The latest American opinion polls show that President Donald Trump’s tough steps against crime are appreciated, but support for his draconian anti-immigrant actions is dwindling.

It was after the assault on Edward Coristine, a strong Trump supporter, by a group of white teenagers in Washington DC on 3 August, that Trump seized control of the District of Columbia (DC) using the National Guard.

Trump had also posted photos of homeless encampments and rubbish strewn across the city streets before he declared over Truth Social: “Be prepared! There will be no ‘MR. NICE GUY.’ We want our Capital BACK.”

On 11 August, Trump directed the Defence Department to take a larger role in domestic law enforcement to quell civil disturbances. He deployed the National Guard in the nation’s capital, brushing aside local officials’ contention that crime in the city was at its lowest level in decades.

Reports say that Trump aims to deploy the National Guard particularly in Democratic strongholds like New York, Chicago and Baltimore. Trump has even said he could “solve” crime in Chicago in a week.

The rule book says that Guard troops could only be mobilised for duty within a state or territory by a governor to tackle a crisis or a natural disaster, when local capabilities are overwhelmed, exhausted or unavailable. Of course, the US President can also federalise the Guard over the objections of state governors. The 11 August order appeared to create a force of Guard soldiers that could be called out by the White House even if the local law enforcement agency was available and able to handle disturbances.

Some have raised objections to such an action. Elizabeth Goitein, a senior director at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University’s law school, was quoted in the media as saying that such deployment of the military violates a centuries-old principle against involving the military in domestic law enforcement.

Under an 1878 law called the Posse Comitatus Act, it is normally illegal to use federal troops on domestic soil for policing purposes, Goitein pointed out.

Earlier, Trump had “federalised” the California Guard by invoking Section 12406 of Title 10 of the US Code, which allowed him to call National Guard members and units into federal service under certain circumstances, including during a rebellion against the authority of the federal government.

In the case of California, where Trump deployed 4,000 members of the National Guard in Los Angeles, he cited protests over immigration raids.

White House adviser Stephen Miller created an online portal for “Americans with law enforcement or other relevant backgrounds and experience” to apply to join federal agents in enforcing Trump’s “crime emergency” order in the District of Columbia.

Up until last Sunday, there were 2,274 Guard troops deployed to Washington, of which only 934 were part of the District of Columbia Guard. The rest were mobilised from Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee and West Virginia.

Guards Carry Service Weapons

Significantly, the previously unarmed Guards were issued service weapons while on patrol. But the Guards are part-time troops, often coming for duty for one weekend a month and two weeks a year, to respond to emergencies.

Aye to Anti-Crime Drive

According to a new poll from the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, 53% of US adults approve of Trump’s strong actions against crime. Support is higher for crime control than for his way of handling immigration, the economy or the Russia-Ukraine war.

Trump has cleverly utilised Americans’ deep-seated fears about crime. He has used hyperbolic language and shock-and-awe tactics to impress the population. Of course, crime has also been one of Republicans’ stronger concerns traditionally.

Sure enough, the AP-NORC poll found that crime in large cities was a “major” concern for 81% of US adults. Crime is a bigger talking point than tariffs or inflation, not to speak of the Russo-Ukraine war.

Change in Perception About Immigration  

Early in Trump’s second term, anti-immigration policy was one of his strengths. An AP-NORC poll done in March found about half of US adults approved of the way he was handling immigration, putting it above other key issues like the economy. But that advantage disappeared by July.

A July AP-NORC poll found only 43% of US adults approved of his approach to immigration. Other polls found the same.

People disapproved of college students being whisked off city streets by masked federal agents. Men alleged to be gang members were wrongly sent to a notorious Salvadorian torture prison disregarding due legal processes.

According to a July CNN/SSRS poll, 55% of Americans felt that Trump had gone too far on deporting immigrants living in the US illegally. That was 10 points above the relevant figure in February.

In the latest AP-NORC poll, Trump’s standing on immigration remains poor, though his handling of the economy has risen slightly, from 38% in July to 43%.

Trump Clubs Crime and Immigration  

But Trump has not abandoned his focus on immigration despite the declining approval. In fact, his rhetoric on crime and immigration is closely tied.

As part of the District of Columbia takeover by the National Guard, federal authorities set up checkpoints across the city, where they asked people about their immigration status and detained some of them. According to the White House, of the 1,170 people arrested since the takeover began, at least 319 were related to immigration issues.

The American Immigration Council, a non-profit body that advocates immigrants’ rights, has called the D.C. deployment a “backdoor for immigration enforcement.”

Fear Struck Among Immigrants  

According to NBC News, in areas like Columbia Heights, the takeover by the National Guard has created a real sense of terror among immigrants, who say they feel like they are being “racially targeted and living in a dystopian version of the city they love.”

Immigrants and immigration advocates told NBC News that the federal takeover of the nation’s capital has left vibrant communities and businesses “deserted.”

Both naturalised citizens and those who are in the country illegally said there is a palpable sense of fear now. People are afraid even to go grocery shopping or show up for work.

Margarita, a 38-year-old mother of four, is an undocumented immigrant who came to the US from El Salvador. She opened a Latino restaurant earlier this year and said half of her employees were too terrified to come to work. One employee came in with tears streaming down his face after witnessing an arrest and how they mistreated people in front of his eyes.

Another employee came in “trembling with fear” and said he felt like federal officers were like “cats out to catch mice.”

“I can’t in good faith tell people to come to work. If something happened to them, that would burden my conscience,” Margarita said.

California Case

California, which has a large proportion of immigrants, is resisting Trump’s economic and immigration policies. Its governor, Gavin Newsom (Democrat), has signed laws setting aside US$ 50 million to help the state protect its policies from challenges by the Trump administration and defend immigrants amid the President’s mass-deportation plans.

One law allocates US$ 25 million for the state Department of Justice to fight legal battles against the federal government, and another sets aside US$ 25 million in part for legal groups to defend immigrants facing possible deportation.

During his first presidency, Trump had sparred with California over climate laws, water policy, immigrant rights and more, and California filed or joined more than 100 legal actions against the Trump administration.

The fights are re-emerging now. “Californians are being threatened by an out-of-control Federal Administration that doesn’t care about the Constitution and thinks there are no limits to its power,” said Democratic Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, in a statement.

“That is why we are delivering legislation that will allocate resources to defend Californians from this urgent threat,” he explained.

California, which was part of Mexico till 1848, has, off and on, toyed with the idea of seceding from the US, though the US Constitution does not allow secession.