As Chicago struggles with violent crime and Oregon resists federal immigration crackdowns, student reporters are weighing in on how far Washington’s power should reach. One student in California says federal troops could restore safety in Chicago. Another in Oregon warns that Trump’s aggressive immigration raids prove federal overreach threatens civil rights and community trust.
From Pico Rivera, California
Writing in the student newspaper at El Rancho High School, Angel Barrios acknowledges that Chicago continues to struggle with high levels of violent crime, even though the city’s homicide numbers in 2025 are lower than in past years. He notes that Gov JB Pritzker has dismissed President Donald Trump’s talk of sending in federal help as political theater but also points out that public opinion in Illinois is strongly negative toward how the state is handling crime. This, he argues, signals a crisis of confidence in local leadership.
From the student’s perspective, Mr Trump’s idea of deploying federal resources, such as the National Guard or federal law enforcement agencies, shouldn’t be seen as an extreme step, like martial law, but rather as a practical form of backup. Extra patrols, investigative support, and help in overstretched areas might provide a level of security and relief that local authorities have struggled to deliver. For residents worried about safety, the idea of federal involvement starts to sound less like politics and more like a potential solution.
Although the student reporter admits he doesn’t agree with Trump on everything, he emphasizes that results should take precedence over politics and that local leaders have repeatedly failed to bring crime under control, leaving communities fearful and frustrated. If outside help can succeed where governors and mayors have not, he says, it’s worth considering, even if it comes from a controversial federal figure.
From Portland, Oregon
But not all students see federal intervention as a solution. In Portland, Oregon, in a series of interviews with local officials in the student magazine at Grant High School, Sayuri Hara’s podcast emphasizes that Mr Trump’s immigration enforcement during his second term has been more aggressive than during his first. While the president originally claimed to focus on violent criminals, in practice, many raids have targeted ordinary workers and families, often without due process. Local advocates in Oregon say this approach has created widespread fear, even among people with legal status, and is tearing families apart. For them, federal quotas and harsh tactics have replaced fairness.
Oregon has long maintained sanctuary policies that prevent local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration authorities. These protections date back to the 1980s and were designed to stop racial profiling and ensure people aren’t singled out because of their appearance or language. Local officials and lawyers describe current federal actions as both unconstitutional and destabilizing, undermining norms and civil rights protections that residents have relied on for decades. They argue that rushed, heavy-handed federal policies ignore due process and violate the principle of state sovereignty.
For these students and advocates, the question isn’t whether federal intervention will reduce crime, but whether it will erode fundamental freedoms. They see Mr Trump’s tactics as federal overreach, with ICE operating in ways that frighten immigrant families, disrupt communities, and even endanger US citizens who may be mistaken for undocumented. Instead of backing federal crackdowns, they argue for defending Oregon’s sanctuary laws as a safeguard against injustice, insisting that local protections are necessary to preserve both civil rights and community trust.