Author: Katherine Walter Page 1 of 15

Disappointed in Senator Durbin

On November 11, 2025

U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin speaks during the Illinois Democratic County Chairs’ Association brunch on Aug. 13, 2025, in Springfield, Illinois. (Dominic Di Palermo/Chicago Tribune/Tribune News Service via Getty Images)

When I was in college, I volunteered on the campaign of Dick Durbin for his first run for the U.S. Senate seat for Illinois. I remember knocking on doors and speaking to voters about his vision for fairness, compassion, and opportunity. Over the decades since then, I’ve admired his consistency, integrity, and leadership. From his advocacy for civil rights and consumer protections to his steadfast defense of democracy, Senator Durbin has been a voice I have long trusted.

That’s why his recent decision to side with Republicans on a measure to end the federal government shutdown deeply troubles me. According to multiple reports, in November 2025, Senator Durbin joined seven other Democrats in voting to advance a Republican-led continuing resolution intended to reopen the government (Sfondeles, 2025; Grisales & Garrett, 2025). While the bill provided temporary funding and back pay for federal workers, it failed to extend the enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) premium tax credits—a lifeline that has helped millions of Americans maintain access to health insurance since 2021 (Associated Press, 2025).

The expiration of these enhanced ACA tax credits could cause premiums to skyrocket, pushing millions off their insurance plans and destabilizing the individual health insurance market (Associated Press, 2025). For years, Democrats have fought to expand and secure these subsidies precisely because they save lives. Abandoning that effort, even temporarily, risks the health and well-being of ordinary families who cannot absorb the cost of rising premiums.

Senator Durbin defended his vote by calling the legislation “imperfect” but “necessary” to alleviate the growing strain on federal workers and agencies during the prolonged shutdown (Grisales & Garrett, 2025). Yet to me, this decision reflects a dangerous form of pragmatism—one that accepts short-term political relief at the expense of long-term justice.

Even more alarming is the fact that this measure arose from Republican efforts to hold the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) hostage in budget negotiations (Potter et al., 2025). Forcing millions of Americans to face hunger in order to extract political concessions is beyond comprehension and morally unacceptable. It reveals the degree to which the GOP is willing to use the most vulnerable members of society as bargaining chips—a tactic that, if not strongly resisted, will surely be used again in the future.

The move sets a disturbing precedent: if political leverage can be gained by threatening to withhold food and healthcare from those in need, what moral boundary remains? Senator Durbin, as the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, had the power to send a message that such tactics would never be rewarded. Instead, his vote may embolden those who see cruelty as an effective negotiation strategy.

I do not write this out of anger, but out of heartbreak. I have admired Senator Durbin for much of my adult life. His record on immigration, education, and reproductive rights remains admirable. Yet in this moment, he seems to have forgotten that principles, not expedience, are what distinguish true leadership from mere management.

Ending the shutdown matters—but ending it on Republican terms and without protecting healthcare and nutrition assistance for millions sends the wrong message about what our values are worth. Illinois Democrats, including several prominent leaders, have voiced similar disappointment, warning that this compromise “is not a deal—it’s an empty promise” (Crisp, 2025).

As one of the people who once proudly campaigned for Senator Durbin’s first Senate victory, I hope he will remember that Illinoisans have long expected moral courage from him—not accommodation. The enhanced ACA tax credits must be renewed, and SNAP must be protected, not weaponized. The lives and dignity of millions of Americans depend on it.

References

Associated Press. (2025, November 10). An emerging shutdown deal doesn’t extend expiring health subsidies. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/2b5ae3651ff16783a00e00dc1ce264bf

Crisp, J. (2025, November 10). Illinois Democrats at odds with Durbin over vote to end shutdown. Daily Herald. https://www.dailyherald.com/20251110/us-congress-politics/illinois-democrats-at-odds-with-durbin-over-vote-to-end-shutdown/

Grisales, C., & Garrett, L. (2025, November 10). Senators, including Dick Durbin, take first step toward reopening the government after historic shutdown. WGLT (Illinois Public Radio). https://wglt.org/illinois/2025-11-10/senators-including-dick-durbin-take-first-step-toward-reopening-the-government-after-historic-shutdown

Potter, D., Franco, M. A., Peters, S., Wooten, T., Stimers, P., Roberson, J. E., & DeLacy, C. (2025, November 10). Senate advances funding bill to end record shutdown. Holland & Knight Alert. https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2025/11/senate-advances-funding-bill-to-end-record-shutdown

Sfondeles, T. (2025, November 10). Sen. Dick Durbin facing backlash once again for joining GOP in measure to end government shutdown. Chicago Sun-Times. https://chicago.suntimes.com/us-senate/2025/11/10/sen-dick-durbin-compromise-measure-federal-government-shutdown-end-democrats-backlash

Sutherland, C. (2025, November 10). The eight senators who broke with Democrats to end the government shutdown. TIME. https://time.com/7332610/8-senators-broke-with-democrats-to-end-government-shutdown/

Hunger by Choice: The SNAP Crisis No One Needed

By Katherine Walter

On October 31, 2025

In United States Department of Agriculture

Volunteers prepare food packages at a local distribution center as millions face uncertainty over SNAP benefits amid the ongoing government shutdown. (Image generated by ChatGPT using DALL·E, 2025.)

I write this as someone who served for twelve years as a Senior Program Specialist for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) at the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). During my time with the agency, I witnessed firsthand how critical the program is to millions of American families. The system depends on a consistent flow of federal funds, and when that flow is interrupted—as it will be tomorrow—the consequences are devastating.

Beginning November 1, SNAP benefits are set to lapse due to the ongoing federal government shutdown. The USDA announced that it will not issue new benefits because regular appropriations have not been passed for fiscal year 2026 (Associated Press, 2025). The department has stated that it cannot legally draw from the contingency fund to cover regular benefits, even though those funds exist for emergencies (Reuters, 2025).

The USDA maintains an emergency or contingency fund of approximately $5 to $6 billion. That money was created to ensure that families would not go hungry during funding lapses or disasters. Experts argue that the USDA has both the legal authority and the moral obligation to tap this fund (Center for American Progress, 2019). From my years working within the program, I know that withholding this funding is not a technical necessity—it is a political decision.

More than 42 million Americans depend on SNAP each month (Center for American Progress, 2019). If those benefits stop, food insecurity will spike immediately. Local food banks will be overwhelmed, and low-income families will struggle to put meals on the table. The refusal to release the contingency funds ensures that millions will suffer unnecessarily.

In an October 24 memo, the USDA stated that “SNAP contingency funds are only available to supplement regular monthly benefits when amounts have been appropriated for, but are insufficient to cover, benefits” and that “the contingency fund is not available to support FY 2026 regular benefits, because the appropriation for regular benefits no longer exists” (Reuters, 2025, para. 4). However, this interpretation contradicts previous USDA practices. In past shutdowns, the department used available reserves to issue benefits, recognizing the essential nature of the program (Center for American Progress, 2019).

Republican lawmakers have claimed that the shutdown—and the resulting SNAP lapse—is the fault of Democrats for refusing to pass appropriations or a continuing resolution. They argue that accessing contingency funds would be “legally unavailable” or would create administrative chaos (Politico, 2025). These talking points are misleading. The contingency fund is legally available under the Food and Nutrition Act, and the infrastructure for benefit issuance remains intact (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2025). The administration’s decision not to use the funds is political, not procedural.

From my professional experience, I can say that the USDA’s current position is indefensible. SNAP’s contingency fund exists precisely to prevent hunger during political gridlock. To deny families access to food because of an interpretation of funding language is a dereliction of duty. Past administrations, regardless of party, have prioritized feeding Americans even during shutdowns. That precedent should not end now.

By this weekend, millions of Americans will begin to feel the impact. Food banks will face long lines. States will scramble for stopgap solutions. Children, seniors, and people with disabilities will suddenly find themselves without the support they have come to rely on. The suffering that will follow is not inevitable—it is a choice. The federal government must either pass funding immediately or authorize the release of contingency funds to keep SNAP operational.

SNAP benefits should not be held hostage to political posturing. This program is one of the most effective anti-poverty tools the nation has ever created. The machinery to deliver aid is ready—the only missing element is political will. The American people deserve better.

References

Associated Press. (2025, October 30). USDA says SNAP benefits to lapse as shutdown drags on. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/8a52a63b26a707ea676962226b090bb1

Center for American Progress. (2019, January 18). The Trump administration has the power and legal obligation to pay SNAP benefits during the shutdown. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-trump-administration-has-the-power-and-legal-obligation-to-pay-snap-benefits-during-the-shutdown

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (2025, October 27). SNAP’s contingency reserve is available for regular SNAP benefits as USDA weighs options. https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/snaps-contingency-reserve-is-available-for-regular-snap-benefits-as-usda

Politico. (2025, October 30). Trump administration faces lawsuit over decision to halt food aid during shutdown. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/30/trump-administration-snap-food-aid-lawsuit-shutdown-00630133

Reuters. (2025, October 24). USDA memo says it will not use emergency funds for November food benefits. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/usda-memo-says-it-will-not-use-emergency-funds-november-food-benefits-2025-10-24

The Problem with “Owning the Libs”

By Katherine Walter

On September 20, 2025

In political science

Illustration contrasting “own the libs” cruelty with progressive compassion. (Image generated by ChatGPT, 2025)

In recent years, the phrase “own the libs” has become a rallying cry for many conservatives. At first glance, it might seem like harmless political banter—a way to laugh at the other side. But taken seriously, this mindset reveals something troubling about how politics is being practiced in the United States. It shows a shift away from solving problems and toward something much darker: treating politics as a game where the goal is to make other people suffer.

The idea of owning the libs is not about making life better for ordinary people. Instead, it’s about celebrating when someone else is angry, humiliated, or hurt. Passing laws that restrict healthcare, rolling back rights for LGBTQ+ people, or undermining voting access aren’t framed as solutions to real problems. They are framed as victories precisely because they upset progressives. Cruelty itself becomes the goal.

But politics should not be about harming others—it should be about helping people. That is the central difference between the conservative “own the libs” mindset and progressive politics. Progressives, at their best, focus on policies that improve people’s lives: expanding access to healthcare, making schools stronger, reducing poverty, and protecting the freedom to live authentically. The success of progressive politics is measured in lives improved, not tears shed by political opponents.

This difference matters because it points to two fundamentally different visions for our society. One vision treats politics as a contest of domination, where the worth of an idea lies in how much it angers “the other side.” The other vision treats politics as a tool for compassion, where the worth of an idea lies in how much it improves the lives of our neighbors.

Of course, no political movement is perfect. Progressives sometimes stumble, and not every policy works out as intended. But there is an important moral distinction between trying to help people and trying to hurt them. If our politics is driven by spite, we will end up with policies that deepen division and suffering. If our politics is driven by empathy, we have at least a chance at building a society that is fairer, freer, and more humane.

The question is not whether liberals or conservatives “win.” The real question is: do we want our politics to be about cruelty—or about compassion?

My Comic Book Collection: From Hulk TV Nights to Slabbed Treasures

By Katherine Walter

On September 9, 2025

In comic books

My life with comics began when I was about ten years old, sitting cross-legged on the carpet in front of the television. Each week, I watched Bill Bixby and Lou Ferrigno in The Incredible Hulk. That show didn’t just entertain me — it pulled me into the Marvel Universe and sparked a passion that would shape the way I experienced stories, heroes, and even the act of collecting itself.

Soon, I was chasing down comics wherever I could find them. Spinner racks in corner stores. Back issue bins at flea markets. Those early days weren’t about grades, conditions, or values — they were about wonder. Hulk smashing across the page, Spider-Man swinging through New York, Luke Skywalker and Han Solo brought to life in Marvel’s Star Wars adaptation.

A Collection in Phases

My comic book journey, like that of many collectors, has unfolded in distinct phases, each one shaping my relationship with the medium in different ways. It began with what I like to call the childhood spark. In those early years, I built up a core collection that included The Incredible Hulk, The Amazing Spider-Man, Web of Spider-Man, and Marvel’s original run of Star Wars. These titles were my entry points into the world of comics, and they opened a door to something far bigger than myself. Each issue felt like a passport to new adventures, making me feel as though I belonged to a vast universe of heroes, villains, and stories that mattered.

As I grew older, however, I entered the pause. When I reached college, collecting naturally slipped into the background. My longboxes traveled with me, but they became more like sealed time capsules than active companions. I still cared deeply about comics, but the demands of classes, work, and adult responsibilities took precedence. The passion didn’t disappear — it simply went dormant, waiting for the right moment to resurface.

That moment came years later with the return. When She-Hulk: Attorney at Law debuted, it reignited my love for comics in a way I hadn’t expected. Watching Jennifer Walters come to life on screen reminded me of everything I had first loved about the medium: the humor, the energy, the empowerment, and the creativity. It was as though the ember from my childhood spark was suddenly fanned into flame again. That was when I began cataloging my collection, diving back into long-forgotten boxes, and reconnecting with stories that had once defined my imagination. At the same time, I started collecting new issues, building a bridge between my past and present as a reader and a collector.

Cataloging Thousands of Issues

Today, I’m in the middle of a massive cataloging project. So far, I’ve only worked through part of my collection, and there are still about 2,500 comics waiting for their turn. It’s slow work, but it’s rewarding. Each time I log an issue, I’m not just recording a number and grade — I’m revisiting the excitement of when I first bought it.

Here are a few highlights from what I’ve cataloged so far:

The Amazing Spider-Man, Vol. 1 — My run stretches from the late 1960s right through the early 1990s, including classics like Kraven’s Last Hunt (#293–294), “Gang War,” “Invasion of the Spider-Slayers,” and Venom’s first full appearance in Amazing Spider-Man #300 — slabbed at 9.6 NM+.
Web of Spider-Man, Vol. 1 — Beginning with the 1985 debut, these issues carry my earliest childhood memories of collecting. They were among the first series I ever chased month to month.
Star Wars, Vol. 1 (Marvel, 1977) — I once owned a slabbed copy of Star Wars #42 (part of the Empire Strikes Back adaptation), which I sold not long ago for $255. Letting it go wasn’t easy, but my connection to Star Wars has shifted since my youth. Even so, those early Marvel runs remain important markers in my journey.
The Punisher, Vol. 1 (1986) — My collection includes Circle of Blood #1 slabbed at 9.0 and the remaining issues of the mini-series in raw condition. This was a bold and gritty corner of Marvel in the ’80s, and having it preserved in slabbed form makes it one of my prized pieces.
She-Hulk — My She-Hulk boxes are some of my most meaningful. I’ve got The Savage She-Hulk #1 slabbed at 9.8, The Sensational She-Hulk run including milestone issues like #50, and the modern Sensational She-Hulk Vol. 2 variants that mark my return to active collecting.
Red Sonja — Though I came to Sonja later, she has become one of my top characters to collect. My catalog spans her classic Marvel appearances and extends through Dynamite’s modern series, such as Red Sonja: Empire of the Damned and Red Sonja Attacks Mars.
The Avengers and X-Men — I’ve built up strong late ’80s and early ’90s runs of The Avengers and Uncanny X-Men, including crossover arcs like “Inferno” and “The Collection Obsession.”
Infinity Saga Classics — Complete runs of Infinity Gauntlet and Infinity War anchor my cosmic shelf, now sitting alongside new 2025 issues of Infinity Watch.

Slabbed Gems

One of the most rewarding parts of coming back to collecting has been building up a slabbed collection. These graded books aren’t just investments — they are touchstones, carrying both comic book history and my own personal story as a fan. Each slabbed issue is a reminder of why I fell in love with comics in the first place and why I continue to collect today.

Amazing Spider-Man #300 (9.6 NM+) is the crown jewel of my Spider-Man run, marking Venom’s first full appearance. It’s one of the most iconic issues of the late ’80s, and having it slabbed makes it a centerpiece of my collection.

Savage She-Hulk #1 (9.8 NM/M) represents the debut of Jennifer Walters, and it has special meaning for me since She-Hulk: Attorney at Law is what reignited my passion for collecting. Seeing this book preserved in perfect condition feels like a full-circle moment.

Punisher #1 (1986, Circle of Blood) (9.0 VF/NM) kicks off Frank Castle’s most defining storyline. This slab embodies Marvel’s darker shift during the ’80s and stands as one of the books that reshaped how readers viewed the antihero.

Alpha Flight #106 (9.8 NM/M) is more than just a superhero story — it’s a landmark issue in Marvel history, one of the first to spotlight LGBTQ+ representation in mainstream comics. Owning it in slabbed condition feels like honoring a turning point in the medium.

Star Trek: The Next Generation Vol. 2 #1 (9.2 NM–) is another highlight. Published in 1989, it captured the energy of The Next Generation at its cultural peak, and having it slabbed is like holding a piece of both comic and television history. For me, it blends two lifelong fandoms — comics and Star Trek — into one preserved artifact.

Star Wars #2 (1977, 5.5 Fine–) and Star Wars #68 (1983, 7.0 Fine/VF) are personal treasures because they take me back to my earliest days as a collector. Even though I recently sold my slabbed copy of Star Wars #42, which was bittersweet, I still hold onto these as reminders of how central Star Wars once was to my childhood collecting years.

Each slabbed comic is more than a grade on a label — it’s a milestone in my journey. Together, they form the cornerstones of my collection, anchoring my longboxes full of raw issues with books that embody both comic book history and deeply personal meaning.

The Ebb and Flow of Fandom

Parting with my slabbed copy of Star Wars #42 was a moment that reminded me just how personal collecting really is. That issue, tied to The Empire Strikes Back, had been with me for years, and while I was able to sell it for $255, the decision wasn’t just about the money. It was about acknowledging how my relationship with Star Wars has changed since my youth. When I was younger, those comics felt like the center of the universe — every new issue was a direct extension of the films I loved. Over time, though, my passion for the galaxy far, far away shifted, and I realized that holding on to certain books didn’t carry the same emotional weight they once did. Letting it go was difficult, but it also reaffirmed what really drives my collecting: not the dollar value or rarity of a book, but its resonance in my own life.

That sense of resonance is what guides me now. The comics I keep close are the ones that continue to matter — whether they tap into nostalgia, reflect meaningful representation, or deliver a story arc that struck me at just the right moment. It’s not about filling boxes with every issue ever printed, but about curating a collection that tells my story through theirs.

That’s why my collection today feels like a living timeline. It bridges past and present in a way that’s almost tangible. I can hold Spawn #1 (1992), a relic of the early ’90s boom that defined so much of my teenage years, in one hand, and a brand-new Spider-Verse vs. Venomverse (2025) in the other, fresh off the shelves. I can revisit the cosmic battles of Infinity Gauntlet from 1991, reliving the awe I felt the first time Thanos snapped his fingers, while also keeping up with the latest saga of Immortal Thor, a reminder that the Marvel Universe is still evolving and surprising me after all these years. Each pairing — old and new, nostalgic and current — shows me that comics aren’t just static collectibles. They are milestones, markers in the journey of my own life, stories that have grown and changed right alongside me.

Looking Forward

With thousands of comics still waiting to be cataloged, my collection is far from fully documented. But that’s part of the fun. Each longbox I open is a journey back through time — to my childhood excitement, to my college pause, to my modern revival.

Collecting comics has always been more than just a hobby. It’s a lifelong conversation with stories, characters, and the kid in me who once sat wide-eyed watching The Incredible Hulk. That kid is still here — only now, she has slabbed treasures, longboxes full of history, and a future of new issues still to collect.

Trump’s Threat to Militarize Chicago: An Authoritarian Overreach

By Katherine Walter

On August 28, 2025

In Donald Trump

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS – AUGUST 25: Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker speaks to the press while on board a water taxi passing Trump Tower on the Chicago River on August 25, 2025 in Chicago, Illinois. Pritzker spoke about about President Donald Trump’s plan to send National Guard troops into Chicago. Recent reports have stated that Trump plans to deploy troops to the city as early as next month. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

In August 2025, President Donald Trump once again threatened to use military force in a major American city—this time Chicago. In remarks to reporters, he escalated his rhetoric by calling Chicago “a disaster” and “a killing field,” arguing that the city required federal intervention to restore order (Politico, 2025). While presented as a public safety measure, this plan has little to do with crime reduction and much more to do with political theater. By targeting Democratic-led cities like Chicago, Trump is reinforcing his strongman image while undermining constitutional principles of local governance. His approach reflects a dangerous authoritarian drift, particularly given his earlier actions in Washington, D.C.

Chicago has become a focal point of Trump’s political attacks. Reports indicate that his administration has explored not only the deployment of the National Guard, but also using ICE agents with potential operations staged out of Naval Station Great Lakes (Nakashima & Arkin, 2025). Local officials, however, have responded with strong resistance. Governor J.B. Pritzker and Mayor Brandon Johnson have emphasized that the President lacks unilateral authority to deploy troops in Illinois, and they are preparing legal strategies to prevent such action. Advocacy groups in Chicago have also begun organizing both legal and grassroots resistance, arguing that the introduction of federal troops would erode community trust and criminalize immigrant populations already under strain (Klayman & Shepardson, 2025).

At the heart of this conflict lies a legal and constitutional dilemma. The military is not designed to perform law enforcement duties. Under the Posse Comitatus Act, federal military forces are largely prohibited from engaging in domestic policing. Even the National Guard, which can support state governments in emergencies, is meant to operate under state—not federal—control unless extraordinary conditions justify nationalization. For Trump to act, he would likely invoke the Insurrection Act, a rarely used measure intended for situations of open rebellion or insurrection. Yet Chicago is not in rebellion; in fact, violent crime in the city has dropped significantly in recent years, with homicides falling by more than 50 percent since 2021 (Klayman & Shepardson, 2025). Governor Pritzker has rightly argued that the Guard is not needed in Chicago, describing Trump’s claim of a crime crisis as exaggerated and politically opportunistic (Associated Press, 2025b).

This political opportunism is perhaps the most telling aspect of the proposed deployment. Trump has not threatened to send troops to conservative cities facing crime problems; instead, his threats have focused squarely on Democratic-led cities such as Chicago, Baltimore, and Los Angeles. Analysts see this pattern as a deliberate political strategy aimed at energizing his base by portraying “blue cities” as out of control and hostile to law and order. In reality, these deployments are less about public safety and more about consolidating power and projecting an authoritarian style of governance (Associated Press, 2025a).

The events in Washington, D.C. earlier in August provide a striking precedent. Trump declared a “crime emergency” in the District despite evidence that crime was at a thirty-year low. He then assumed control over the Metropolitan Police Department, deployed the D.C. National Guard, and placed federal law enforcement agencies in charge of local operations (Douglas, 2025). The move was widely criticized as unconstitutional, with the D.C. Attorney General filing legal challenges and polls showing overwhelming local opposition. Scholars such as Lawrence Douglas (2025) have noted that these actions were not responses to genuine crises but rather examples of governance by political spectacle, in which the appearance of strength matters more than the rule of law.

Chicago now finds itself in danger of becoming the next stage for this spectacle. The city has made progress in reducing violence through community-based initiatives, investments in social programs, and reimagined policing strategies. Introducing federal troops threatens to undo these gains, potentially sparking unrest rather than restoring order. More troublingly, it normalizes the use of military force in domestic political conflicts, setting a precedent that undermines democratic governance at both the local and national level.

Ultimately, Trump’s threat to militarize Chicago represents an abuse of power. It is not a measured response to a public safety crisis, but a political maneuver designed to intimidate Democratic strongholds and consolidate executive authority. The military is not trained for law enforcement, nor is it legally authorized to serve as a domestic police force under ordinary conditions. By framing his actions as necessary to restore order, Trump is masking authoritarian tactics in the language of public safety. If unchallenged, this strategy risks eroding the democratic foundations of American governance and moving the nation closer to a model of executive domination rather than shared power.

In moments such as this, vigilance is essential. The people of Chicago—and Americans more broadly—must recognize that the debate is not truly about crime but about power. Allowing a president to deploy troops for political theater undermines both constitutional law and democratic norms. Trump’s threat to send the military into Chicago should be understood for what it is: an authoritarian abuse of power that endangers not just one city, but the principles of democracy itself.

References

Associated Press. (2025a, August 27). Democratic governors look to derail Trump’s plan to send National Guard to Chicago and other cities. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/988a659d9d13deb1e7a8f52cf47efef8

Associated Press. (2025b, August 25). Guard not needed in Chicago, Pritzker tells AP during tour of city to counter Trump’s crime claims. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/2023e25445c45a3f0f4d3513e8eb2ac4

Douglas, L. (2025, August 27). Trump’s militarization of the DC police was just an opening salvo. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/aug/27/january-6-trump-chicago-military

Klayman, B., & Shepardson, D. (2025, August 28). In Chicago, locals prepare for Trump’s possible deployment of National Guard. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/chicago-locals-prepare-trumps-possible-deployment-national-guard-2025-08-28

Nakashima, E., & Arkin, D. (2025, August 27). ICE asks for access to Chicago-area Navy base to assist operations. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/08/27/trump-chicago-ice-military

Politico. (2025, August 25). Trump reiterates threat to send National Guard to Chicago. Politico. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/25/trump-national-guard-chicago-00523253