For years, Donald Trump has pushed the idea that America’s Democratic-run cities are out of control—war zones teetering on the edge of collapse, with burning streets, law enforcement overwhelmed, chaos on every corner. He’s been saying it since his 2016 campaign and doubled down during his presidency, famously painting a picture of “American carnage” in his inaugural address.
Now that fantasy is being dismantled—in court, often by judges he appointed himself. The legal system is putting his rhetoric on trial. And again and again, it’s falling apart.
Twice in just the last week, federal judges ruled against Trump’s use of the military to crack down on supposed uprisings in Chicago and Portland. And both judges made it clear: whatever Trump is describing, it isn’t reality.
In Chicago, Trump’s depiction of the city has bordered on parody. He once posted a meme comparing it to “Apocalypse Now,” with helicopters flying over a burning skyline. His administration claimed the city faced “a rebellion or danger of a rebellion,” justifying the use of federal troops.
But Judge April Perry didn’t see it. She said not only was there no rebellion, but the protests were relatively small—about 200 people—and easily handled by local law enforcement. She called the Department of Homeland Security’s version of events “simply unreliable” and “lacking credibility.”
She flat-out said their story didn’t match what was happening on the ground. “What if (the president) is relying on invalid evidence?” she asked, according to WTTW-TV.
In Portland, it was Trump-appointed Judge Karin Immergut who delivered the blow. Trump had claimed Portland was “war ravaged” and “almost an insurrection.” But Immergut’s ruling dismantled that claim point by point.
Yes, there were some intense protests near an ICE facility earlier in the summer. But by the time Trump ordered in the troops, those protests had largely fizzled out.
“The protests have been such a minor issue, that the normal nightlife in downtown Portland has required more police resources than the ICE facility,” she wrote.
And just in case it wasn’t clear enough: “The President’s determination was simply untethered to the facts.”
Trump’s L.A. Claims? Also Debunked
This isn’t new. Just weeks earlier, another judge threw cold water on Trump’s claims about Los Angeles. Trump had insisted the city was “under siege.”
But Judge Charles Breyer, a Clinton appointee, said that’s simply not what happened. Yes, there were protests. Yes, some people got rowdy. But he said it was more like what you’d see after a Dodgers or Lakers championship than some historic insurrection.
“There was no rebellion,” Breyer said. “Nor was civilian law enforcement unable to respond.”
He even compared Trump’s claims to the 1894 Pullman Strike, a real historical rebellion that did cripple interstate commerce. And Trump’s version, he made clear, wasn’t remotely in the same league.
The “Invasion” That Wasn’t
It’s not just domestic violence where Trump’s narrative is falling apart. Judges have also taken apart his repeated claims of an “invasion” at the southern border—claims he’s used to justify sweeping immigration actions under the Alien Enemies Act.
Again, the courts didn’t buy it.
Judge Leslie Southwick, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled last month that the situation didn’t meet the definition of an “invasion” under the law. “A country’s encouraging its residents and citizens to enter this country illegally is not the modern-day equivalent of sending an armed, organized force,” Southwick wrote.
Another Trump-nominated judge, Fernando Rodriguez Jr., ruled the same in May. Trump had blamed the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua for orchestrating an invasion. Rodriguez dismissed the argument. “The Court concludes that they do not fall within the plain, ordinary meaning of ‘invasion’ or ‘predatory incursion,’” he wrote.
Let’s be clear: no one’s pretending America doesn’t have serious problems. There was an assassination attempt on Trump. Democratic officials have faced threats and real violence. And yes, some major cities still struggle with crime. But here’s the irony: red states consistently have higher violent crime rates than blue ones.
But crime isn’t at historically high levels. In many places—Chicago included—it’s down. What’s missing from Trump’s narrative is proportion. He’s not describing serious but manageable issues; he’s describing a full-scale national emergency. And he’s using that picture to justify extraordinary, sweeping powers for himself.
These judges—some appointed by Democrats, some by Trump himself—are now the ones forcing a reckoning. They’ve looked at the evidence. They’ve examined the law. And they’re saying, again and again, that Trump is reacting to a fantasy.
He’s declaring war on a bogeyman. And the courts won’t let him get away with it.
