborhood that the president had claimed was “under siege” by antifascists and “other domestic terrorists”.

    Read the full story

    Trump fires US attorney who told border agents to follow law on immigration raids

    Donald Trump fired a top federal prosecutor in Sacramento just hours after she warned immigration agents they could not indiscriminately detain people in her district, according to documents reviewed by the New York Times.

    Michele Beckwith, who became the acting US attorney in Sacramento in January, received an email at 4.31pm on 15 July notifying her that the president had ordered her termination.

    Read the full story

    ‘Hell on earth’: immigrants held in new California detention facility beg for help

    Immigrants locked up in California’s newest federal detention center have described the facility as a “a torture chamber”, “a zoo” and “hell on earth”, saying they were confined in filthy cells and suffered medical crises without help.

    Six people detained at the California City detention center, which opened in late August and is now the state’s largest Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) detention center, shared accounts with the Guardian of poor conditions and alleged mistreatment by staff.

    Read the full story

    US military brass brace for firings as Pentagon chief orders top-level meeting

    US military officials are reportedly bracing for possible firings or demotions after the Trump administration’s Pentagon chief, Pete Hegseth, abruptly summoned hundreds of generals and admirals from around the world to attend a gathering in Virginia in the upcoming days.

    The event, scheduled for Tuesday at Marine Corps University in Quantico, is expected to feature a short address by Hegseth focused on military standards and the “warrior ethos”, according to the Washington Post.

    Read the full story

    FBI arrest man who allegedly threatened to shoot people at Texas Pride parade

    Federal authorities in Texas have arrested a man for allegedly threatening to shoot people at a pro-LGBTQ+ parade, to avenge the murder of Charlie Kirk.

    According to court documents viewed by the Guardian, on 18 September, the FBI’s field office in Dallas was notified by Abilene, Texas, police about online threats from a local resident.

    Read the full story

    What else happened today:

    Catching up? Here’s what happened 26 September 2025.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump orders troops to Portland to deal with ‘domestic terrorists’

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump said on Saturday he is expanding his military interventions in US cities, this time by ordering troops to be deployed to Portland, Oregon.

    He instructed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to provide as many soldiers as “necessary” to protect the city and any Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities threatened by “domestic terrorists,” he wrote on the platform Truth Social.

    As an example, he cited the far-left anti-fascism movement Antifa, which he recently designated a “domestic terrorist organization.”

    Trump described Portland, which is widely known for its progressive political values, as “war ravaged.”

    The Republican wrote that he is granting the military broad authority to use “full force,” though it remains unclear what that entails. He also did not specify what types of troops will be deployed.

    Oregon governor: ‘No need for military troops’

    The Democratic governor of Oregon, Tina Kotek, told a press conference that she had spoken with Trump, telling him that Portland could manage its own public safety needs. She called any deployment an “abuse of power and a misuse of federal troops.”

    “There is no insurrection. There is no threat to national security. And there is no need for military troops in our major city,” she said, adding that Portland was “safe and calm.”

    Kotek told reporters that the administration had refused to explain what it meant by plans to deploy “full force” against the city.

    “The president does not have the authority to deploy federal troops on state soil. I’m coordinating with Attorney General Dan Rayfield to see if any response is necessary,” she added.

    Oregon’s Democratic Senator Ron Wyden issued even harsher criticism in a post on X.

    “Trump is launching an authoritarian takeover of Portland hoping to provoke conflict in my hometown,” he wrote. “I urge Oregonians to reject Trump’s attempt to incite violence in what we know is a vibrant and peaceful city.”

    Portland continues to limit cooperation with ICE

    Portland describes itself as a “sanctuary city,” meaning it limits its cooperation with ICE.

    Last week, the city announced that it would investigate whether an ICE facility in Portland was violating regulations by holding people for longer than allowed.

    In a statement on Friday about alleged violence by Antifa supporters, the Department of Homeland Security mentioned rioters in Portland who had repeatedly attacked an ICE facility, listing several incidents that allegedly took place in June.

    According to US media reports, there have been several protests in the city around an ICE facility, directed at Trump’s controversial immigration policy.

    The president sent troops to Los Angeles in June, citing alleged unrest and resistance to ICE agents, whose operations against undocumented immigrants have frequently sparked protests.

    Trump has also deployed National Guard troops to Washington and announced plans for a deployment in Memphis, Tennessee. He has repeatedly threatened to send the National Guard to Chicago as well.

    National Guard members are not full-time active duty military personnel, but a part of the Army that can be deployed by the federal government or by a governor, often to help with disasters in states.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump says he’ll send troops to Portland, authorizes ‘full force’

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump on Saturday authorized sending federal troops to protect “War ravaged Portland.”

    It was the latest in a string of comments from the president about threatening federal intervention and inaccurately characterizing what is happening in the city.

    “At the request of Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, I am directing Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, to provide all necessary Troops to protect War ravaged Portland, and any of our ICE Facilities under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists. I am also authorizing Full Force, if necessary. Thank you for your attention to this matter!” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social.

    Portland Mayor Keith Wilson again blasted Trump’s threats to send troops in a statement Saturday.

    “President Trump has directed ‘all necessary Troops’ to Portland, Oregon. The number of necessary troops is zero, in Portland and any other American city,” Wilson said in the statement. “Our nation has a long memory for acts of oppression, and the president will not find lawlessness or violence here unless he plans to perpetrate it. Imagine if the federal government sent hundreds of engineers, or teachers, or outreach workers to Portland, instead of a short, expensive, and fruitless show of force.”

    Gov. Tina Kotek office did not immediately responded to requests for comment.

    It’s not immediately clear if or when troops would arrive in Portland, or which branch of the military might be involved.

    “We haven’t had an official request at this time,” said Lt. Col. Stephen Bomar, a spokesperson for the Oregon National Guard. “Any request that would come would be coordinated through the governor’s office.”

    Feds in Portland

    “Trump is launching an authoritarian takeover of Portland in the hopes of provoking conflict in my hometown. I urge Oregonians to reject Trump’s attempt to incite violence in what we know is a vibrant and peaceful city. I will do everything in my power to protect the people in our state,” Sen. Ron Wyden told The Oregonian/OregonLive in a statement Saturday morning.

    The president appears to be referring to the ongoing protests outside the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in South Portland. Those protests peaked in June, but have involved no more than several dozen people in recent weeks.

    The White House did not immediately respond to a request for details on Trump’s announcement, such as a timeline for the deployment or what troops would be involved.

    He previously threatened to send the National Guard into Chicago without following through. A deployment in Memphis, Tennessee, is expected to include only about 150 troops, far less than were sent to the District of Columbia for Trump’s crackdown or in Los Angeles in response to immigration protests.

    Portland mayor Keith Wilson and other Oregon leaders gathered Friday to sound the alarm about the apparent increased federal presence at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility south of downtown Portland.

    U.S. Rep. Maxine Dexter said in a statement Saturday that Trump’s decision to send troops to Portland “is an egregious abuse of power and a betrayal of our most basic American values.”

    “We did not ask for federal agents, and we do not want them. Let me be clear: the Portland we love will not be divided by federal forces,” Dexter said. “Do not take the bait. Stay safe, stay peaceful, and stay together.”

    Federal agents have been filmed hitting, shoving and pepper-spraying nonviolent protesters, and more than a dozen demonstrators have reported other alleged uses of excessive force that resulted in massive bruising or injuries. A top Portland Police Bureau official has said in court that federal officers were “instigating and causing some of the ruckus” outside the ICE facility.

    But the protests have been a source of frustration for many neighbors in the otherwise residential neighborhood, as Portland police have declined to enforce the city’s noise ordinance at anti-ICE protests. Protesters regularly blast music for hours and loudly hurl insults at federal police.

    Julie Parrish, a lawyer and former Republican state lawmaker, represented a Portland woman who lives near the ICE facility and sued over the “onslaught of noise” from protesters this summer.

    But Multnomah County Senior Judge Ellen Rosenblum, a former Oregon attorney general, said last month she couldn’t compel officers to intervene.

    Parrish said the president’s decision to send federal forces was the result of poor leadership from the city’s mayor.

    “They’ve let that area be feral for months and then blame the facility and not the people terrorizing the neighbors,” she said, referring to Wilson and the police bureau.

    A protester who said he has been going at least twice a week for the last three months said he was “baffled” by Trump’s announcement.

    “How do you label peaceful protesters terrorists in order to send troops against us?” Milo Black said. “We’re not antifa. antifa’s literally just an ideology. It’s not a group.”

    This is a developing story and will be updated.

    The Associated Press contributed to this story.

    Read the original article on NJ.com. Add NJ.com as a Preferred Source by clicking here.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump says he’ll send troops to Portland, Oregon, as he expands military deployments in US cities

    [ad_1]

    President Trump said this task force will replicate what is happening on the streets of Washington DC. The president said the goal is to essentially put an end to crime in Memphis and mirror the actions taking place in the nation’s capital. The memorandum President Trump signed on Monday did not include details on when troops would be deployed or exactly what his promised surge in law enforcement efforts would actually look like. Tennessee’s governor embraced the deployment while the mayor of Memphis is not thrilled with the plan. Crime that’s going on not only in Memphis in many cities and we’re gonna take care of all of them step by step just like we did in DC. We’ll have folks without training interacting with our citizenry, and there’s *** chance that that will compromise our due process rights. The president also mentioned he’s still looking to send National Guard troops to more Democratic-led cities like Baltimore, New Orleans, and Saint Louis. In Washington, I’m Rachel Herzheimer.

    Trump says he’ll send troops to Portland, Oregon, as he expands military deployments in US cities

    Updated: 8:43 AM PDT Sep 27, 2025

    Editorial Standards

    President Donald Trump said Saturday he will send troops to Portland, Oregon, “authorizing Full Force, if necessary” to handle “domestic terrorists” as he expands his controversial deployments to more American cities.Related video above: President Trump announces National Guard deployment to MemphisHe made the announcement on social media, writing that he was directing the Department of Defense to “provide all necessary Troops to protect War ravaged Portland.”Trump said the decision was necessary to protect U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities, which he described as “under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists.”The White House did not immediately respond to a request for details on Trump’s announcement, such as a timeline for the deployment or what troops would be involved. He previously threatened to send the National Guard into Chicago without following through. A deployment in Memphis, Tennessee, is expected to include only about 150 troops, far fewer than were sent to the District of Columbia for Trump’s crackdown or in Los Angeles in response to immigration protests.Pentagon officials did not immediately respond to requests for information.Since the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, the Republican president has escalated his efforts to confront what he calls the “radical left,” which he blames for the country’s problems with political violence.He deployed the National Guard and active-duty Marines to Los Angeles over the summer and as part of his law enforcement takeover in the nation’s capital. The ICE facility in Portland has been the target of frequent demonstrations, sometimes leading to violent clashes. Some federal agents have been injured and several protesters have been charged with assault. When protesters erected a guillotine earlier this month, the Department of Homeland Security described it as “unhinged behavior.”Trump, in comments Thursday in the Oval Office, suggested some kind of operation was in the works.“We’re going to get out there and we’re going to do a pretty big number on those people in Portland,” he said, describing them as “professional agitators and anarchists.”Earlier in September, Trump had described living in Portland as “like living in hell” and said he was considering sending in federal troops, as he has recently threatened to do to combat crime in other cities, including Chicago and Baltimore. “Like other mayors across the country, I have not asked for — and do not need — federal intervention,” Portland’s mayor, Keith Wilson, said in a statement after Trump’s threat. Wilson said his city had protected freedom of expression while “addressing occasional violence and property destruction.”In Tennessee, Memphis has been bracing for an influx of National Guard troops, and on Friday, Republican Gov. Bill Lee, who helped coordinate the operation, said they will be part of a surge of resources to fight crime in the city.

    President Donald Trump said Saturday he will send troops to Portland, Oregon, “authorizing Full Force, if necessary” to handle “domestic terrorists” as he expands his controversial deployments to more American cities.

    Related video above: President Trump announces National Guard deployment to Memphis

    He made the announcement on social media, writing that he was directing the Department of Defense to “provide all necessary Troops to protect War ravaged Portland.”

    Trump said the decision was necessary to protect U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities, which he described as “under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists.”

    The White House did not immediately respond to a request for details on Trump’s announcement, such as a timeline for the deployment or what troops would be involved. He previously threatened to send the National Guard into Chicago without following through. A deployment in Memphis, Tennessee, is expected to include only about 150 troops, far fewer than were sent to the District of Columbia for Trump’s crackdown or in Los Angeles in response to immigration protests.

    Pentagon officials did not immediately respond to requests for information.

    Since the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, the Republican president has escalated his efforts to confront what he calls the “radical left,” which he blames for the country’s problems with political violence.

    He deployed the National Guard and active-duty Marines to Los Angeles over the summer and as part of his law enforcement takeover in the nation’s capital.

    The ICE facility in Portland has been the target of frequent demonstrations, sometimes leading to violent clashes. Some federal agents have been injured and several protesters have been charged with assault. When protesters erected a guillotine earlier this month, the Department of Homeland Security described it as “unhinged behavior.”

    Trump, in comments Thursday in the Oval Office, suggested some kind of operation was in the works.

    “We’re going to get out there and we’re going to do a pretty big number on those people in Portland,” he said, describing them as “professional agitators and anarchists.”

    Earlier in September, Trump had described living in Portland as “like living in hell” and said he was considering sending in federal troops, as he has recently threatened to do to combat crime in other cities, including Chicago and Baltimore.

    “Like other mayors across the country, I have not asked for — and do not need — federal intervention,” Portland’s mayor, Keith Wilson, said in a statement after Trump’s threat. Wilson said his city had protected freedom of expression while “addressing occasional violence and property destruction.”

    In Tennessee, Memphis has been bracing for an influx of National Guard troops, and on Friday, Republican Gov. Bill Lee, who helped coordinate the operation, said they will be part of a surge of resources to fight crime in the city.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump says he’ll send troops to Portland, Oregon, as he expands military deployments in US cities

    [ad_1]

    President Trump said this task force will replicate what is happening on the streets of Washington DC. The president said the goal is to essentially put an end to crime in Memphis and mirror the actions taking place in the nation’s capital. The memorandum President Trump signed on Monday did not include details on when troops would be deployed or exactly what his promised surge in law enforcement efforts would actually look like. Tennessee’s governor embraced the deployment while the mayor of Memphis is not thrilled with the plan. Crime that’s going on not only in Memphis in many cities and we’re gonna take care of all of them step by step just like we did in DC. We’ll have folks without training interacting with our citizenry, and there’s *** chance that that will compromise our due process rights. The president also mentioned he’s still looking to send National Guard troops to more Democratic-led cities like Baltimore, New Orleans, and Saint Louis. In Washington, I’m Rachel Herzheimer.

    Trump says he’ll send troops to Portland, Oregon, as he expands military deployments in US cities

    Updated: 11:02 AM EDT Sep 27, 2025

    Editorial Standards

    President Donald Trump said Saturday he will send troops to Portland, Oregon, “authorizing Full Force, if necessary” to handle “domestic terrorists” as he expands his controversial deployments to more American cities.Related video above: President Trump announces National Guard deployment to MemphisHe made the announcement on social media, writing that he was directing the Department of Defense to “provide all necessary Troops to protect War ravaged Portland.”Trump said the decision was necessary to protect U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities, which he described as “under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists.”Since the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, the Republican president has escalated his efforts to confront what he calls the “radical left,” which he blames for the country’s problems with political violence.He deployed the National Guard and active-duty Marines to Los Angeles over the summer and as part of his law enforcement takeover in the District of Columbia.The ICE facility in Portland has been the target of frequent demonstrations, sometimes leading to violent clashes. Some federal agents have been injured and several protesters have been charged with assault. When protesters erected a guillotine earlier this month, the Department of Homeland Security described it as “unhinged behavior.”Trump, in comments Thursday in the Oval Office, suggested some kind of operation was in the works.“We’re going to get out there and we’re going to do a pretty big number on those people in Portland,” he said, describing them as “professional agitators and anarchists.”Earlier in September, Trump had described living in Portland as “like living in hell” and said he was considering sending in federal troops, as he has recently threatened to do to combat crime in other cities, including Chicago and Baltimore.“Like other mayors across the country, I have not asked for -– and do not need -– federal intervention,” Portland’s mayor, Keith Wilson, said in a statement after Trump’s threat. Wilson said his city had protected freedom of expression while “addressing occasional violence and property destruction.”In Tennessee, Memphis has been bracing for an influx of National Guard troops, and on Friday Republican Gov. Bill Lee said they will be part of a surge of resources to fight crime in the city.

    President Donald Trump said Saturday he will send troops to Portland, Oregon, to handle what he called “domestic terrorists” as he expands his controversial deployments to more American cities.

    Related video above: President Trump announces National Guard deployment to Memphis

    He made the announcement on social media, writing that he was directing the Department of Defense to “provide all necessary Troops to protect War ravaged Portland.”

    “I am also authorizing Full Force, if necessary,” Trump said.

    Trump said the decision was necessary to protect U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities, which he described as “under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists.”

    Since the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, the Republican president has escalated his efforts to confront what he calls the “radical left,” which he blames for the country’s problems with political violence.

    Earlier in September, Trump had described living in Portland as “like living in hell” and said he was considering sending in federal troops, as he has recently threatened to do to combat crime in other cities, including Chicago and Baltimore.

    He deployed the National Guard to Los Angeles over the summer and as part of his law enforcement takeover in the District of Columbia.

    In Tennessee, Memphis has been bracing for an influx of National Guard troops, and on Friday Republican Gov. Bill Lee said they will be part of a surge of resources to fight crime in the city.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Did the National Guard lower crime in DC? What data shows before, after Trump sent troops

    [ad_1]

    BALTIMORE – The initial phase of President Donald Trump deploying the National Guard to Washington, D.C., wrapped up last week. But how effective were the first 30 days of this mission to get tough on crime?

    The short answer: Fairly effective, at least in terms of reported crime statistics for various criminal offenses in the nation’s capital.

    The Baltimore Sun curated and analyzed datasets comparing the number of reported crimes in D.C. from Aug. 11 to Sept. 9 — the first 30-day period with data available since Trump invoked the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to deploy troops last month — to the previous 30-day period from July 12. The Sun also looked at numbers from the same 30-day periods in 2024, when federal troops were not active in the city.

    The data relies on the District of Columbia Geographic Information System, which classifies crimes based on the D.C. criminal code instead of the national classifications used by the FBI.

    Here are some of the key findings:

    •During the 30 calendar days since Trump deployed the National Guard and federalized D.C.’s police force, the total number of crimes reported dropped by 18% compared to the previous 30-day period.

    •Thefts of — and from inside — motor vehicles saw a considerable drop-off during the first 30 days of the National Guard deployment.

    •D.C. homicides dipped slightly during the start of the mission, but were well below 2024 levels prior to Trump’s intervention.

    Summer crime reductions

    While Trump has consistently exaggerated violent crime statistics in the nation’s capital, D.C. does tend to see persistently high crime during the warmer months — even as violence overall has fallen in recent years.

    In the three periods from July 12 to Aug. 10, 2024, Aug. 11 to Sept. 9, 2024, and July 12 to Aug. 10, 2025, the data shows D.C. saw a total of 2,394, 2,346, and 2,351 crimes reported, respectively. From Aug. 11 to Sept. 9, 2025, that number dropped to 1,926 crimes — a reduction of 18% from both earlier this summer and the same time last year.

    The declines appear to be driven by sharp dropoffs in reported robberies, as well as thefts related to motor vehicles.

    From Aug. 11 to Sept. 9, D.C. reported 34% fewer thefts of motor vehicles compared to the previous 30 days, as the number of thefts dropped from 369 to 243. In 2024, D.C. reported 372 motor vehicle thefts from July 12 to Aug. 10 and 436 motor vehicle thefts from Aug. 11 to Sept. 9.

    For reported thefts of items inside motor vehicles, D.C. saw 411 in the first month of the mission, compared to 578 in the 30 days prior — a nearly 29% reduction.

    The data shows that the number of “other” unclassified thefts dropped from 1,139 to 1,044 in the 30-day periods immediately before and after Trump deployed troops this summer — an 8% reduction. These figures are comparable to 2024 levels across both time periods.

    A spokesman for D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, a Democrat, declined to comment when asked how much credit Trump should receive for crime reductions in the city.

    Less clear on homicide, sex abuse

    While the data established considerable drops in reported crime across most categories, the number of homicides and sex crimes reported in D.C. has not followed a clear trend since federal troops entered the city.

    From Aug. 11 to Sept. 9, D.C. reported eight homicides; nine people were killed in the city from July 12 to Aug. 10. This slight decrease seems to be more reflective of broader violence reductions since the summer of 2024, as 21 people were killed last year from July 12 to Aug. 10 and 15 people were killed from Aug. 11 to Sept. 9 in 2024.

    As Trump and other Republican officials pointed out at the time, D.C. went 12 full calendar days without a homicide at the height of the crackdown, from Aug. 14 through Aug. 25. The president touted the period as “the first time that’s taken place in years, actually, years,” though D.C. actually had a longer stretch of 16 calendar days without a homicide in March.

    According to the data, D.C. reported nine instances of “sex abuse” from Aug. 11 to Sept. 9 after seeing just two such cases in the previous 30 days. In 2024, the city saw 13 instances of sex abuse from July 12 to Aug. 10 and six cases from Aug. 11 to Sept. 9, respectively.

    What’s next?

    As Trump plans his crime battles beyond the nation’s capital, his allies in Congress are moving to capitalize on any violence reduction momentum the National Guard’s presence may have created. House Republicans — and some Democrats who signed on — passed two bills this week to overhaul D.C.’s criminal justice system.

    Sponsored by Florida Rep. Bryon Donalds, the D.C. Crimes Act would prohibit local officials from changing sentencing laws and restrict local judges from being more lenient with young offenders. It also would amend the Home Rule Act to stop the D.C. Council from enacting any changes to sentencing laws.

    Another bill, sponsored by Texas Rep. Brandon Gill, H.R. 5140, would allow children as young as 14 to be tried as an adult for certain criminal offenses.

    The D.C. Crimes Act passed 240-179 with support from 31 Democrats, while H.R. 5140 passed 225-203 with support from eight Democrats.

    And with the backing of Tennessee’s Republican governor and senators, Trump also has ordered National Guard troops to address crime in Memphis. Despite having a population just 7.5% larger than Baltimore, Memphis has seen 57% more homicides than Charm City this year.

    The move comes after the president flirted for weeks with deploying troops to Baltimore, Chicago and other major cities in Democratic-run states — meaning the Memphis mission could be a way for Trump to address critics who saw federal troops as a tool for him to punish political opponents.

    ———-

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Another Sunday talk show, another rejection of federal troops, denial of presidential aspirations

    [ad_1]

    Gov. Wes Moore on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, when he talked about the economy, the president’s threat to send federal troops into Baltimore and — again — his electoral plans. (Screengrab of NBC video)

    For a man who’s not running for president, Gov. Wes Moore sure has been making the rounds of the national Sunday talk shows recently. But there’s also been plenty to talk about, from vaccines to federal troop deployments.

    Moore, appearing Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” would not say he would “completely rule it out,” when asked about a presidential bit, but he did repeat his oft-stated assertion that he is not running for president in 2028, and is focused instead on seeking reelection next year as governor of Maryland.

    “I’ll be serving a full term. I’m excited about reelection. I’m excited about what I’m going to be able to do for the people of Maryland,” he said in response to a question from moderator Kristen Welker, before reciting a list of his administration’s accomplishments..

    It was similar to the discussion he had two weeks earlier on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” when he volunteered that he is not running for president during a discussion of President Donald Trump saying Moore is not “presidential timber.” Moore’s residential aspirations did not come up on last week’s “This Week” on ABC — but he wasn’t directly asked about it.

    What Moore has been asked about in each appearance was the president’s threat to send troops into Baltimore, among other cities, to respond to crime there.

    Moore — who on Friday announced a surge of Maryland State Police into the city to help further bring down crime rates — repeated his charge that Trump’s proposal would be “performative” and ineffective. He said Guard members are not trained for law enforcement and noted that those deployed last month to Washington, D.C., have been reduced in some instances to raking mulch and picking up trash, at what he said is an estimated cost of $1 million a day.

    “You know, the president’s proposed budget actually cuts supports for the FBI and ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives] bureaus, which are things we actually could use,” Moore said. “When you’re looking at the Big Beautiful Bill, it actually cuts $30 million of funding for violence prevention programs that are happening in the city of Baltimore and across the state of Maryland.”

    Trump has said that the presence of federal troops has led to a drop in crimes that have made the District a “safe zone.” D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser has said that crime was already at historic lows already, but she recently credited the presence of federal troops with a further drop in crimes.

    Moore acknowledged that crime is down in D.C., but said it has fallen just as fast, or faster, in Baltimore during the same time frame without federal intervention.

    “If you’re looking at the same time period of this D.C. occupation … if you look at assaults with a deadly weapon, they’ve actually increased in D.C. by 8%; in Baltimore, have decreased by 10%,” he said. “And on every other major indicator, from homicide, to carjacking, you could say that Baltimore has actually had the same type of drop as Washington D.C. has had during this period. And we didn’t mobilize the National Guard for it.”

    What Moore did do was announce plans Friday for a “renewed collaboration” between the Baltimore City Police Department and the Maryland State Police.

    “We are proud of the progress that we’ve been able to make, and we’re all very, very concerned about how much work still needs to happen,” Moore said at the time, flanked by Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott and city and state police officials. “If one person does not feel safe in their neighborhood, that is one too many.”

    SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Maryland’s answer to Washington: A jobs-first blueprint for economic justice

    [ad_1]

    A former federal worker who has lost his job at the Department of Education walks out of the building with boxes of belongings in Washington, D.C. on March 28, 2025. (Photo by Jess Daninhirsch/Capital News Service)

    I’m a Marylander, a former federal employee and a father raising my family here. Watching federal troops roll into Washington, D.C., on the theory that force can stand in for safety, I keep returning to a simpler truth Maryland has proven: Durable public safety rests on economic security. Caring about well-being starts with protecting work, wages and the least-advantaged Marylanders when Washington pulls back on jobs.

    In June, Maryland lost an estimated 3,500 federal jobs — the largest one-month drop in nearly 30 years. Since January, the state has shed 12,700 federal positions — the most of any state. This is not to imply that laid-off public servants will commit offenses; it does mean income shocks ripple through rents, small-business cash flow, and youth opportunity — the very neighborhood conditions that drive welfare concerns.

    The consequences of Washington’s job policy are arriving here first and hardest.

    The exposure to such losses is structural, as roughly 229,000 Marylanders draw a federal paycheck, and federal activity pours well over $100 billion into our economy each year. When that machine slows or shifts, Main Streets from Suitland to Bethesda feel it acutely.

    To his credit, Gov. Wes Moore moved to create a one-stop portal, fast-tracking state hiring and launching fairs and pipelines so displaced federal workers can land on their feet quickly. That instinct was right, though a temporary hiring freeze later paused the effort. With jobs already slipping and more losses possible, Annapolis should build a permanent jobs shock-absorber for Maryland’s labor market. An automatic stabilizer that snaps on whether the trigger is federal layoffs, AI-driven displacement, or the next sectoral shake-out.

    Your opinion matters

    Maryland Matters welcomes guest commentary submissions at editor@marylandmatters.org.

    We suggest a 750-word limit and reserve the right to edit or reject submissions. We do not accept columns that are endorsements of candidates, and no longer accept submissions from elected officials or political candidates.

    Opinion pieces must be signed by at least one individual using their real name. We do not accept columns signed by an organization. Commentary writers must include a short bio and a photo for their bylines.

    Views of writers are their own.

    Picture the Friday when a paycheck stops: the car note comes due, a shift gets cut at the corner shop, a teenager skips summer work to watch siblings. None of that makes headlines, but it’s where safety is won or lost.

    A jobs stabilizer isn’t a campaign slogan; it’s a short bridge between one employer and the next, so families don’t fall and main streets don’t hollow. In Maryland, we know how to build bridges. Let’s build this one — quietly, quickly and on purpose so a job loss becomes a landing, not a spiral.

    Consider three ways Maryland can meet this moment for displaced federal workers and the communities that depend on their paychecks:

    Guarantee 60- to 90-day reemployment for displaced feds and contractors. Stand up a permanent “Feds to Maryland” program that (a) preclears skills into state and local classifications, (b) funds short, paid “bridge” upskilling sprints, and (c) offers time-limited wage insurance when workers take a lower-paid role to stay employed. This complements the administration’s earlier state-hiring push by turning a one-off response into lasting, economic development infrastructure.

    Make our workforce innovation-ready. Use Maryland’s AI Subcabinet to identify occupations most exposed to automation (admin, compliance, customer support) and bolt them into registered apprenticeships and short-cycle credentials under the RAISE framework. Implement a public AI risk map by county and agency to ensure training dollars align with actual exposure. The goal isn’t to fear AI or technological innovation; it’s to ensure workers can move up the value chain and leverage it to their advantage before disruption lands.

    Stabilize neighborhoods when incomes dip. Establish a Prompt Pay Guarantee and a Family Bridge. Pay small and minority-owned contractors on time, every time; help families cover a month or two of basics during a layoff; and work with community banks to keep borrowing costs down by placing a slice of state cash with community banks in the hardest-hit corridors so they can lend more cheaply. That’s economic justice in practice.

    Again, federal layoffs are not a direct, one-way road to violent crimes. I’m arguing that income shocks, not ideology, turn ordinary stresses into hard choices. The evidence is clearest for property crime when unemployment rises; violence is more complex.

    Baltimore’s progress shows that prevention plus opportunity tracks with safety. Which is why, if Washington retrenches while projecting force, Maryland should double down on the basics: Keep paychecks coming and cash moving so strain doesn’t become desperation.

    We can’t steer Washington, but we can steady Maryland. In a state that has chosen “work, wages, and wealth” as its north star, the task now is simple and serious: Create a safety net that employs workers and deploys funds to families so shocks become transitions, not crises. Measure success by this: the least-advantaged households stay housed, small firms keep hours posted, and workers step into the next job before the last one is gone.

    Let others stage spectacle; Maryland can mobilize for stability.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Bondi to meet with NYPD, as Trump threatens ‘cashless bail’ cities

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — New York City Police Department officials will meet with U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi on Monday afternoon as Mayor Eric Adams’ administration is making the case to President Donald Trump that the nation’s largest city does not want or need federal troops on its streets.

    The meeting — which Adams is not planning to attend — comes at a particularly tense time, with the White House escalating tensions with Democratic–led jurisdictions. Trump signed an executive order Monday morning threatening to revoke federal funding for states like New York that have laws limiting when judges can seek cash bail for people accused of crimes. The New York Post first reported on the order.

    While the order doesn’t name New York, it’s clear the state and the city are in Trump’s sights. A White House press release Monday touted Trump’s “aggressive crackdown to end the failed experiment known as ‘cashless bail’” and cited four news stories about people released without bail in New York City and later accused of committing other crimes.

    Spokespeople for the NYPD and City Hall confirmed plans for the meeting, which is expected to be held at police headquarters in Lower Manhattan. The DOJ did not respond to a request for comment.

    Bondi also plans to appear in Brooklyn federal court to mark the guilty plea of Mexican drug trafficker Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada. While in the city, her team requested the NYPD meeting. Bondi has not yet met NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch, who has earned acclaim for her leadership of the department across the political spectrum since Adams appointed her in November.

    Trump has sent National Guard troops into Los Angeles and Washington. Adams, who has cultivated a friendly relationship with Trump for a Democrat, has made clear he doesn’t want federal intervention.

    “Our crime rate has dropped. Our subways are the safest they have been, except for the first two years during Covid-19 when no one was on them,” Adams said on “TMZ Live” last week. “We got this. We know how to keep this city safe. I knew it when I was a police officer. What we had to do, we did it then, and we’re doing it again.”

    But Adams was hesitant to criticize the executive order, even if it might cost the city federal funding.

    “I’ve always made it clear that our revolving door system of violent offenders must be addressed,” Adams said at an unrelated campaign rally Monday, when asked to respond to Trump’s order. “We’ll read this executive order, and I’ll be able to tell you more.”

    The Democratic-led state Legislature and then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo passed laws in 2019 intended to keep more people out of jail while they awaited trial. The legislature rolled back the measures in subsequent years in response to political pushback from those who blamed them for a heightened crime rate, including Adams.

    Gov. Kathy Hochul’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the executive order.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump ‘manufactured crisis’ to justify plan to send national guard to Chicago, leading Democrat says

    [ad_1]

    Donald Trump has “manufactured a crisis” to justify the notion of sending federalized national guard troops into Chicago next, over the heads of local leaders, a leading Democrat said on Sunday, as the White House advanced plans to militarize more US cities.

    Hakeem Jeffries, the House minority leader and a New York Democratic congressman, accused the US president of “playing games with the lives of Americans” with his unprecedented domestic deployment of the military, which has escalated to include the arming of troops currently patrolling Washington, DC – after sending troops into Los Angeles in June.

    The mayor of Chicago, Brandon Johnson, said any such plan from Trump was perpetrating “the most flagrant violation of our constitution in the 21st century”.

    Late on Friday, Pentagon officials confirmed to Fox News that up to 1,700 men and women of the national guard were poised to mobilize in 19 mostly Republican states to support Trump’s anti-immigration crackdown by assisting the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (Ice) with “logistical support and clerical functions”.

    Related: Trump targets Chicago and New York as Hegseth orders weapons for DC troops

    Jeffries said he supported a statement issued by the Democratic governor of Illinois, JB Pritzker, that Trump was “abusing his power” in talking about sending the national guard to Chicago, and distracting from the pain he said the president was causing American families.

    The national guard is normally under the authority of the individual states, deployed at the request of the state governor and only federalized – or deployed by the federal government – in a national emergency and at the request of a governor.

    Jeffries said in an interview with CNN on Sunday morning: “We should continue to support local law enforcement and not simply allow Donald Trump to play games with the lives of the American people as part of his effort to manufacture a crisis and create a distraction because he’s deeply unpopular.”

    He continued: “I strongly support the statement that was issued by Governor Pritzker making clear that there’s no basis, no authority for Donald Trump to potentially try to drop federal troops into the city of Chicago.”

    The White House has been working on plans to send national guard to Chicago, the third largest US city, dominated by Democratic voters in a Democratic state, to take a hard line on crime, homelessness and immigrants, the Washington Post reported.

    Pritzker issued a statement on Saturday night that began: “The State of Illinois at this time has received no requests or outreach from the federal government asking if we need assistance, and we have made no requests for federal intervention.”

    Trump has argued that a military crackdown was necessary in the nation’s capital, and elsewhere, to quell what he said were out of control levels of crime, even though statistics show that serious and violent crime in Washington, and many other American cities, has actually plummeted.

    Talking to reporters in the Oval Office on Friday the president insisted that “the people in Chicago are screaming for us to come” as he laid out his plan to send troops there, and that they would later “help with New York”.

    “When ready, we will start in Chicago … Chicago is a mess,” Trump said.

    Johnson, in an appearance on Sunday on MSNBC, said shootings had dropped by almost 40% in his city in the last year alone, and he and Pritzker said any plan by the White House to override local authority and deploy troops would be illegal.

    “The president has repeated this petulant presentation since he assumed office. What he is proposing at this point would be the most flagrant violation of our constitution in the 21st century,” Johnson said.

    California sued the federal government when it deployed national guard and US marines to parts of Los Angeles in June over protests against Ice raids, but a court refused to block the troops.

    Main target cities mentioned by Trump are not only majority Democratic in their voting but also run by Black mayors, including Washington, DC, Chicago, New York, Baltimore, Los Angeles and Oakland.

    Related: Trump visits DC police station and boasts of success of crime crackdown

    Rahm Emanuel, a Democratic former Illinois congressman, chief of staff to former president Barack Obama, and a former mayor of Chicago, also appeared on CNN on Sunday urging people to reflect that Trump, in two terms of office, had only ever deployed US troops in American cities, never overseas.

    Emanuel said if he was still mayor he would call on the president to act like a partner and, although crime was coming down, to “work with us on public safety” to combat carjackings, gun crime and gangs and not “come in and act like we can be an occupied city”.

    He added about Trump’s agenda: “He gave his speech in Iowa, he said ‘I hate’ Democrats, and this may be a reflection of that.” The speech was in July, when Trump excoriated Democrats in Congress who refused to vote for his One Big Beautiful Bill, the flagship legislation of the second Trump administration so far that focuses on tax cuts for the wealthy, massive boosts for the anti-immigration agenda and benefits cuts to programs such as Medicaid, which provides health insurance for poor Americans.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How Black Americans Kept Reconstruction Alive

    How Black Americans Kept Reconstruction Alive

    [ad_1]

    The Civil War produced two competing narratives, each an attempt to make sense of a conflict that had eradicated the pestilence of slavery.

    Black Americans who believed in multiracial democracy extolled the emancipationist legacy of the war. These Reconstructionists envisioned a new America finally capable of safeguarding Black dignity and claims of citizenship. Black women and men created new civic, religious, political, educational, and economic institutions. They built thriving towns and districts, churches and schools. In so doing, they helped reimagine the purpose and promise of American democracy.

    Explore the December 2023 Issue

    Check out more from this issue and find your next story to read.

    View More

    For a time after the war, Black Reconstructionists also shaped the American government. They found allies in the Republican Party, where white abolitionists hoped to honor freedpeople’s demands and to create a progressive country in which all workers earned wages. Republicans in Congress pushed through amendments abolishing slavery, granting citizenship, and giving Black men the ballot. Congress also created the Freedmen’s Bureau, which offered provisions, clothing, fuel, and medical assistance to the formerly enslaved, and negotiated contracts to protect their newly won rights. With backing from the Union army, millions of Black people in the South received education, performed paid labor, voted in presidential elections, and held some of the highest offices in the country—all for the first time.

    Black Reconstructionists told the country a new story about itself. These were people who believed in freedom beyond emancipation. They shared an expansive vision of a compassionate nation with a true democratic ethos.

    Those who longed for the days of antebellum slavery felt differently. Advocates of the Lost Cause—who believed that the South’s defeat did nothing to diminish its moral superiority—sought to “redeem” their fellow white citizens from the scourge of “Negro rule.” Redemptionists did more than offer a different story about the nation. They demanded that their point of view be sanctified with blood. They threatened the nation’s infrastructure and institutions, and backed up their threats with violence.

    The Redemption campaign was astoundingly successful. Intimidation and lynchings of Black voters and politicians quickly reversed gains in turnout. Reprisals against any white person who supported Black civil rights largely silenced dissent. This second rebellion hastened the national retreat from Reconstruction. Federal troops effectively withdrew from the Confederate states in 1877. White southerners soon dominated state legislatures once again, and passed Jim Crow laws designed to subjugate Black people and destroy their political power.

    The official Reconstruction timeline usually ends there, in 1877. But this implies that the Reconstructionist vision of American democracy ceased to exist, or went dormant, without the backing of federal troops. Instead, we should consider a long Reconstruction—one that stretches well beyond 1877, and offers a view that transcends false binaries of political failure and success.

    This view allows us to follow the travails of the Black activists and ordinary citizens who kept the struggle for freedom and dignity alive long after the Republican Party and white abolitionists had abandoned it. Black institutions, including the church, the schoolhouse, and the press, kept public vigil over promises made, broken, and, in some instances, renewed during the long march toward liberation. Their stories show that freedom’s flame, once boldly lit, could not be extinguished by the specter of white violence.

    The concept of a long Reconstruction recognizes that a nation can be two things at once. After 1877, freedom and repression journeyed along parallel paths. Black Americans preserved a vision of a truly free nation in an archipelago of communities and institutions. Many of them exist today, and continue their work. This, perhaps, is the most important reason to resist the idea that Reconstruction ended when the North withdrew from the South: In a sense, the work of Reconstruction never ended, because the goal of a multiracial democracy has never been fully realized. And America has made its greatest gains toward that goal when it has rejected the Redemptionist narrative.

    That the work of Reconstruction continued well after 1877 is illustrated by the life of Ida B. Wells, a woman who witnessed the death of slavery and fought against the beginning of Jim Crow. Wells kept alive the radical ideals of the Reconstructionists and punctured, through her journalism, the virulent mythology peddled by the Redemptionists. When Wells was born—in Holly Springs, Mississippi, on July 16, 1862—her parents, Jim and Lizzie Wells, were enslaved. Later that year, the Union army took control of the town while staging an attack on Vicksburg. As they did elsewhere across the dying Confederacy, enslaved people in and around Holly Springs fled plantations for Union lines and emancipated themselves. But freedom proved contingent. Even when Union General Ulysses S. Grant made his headquarters in the town, Black refugees feared reprisals from their former enslavers. Their vulnerability to white violence, even under the watch of Union troops, foreshadowed the coming era.

    After the war, Jim and Lizzie Wells chose to stay in Holly Springs. Jim joined the local Union League, which supported Republican Party politics and was committed to advancing Black male suffrage. In fall 1867, when Ida was 5 years old, her father cast his first ballot. Ida remembered her mother as an exemplar of domestic rectitude whose achievements were reflected in her children’s perfect Sunday-school attendance and good manners.

    Ida grew up in a Mississippi full of miraculous change. She attended the first “colored” school in Holly Springs, a remarkable opportunity in a state that had been considered the most inhospitable to Black education and aspiration in the entire Confederacy. As a young girl, Ida read the newspaper aloud to her father’s admiring friends; just a few years earlier, it would have been illegal in Mississippi to teach her the alphabet.

    In 1874, when Wells was 12, 69 Black men were serving in the Mississippi legislature, and a white governor, Adelbert Ames—placed in office partly by the votes of the formerly enslaved—promised to commit the state to equality for all. Around that time, Mississippi’s secretary of state, superintendent of education, and speaker of the House were all Black men.

    The world around Ida was full of fiercely independent and economically prosperous Black citizens. These attainments buoyed her optimism for the rest of her life.

    But the idyll of her childhood was brief. Redemptionist forces in Mississippi struck back against Black political power with naked racist terror. In December 1874, a white mob in Vicksburg killed as many as 300 Black citizens after forcing the elected Black sheriff, Peter Crosby, to resign. Massacres and lynchings continued unabated across the state through 1875. By 1876, the number of Black men in the state legislature had fallen by more than half. Following the contested election that year, the new president, the Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, ordered the remaining active northern troops in the South to return to their barracks. Without the protection of federal troops, and with the symbolic abandonment by the president, Black people were on their own, completely vulnerable to voting restrictions, economic reprisals, and racial violence.

    For Wells, the collapse of Reconstruction came at a moment of profound personal struggles. In 1878, her parents and one of her brothers died in a yellow-fever outbreak that killed hundreds in Holly Springs, leaving her, at 16, to care for five siblings, including her disabled sister, Eugenia. After Eugenia died, Wells moved to Memphis at the invitation of an aunt.

    Wells’s escape from Mississippi did not protect her from the indignities of racism. In 1883, after a visit to Holly Springs, Wells purchased a train ticket back to Memphis, riding first class on a segregated train. She moved to the first-class car for white ladies after being bothered by another passenger’s smoking, and refused to go back to Black first class. Though barely five feet tall, Wells stood her ground until the white conductor physically removed her. She promptly filed suit and, initially at least, won $700 in damages before her two cases were reversed on appeal by the Tennessee State Supreme Court.

    The defeat spurred Wells to find another means of fighting Jim Crow. She longed to attend Fisk University, and took summer classes there. By the end of the decade, she had become the editor and a co-owner of the Memphis Free Speech and Headlight, the newspaper founded by the Beale Street Church pastor Taylor Nightingale.

    Wells took over editorial duties amid a surge of anti-Black violence, which had remained a feature of the South even after the Redemptionists achieved their goal of removing federal troops from the region. In the 1880s, the incidents began to intensify. In 1886, at least 13 Black citizens were lynched in a Mississippi courthouse, where free Black men were testifying against a white lawyer accused of assault. Attacks on Reconstructionists continued from there. The more that Black men and women engaged in political self-determination—choosing to own homes and businesses, to defend their families—the more thunderbolts of violence struck them. The bloodshed of Redemption was intended to touch the lives of all Black people in the South.

    On March 9, 1892, that violence came to Wells’s life, when a mob of 75 white men in Memphis kidnapped three Black men: Thomas Moss, Calvin McDowell, and Will Stewart. Moss was an owner of the People’s Grocery, an upstart Black cooperative that competed with the local grocery owned by William Barrett, who was white. The rivalry between the stores had escalated into a larger racial conflict, and Moss, McDowell, and Stewart had been sent to jail after guns were fired at a white mob that had attacked the People’s Grocery. Wells knew Moss and his wife, Betty, whom she considered one of her best friends. She was godmother to their daughter Maurine.

    Moss, McDowell, and Stewart were given no due process or trial. Another mob took the men from jail and shot each to death, refusing Moss’s plea to spare his life for the sake of his daughter and pregnant wife. Their bodies were left in the Chesapeake & Ohio rail yard. The white-owned Memphis Appeal-Avalanche documented the horrors as fair justice for the troublesome Black men who had dared to fight white men.

    In the Free Speech, Wells wrote a series of editorials decrying the killings and the constant threat of violence that Black Americans faced in the South, and urged northerners to renew their support for full Black citizenship. In one of those editorials, Wells called out the “threadbare lie that Negro men rape white women,” which was the justification for many lynchings. She filed the editorial shortly before a trip to the North. While she was gone, a group of men went to the Free Speech’s offices and destroyed the printing press, leaving a note warning that “anyone trying to publish the paper again would be punished with death.” She chose not to return to Memphis, and continued her campaign from New York.

    That June, Wells wrote an essay, “The Truth About Lynching,” in the influential Black newspaper The New York Age. Wells reasoned that most anti-Black violence claimed its roots in economic competition, personal jealousy, and white supremacy. She also dispelled, again, the myth of Black-male sexual violence against white women. Wells pointed instead to the number of mixed-race children in the old Confederacy—evidence of the sexual violence that white men had inflicted on Black women.

    Wells’s activism was more than a crusade to end lynching. She traveled the country and Great Britain to describe her vision of multiracial democracy. Frederick Douglass, who had escaped slavery and become the foremost civil-rights activist and journalist of the antebellum and Reconstruction eras, admired Wells and characterized her contributions as a “service which can neither be weighed nor measured.”

    Wells first met Douglass in the summer of 1892, when he was 74; Douglass had written a letter to her saying he was inspired by her courage. The two developed a close friendship. “There has been no word equal to it in convincing power,” Douglass wrote of Southern Horrors, a pamphlet Wells published in 1892 based on her groundbreaking anti-lynching essay. The pair corresponded and worked together for the rest of Douglass’s life. With his death, in 1895, a torch was passed.

    Wells’s efforts, in a period of racial fatigue among white audiences, helped continue the central political struggle of Reconstruction. She delivered hundreds of speeches, organized anti-lynching campaigns, and worked to galvanize the public against the Redemptionists. Wells told America a story it needed, but did not want, to hear.

    Wells’s work also intersected with that of W. E. B. Du Bois, the scholar, journalist, and civil-rights activist who took a forceful stand against lynching. Their relationship was sometimes collegial, sometimes contentious; Wells never found with Du Bois the same rapport she’d had with Douglass. But she supported Du Bois’s then-radical view of the importance of Black liberal-arts education, and Du Bois was shaped by Wells’s advocacy and critiques.

    Du Bois viewed the legacy of Reconstruction as crucial to understanding America. At the behest of another Black intellectual and scholar, Anna Julia Cooper, he published in 1935 his monumental Black Reconstruction. The book traced the origins of the violence that Wells denounced. He wrote that “inter-racial sex jealousy and accompanying sadism” were the main basis of lynching, and echoed Wells’s argument that white men’s violence against Black women had been the true scourge of the South. Du Bois also wrote that the Reconstructionists were engaged in “abolition-democracy,” which he defined as a broader movement for social equality that went beyond political rights.

    Du Bois’s scholarship paved the way for a reconsideration of the era. He challenged the Redemptionist narrative of venal corruption and Black men who were either in over their head or merely served white northern puppet masters and southern race traitors.

    Du Bois’s work is a starting point for contemporary histories. Eric Foner’s magisterial Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863–1877, published more than half a century after Black Reconstruction, added texture to the story of the period, then largely untold. Foner’s work reframed the era as an unfinished experiment in multiracial democracy.

    In this tradition of expansion, the historian Steven Hahn’s Pulitzer Prize–winning A Nation Under Our Feet, published in 2003, widens earlier historical frameworks by looking beyond Reconstruction’s constitutional reforms. Hahn sought out the Black men and women who shaped Reconstruction at the state and local levels. More recently, the historian Kidada E. Williams’s I Saw Death Coming focuses on the daily lives of Black men and women during Reconstruction—witnesses to the violence of Redemption.

    All of these works expand our conception of what Reconstruction was, and challenge the notion that the era came to an abrupt ending in 1877. They portray the era as a contested epic, where parallel movements for Reconstruction and Redemption rise, fall, and are recovered.

    I first learned about Reconstruction from my late mother, Germaine Joseph, a Haitian immigrant turned American citizen whose love of history could be gauged by the crammed bookcases in our home in Queens, New York. My first lesson on Reconstruction came in the form of a story about Haiti’s revolution. Mom proudly informed me that Haiti had been the key to unlocking freedom for Black Americans: The Haitian Revolution, she explained, led to revolts of the enslaved, frightened so-called masters, and inspired Frederick Douglass.

    Later, I found my way back to Reconstruction through an interest in the Black radical tradition, especially post–World War II movements for racial justice and equality. My mentor, the late historian Manning Marable, described the civil-rights movement, and the age of Black Power that followed, as a second Reconstruction. During this time, with a renewed interest in slavery and its aftermath, scholars rediscovered Du Bois’s work.

    My research and writing of late has revolved around interpreting the past 15 years of American history, from Barack Obama’s ascent to the White House in 2008, to the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement in 2013, to Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential election, to the events that followed George Floyd’s murder in 2020. In my 2022 book, The Third Reconstruction, I argued that we might be living through another era filled with the kind of dizzying possibility and intense backlash that whipsawed the South during Wells’s life.

    Today’s Reconstructionists have a vision for multiracial democracy that might astonish even Douglass, Wells, and Du Bois. Black women, queer folk, poor people, disabled people, prisoners, and formerly incarcerated people have adopted the term abolition from Du Bois’s idea of abolition-democracy, and now use it to refer to a broad movement to dismantle interlocking systems of oppression—many of which originated in Redemption policy. They have achieved important victories in taking down Confederate monuments; sharing a more accurate telling of America’s origin story and its relationship to slavery; and questioning systems of punishment, surveillance, and poverty.

    But today’s Redemptionists have had their victories as well. Their apocalyptic story of the present, one in which crime and moral decay threaten to destroy America, rationalizes a return to a past America and aims to dismantle the Reconstruction amendments that underpin fundamental civil rights. Redemptionists promote a regime of education that reverses the gains historians have made since the revival of Black Reconstruction.

    The health of American democracy continues to rest upon whether we believe the Reconstructionist or Redemptionist version of history. Reconstruction, as a belief, as an ideal, outlasted the federal government’s political commitments by decades. Black people, the country’s most improbable architects, continued to make and shape history by preserving this rich legacy, and bequeathing it to their children. Their story has remained the heart of the American experiment both when the country has acknowledged them—and, most especially, when it has not.


    This article appears in the December 2023 print edition with the headline “The Revolution Never Ended.” When you buy a book using a link on this page, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.

    [ad_2]

    Peniel E. Joseph

    Source link

  • Black Success, White Backlash

    Black Success, White Backlash

    [ad_1]

    For more than half a century, I have been studying the shifting relations between white and Black Americans. My first journal article, published in 1972, when I was a graduate student at the University of Chicago, was about Black political power in the industrial Midwest after the riots of the late 1960s. My own experience of race relations in America is even longer. I was born in the Mississippi Delta during World War II, in a cabin on what used to be a plantation, and then moved as a young boy to northern Indiana, where as a Black person in the early 1950s, I was constantly reminded of “my place,” and of the penalties for overstepping it. Seeing the image of Emmett Till’s dead body in Jet magazine in 1955 brought home vividly for my generation of Black kids that the consequences of failing to navigate carefully among white people could even be lethal.

    Explore the November 2023 Issue

    Check out more from this issue and find your next story to read.

    View More

    For the past 16 years, I have been on the faculty of the sociology department at Yale, and in 2018 I was granted a Sterling Professorship, the highest academic rank the university bestows. I say this not to boast, but to illustrate that I have made my way from the bottom of American society to the top, from a sharecropper’s cabin to the pinnacle of the ivory tower. One might think that, as a decorated professor at an Ivy League university, I would have escaped the various indignities that being Black in traditionally white spaces exposes you to. And to be sure, I enjoy many of the privileges my white professional-class peers do. But the Black ghetto—a destitute and fearsome place in the popular imagination, though in reality it is home to legions of decent, hardworking families—remains so powerful that it attaches to all Black Americans, no matter where and how they live. Regardless of their wealth or professional status or years of law-abiding bourgeois decency, Black people simply cannot escape what I call the “iconic ghetto.”

    I know I haven’t. Some years ago, I spent two weeks in Wellfleet, Massachusetts, a pleasant Cape Cod town full of upper-middle-class white vacationers and working-class white year-rounders. On my daily jog one morning, a white man in a pickup truck stopped in the middle of the road, yelling and gesticulating. “Go home!” he shouted.

    Who was this man? Did he assume, because of my Black skin, that I was from the ghetto? Is that where he wanted me to “go home” to?

    This was not an isolated incident. When I jog through upscale white neighborhoods near my home in Connecticut, white people tense up—unless I wear my Yale or University of Pennsylvania sweatshirts. When my jogging outfit associates me with an Ivy League university, it identifies me as a certain kind of Black person: a less scary one who has passed inspection under the “white gaze.” Strangers with dark skin are suspect until they can prove their trustworthiness, which is hard to do in fleeting public interactions. For this reason, Black students attending universities near inner cities know to wear college apparel, in hopes of avoiding racial profiling by the police or others.

    I once accidentally ran a small social experiment about this. When I joined the Yale faculty in 2007, I bought about 20 university baseball caps to give to the young people at my family reunion that year. Later, my nieces and nephews reported to me that wearing the Yale insignia had transformed their casual interactions with white strangers: White people would now approach them to engage in friendly small talk.

    But sometimes these signifiers of professional status and educated-class propriety are not enough. This can be true even in the most rarefied spaces. When I was hired at Yale, the chair of the sociology department invited me for dinner at the Yale Club of New York City. Clad in a blue blazer, I got to the club early and decided to go up to the fourth-floor library to read The New York Times. When the elevator arrived, a crush of people was waiting to get on it, so I entered and moved to the back to make room for others. Everyone except me was white.

    As the car filled up, I politely asked a man of about 35, standing by the controls, to push the button for the library floor. He looked at me and—emboldened, I have to imagine, by drinks in the bar downstairs—said, “You can read?” The car fell silent. After a few tense moments, another man, seeking to defuse the tension, blurted, “I’ve never met a Yalie who couldn’t read.” All eyes turned to me. The car reached the fourth floor. I stepped off, held the door open, and turned back to the people in the elevator. “I’m not a Yalie,” I said. “I’m a new Yale professor.” And I went into the library to read the paper.

    I tell these stories—and I’ve told them before—not to fault any particular institution (I’ve treasured my time at Yale), but to illustrate my personal experience of a recurring cultural phenomenon: Throughout American history, every moment of significant Black advancement has been met by a white backlash. After the Civil War, under the aegis of Reconstruction, Black people for a time became professionals and congressmen. But when federal troops left the former Confederate states in 1877, white politicians in the South tried to reconstitute slavery with the long rule of Jim Crow. Even the Black people who migrated north to escape this new servitude found themselves relegated to shantytowns on the edges of cities, precursors to the modern Black ghetto.

    All of this reinforced what slavery had originally established: the Black body’s place at the bottom of the social order. This racist positioning became institutionalized in innumerable ways, and it persists today.

    I want to emphasize that across the decades, many white Americans have encouraged racial equality, albeit sometimes under duress. In response to the riots of the 1960s, the federal government—led by the former segregationist Lyndon B. Johnson—passed far-reaching legislation that finally extended the full rights of citizenship to Black people, while targeting segregation. These legislative reforms—and, especially, affirmative action, which was implemented via LBJ’s executive order in 1965—combined with years of economic expansion to produce a long period of what I call “racial incorporation,” which substantially elevated the income of many Black people and brought them into previously white spaces. Yes, a lot of affirmative-action efforts stopped at mere tokenism. Even so, many of these “tokens” managed to succeed, and the result is the largest Black middle class in American history.

    Over the past 50 years, according to a study by the Pew Research Center, the proportion of Black people who are low-income (less than $52,000 a year for a household of three) has fallen seven points, from 48 to 41 percent. The proportion who are middle-income ($52,000 to $156,000 a year) has risen by one point, to 47 percent. The proportion who are high-income (more than $156,000 a year) has risen the most dramatically, from 5 to 12 percent. Overall, Black poverty remains egregiously disproportionate to that of white and Asian Americans. But fewer Black Americans are poor than 50 years ago, and more than twice as many are rich. Substantial numbers now attend the best schools, pursue professions of their choosing, and occupy positions of power and prestige. Affirmative action worked.

    But that very success has inflamed the inevitable white backlash. Notably, the only racial group more likely to be low-income now than 50 years ago is whites—and the only group less likely to be low-income is Blacks.

    For some white people displaced from their jobs by globalization and deindustrialization, the successful Black person with a good job is the embodiment of what’s wrong with America. The spectacle of Black doctors, CEOs, and college professors “out of their place” creates an uncomfortable dissonance, which white people deal with by mentally relegating successful Black people to the ghetto. That Black man who drives a new Lexus and sends his children to private school—he must be a drug kingpin, right?

    In predominantly white professional spaces, this racial anxiety appears in subtler ways. Black people are all too familiar with a particular kind of interaction, in the guise of a casual watercooler conversation, the gist of which is a sort of interrogation: “Where did you come from?”; “How did you get here?”; and “Are you qualified to be here?” (The presumptive answer to the last question is clearly no; Black skin, evoking for white people the iconic ghetto, confers an automatic deficit of credibility.)

    Black newcomers must signal quickly and clearly that they belong. Sometimes this requires something as simple as showing a company ID that white people are not asked for. Other times, a more elaborate dance is required, a performance in which the worker must demonstrate their propriety, their distance from the ghetto. This can involve dressing more formally than the job requires, speaking in a self-consciously educated way, and evincing a placid demeanor, especially in moments of disagreement.

    As part of my ethnographic research, I once embedded in a major financial-services corporation in Philadelphia, where I spent six months observing and interviewing workers. One Black employee I spoke with, a senior vice president, said that people of color who wanted to climb the management ladder must wear the right “uniform” and work hard to perform respectability. “They’re never going to envision you as being a white male,” he told me, “but if you can dress the same and look a certain way and drive a conservative car and whatever else, they’ll say, ‘This guy has a similar attitude, similar values [to we white people]. He’s a team player.’ If you don’t dress with the uniform, obviously you’re on the wrong team.”

    This need to constantly perform respectability for white people is a psychological drain, leaving Black people spent and demoralized. They typically keep this demoralization hidden from their white co-workers because they feel that they need to show they are not whiners. Having to pay a “Black tax” as they move through white areas deepens this demoralization. This tax is levied on people of color in nice restaurants and other public places, or simply while driving, when the fear of a lethal encounter with the police must always be in mind. The existential danger this kind of encounter poses is what necessitates “The Talk” that Black parents—fearful every time their kids go out the door that they might not come back alive—give to their children. The psychological effects of all of this accumulate gradually, sapping the spirit and engendering cynicism.

    Even the most exalted members of the Black elite must live in two worlds. They understand the white elite’s mores and values, and embody them to a substantial extent—but they typically remain keenly conscious of their Blackness. They socialize with both white and Black people of their own professional standing, but also members of the Black middle and working classes with whom they feel more kinship, meeting them at the barbershop, in church, or at gatherings of long-standing friendship groups. The two worlds seldom overlap. This calls to mind W. E. B. Du Bois’ “double consciousness”—a term he used for the first time in this publication, in 1897—referring to the dual cultural mindsets that successful African Americans must simultaneously inhabit.

    For middle-class Black people, a certain fluidity—abetted by family connections—enables them to feel a connection with those at the lower reaches of society. But that connection comes with a risk of contagion; they fear that, meritocratic status notwithstanding, they may be dragged down by their association with the hood.

    When I worked at the University of Pennsylvania, some friends of mine and I mentored at-risk youth in West Philadelphia.

    One of these kids, Kevin Robinson, who goes by KAYR (pronounced “K.R.”), grew up with six siblings in a single-parent household on public assistance. Two of his sisters got pregnant as teenagers, and for a while the whole family was homeless. But he did well in high school and was accepted to Bowdoin College, where he was one of five African Americans in a class of 440. He was then accepted to Dartmouth’s Tuck School of Business, where he was one of 10 or so African Americans in an M.B.A. class of roughly 180. He got into the analyst-training program at Goldman Sachs, where his cohort of 300 had five African Americans. And from there he ended up at a hedge fund, where he was the lone Black employee.

    What’s striking about Robinson’s accomplishments is not just the steepness of his rise or the scantness of Black peers as he climbed, but the extent of cultural assimilation he felt he needed to achieve in order to fit in. He trimmed his Afro. He did a pre-college program before starting Bowdoin, where he had sushi for the first time and learned how to play tennis and golf. “Let me look at how these people live; let me see how they operate,” he recalls saying to himself. He decided to start reading The New Yorker and Time magazine, as they did, and to watch 60 Minutes. “I wanted people to see me more as their peer versus … someone from the hood. I wanted them to see me as, like, ‘Hey, look, he’s just another middle-class Black kid.’ ” When he was about to start at Goldman Sachs, a Latina woman who was mentoring him there told him not to wear a silver watch or prominent jewelry: “ ‘KAYR, go get a Timex with a black leather band. Keep it very simple … Fit in.’ ” My friends and I had given him similar advice earlier on.

    All of this worked; he thrived professionally. Yet even as he occupied elite precincts of wealth and achievement, he was continually getting pulled back to support family in the ghetto, where he felt the need to code-switch, speaking and eating the ways his family did so as not to insult them.

    The year he entered Bowdoin, one of his younger brothers was sent to prison for attempted murder, and a sister who had four children was shot in the face and died. Over the years he would pay for school supplies for his nieces and nephews, and for multiple family funerals—all while keeping his family background a secret from his professional colleagues. Even so, he would get subjected to the standard indignities—being asked to show ID when his white peers were not; enduring the (sometimes obliviously) racist comments from colleagues (“You don’t act like a regular Black”). He would report egregious offenses to HR but would usually just let things go, for fear that developing a reputation as a “race guy” would restrict his professional advancement.

    Robinson’s is a remarkable success story. He is 40 now; he owns a property-management company and is a multimillionaire. But his experience makes clear that no matter what professional or financial heights you ascend to, if you are Black, you can never escape the iconic ghetto, and sometimes not even the actual one.

    The most egregious intrusion of a Black person into white space was the election (and reelection) of Barack Obama as president. A Black man in the White House! For some white people, this was intolerable. Birthers, led by Donald Trump, said he was ineligible for the presidency, claiming falsely that he had been born in Kenya. The white backlash intensified; Republicans opposed Obama with more than the standard amount of partisan vigor. In 2013, at the beginning of Obama’s second term, the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act, which had protected the franchise for 50 years. Encouraged by this opening, Alabama, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Texas moved forward with voter-suppression laws, setting a course that other states are now following. And this year, the Supreme Court outlawed affirmative action in college admissions. I want to tell a story that illustrates the social gains this puts at risk.

    Many years ago, when I was a professor at Penn, my father came to visit me. Walking around campus, we bumped into various colleagues and students of mine, most of them white, who greeted us warmly. He watched me interact with my secretary and other department administrators. Afterward, Dad and I went back to my house to drink beer and listen to Muddy Waters.

    “So you’re teaching at that white school?” he said.

    “Yeah.”

    “You work with white people. And you teach white students.”

    “Yeah, but they actually come in all colors,” I responded. I got his point, though.

    “Well, let me ask you one thing,” he said, furrowing his brow.

    “What’s that, Dad?”

    “Do they respect you?”

    After thinking about his question a bit, I said, “Well, some do. And some don’t. But you know, Dad, it is hard to tell which is which sometimes.”

    “Oh, I see,” he said.

    He didn’t disbelieve me; it was just that what he’d witnessed on campus was at odds with his experience of the typical Black-white interaction, where the subordinate status of the Black person was automatically assumed by the white one. Growing up in the South, my dad understood that white people simply did not respect Black people. Observing the respectful treatment I received from my students and colleagues, my father had a hard time believing his own eyes. Could race relations have changed so much, so fast?

    They had—in large part because of what affirmative action, and the general processes of racial incorporation and Black economic improvement, had wrought. In the 1960s, the only Black people at the financial-services firm I studied would have been janitors, night watchmen, elevator operators, or secretaries; 30 years later, affirmative action had helped populate the firm with Black executives. Each beneficiary of affirmative action, each member of the growing Black middle class, helped normalize the presence of Black people in professional and other historically white spaces. All of this diminished, in some incremental way, the power of the symbolic ghetto to hold back people of color.

    Too many people forget, if ever they knew it, what a profound cultural shift affirmative action effected. And they overlook affirmative action’s crucial role in forestalling social unrest.

    Some years ago, I was invited to the College of the Atlantic, a small school in Maine, to give the commencement address. As I stood at the sink in the men’s room before the event, checking the mirror to make sure all my academic regalia was properly arrayed, an older white man came up to me and said, with no preamble, “What do you think of affirmative action?”

    “I think it’s a form of reparations,” I said.

    “Well, I think they need to be educated first,” he said, and then walked out.

    I was so provoked by this that I scrambled back to my hotel room and rewrote my speech. I’d already been planning to talk about the benefits of affirmative action, but I sharpened and expanded my case, explaining that it not only had lifted many Black people out of the ghetto, but had been a weapon in the Cold War, when unaligned countries and former colonies were trying to decide which superpower to follow. Back then, Democrats and some Republicans were united in believing that affirmative action, by demonstrating the country’s commitment to racial justice and equality, helped project American greatness to the world.

    Beyond that, I said to this almost entirely white audience, affirmative action had helped keep the racial unrest of the ’60s from flaring up again. When the kin—the mothers, fathers, cousins, nephews, sons, daughters, baby mamas, uncles, aunts—of ghetto residents secure middle-class livelihoods, those ghetto relatives hear about it. This gives the young people who live there a modicum of hope that they might do the same. Hope takes the edge off distress and desperation; it lessens the incentives for people to loot and burn. What opponents of affirmative action fail to understand is that without a ladder of upward mobility for Black Americans, and a general sense that justice will prevail, a powerful nurturer of social concord gets lost.

    Yes, continuing to expand the Black professional and middle classes will lead to more instances of “the dance,” and the loaded interrogations, and the other awkward moments and indignities that people of color experience in white spaces. But the greater the number of affluent, successful Black people in such places, the faster this awkwardness will diminish, and the less power the recurrent waves of white reaction will have to set people of color back. I would like to believe that future generations of Black Americans will someday find themselves as pleasantly surprised as my dad once was by the new levels of racial respect and equality they discover.


    This article appears in the November 2023 print edition with the headline “Black Success, White Backlash.”

    [ad_2]

    Elijah Anderson

    Source link