Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass sparked headlines this week by claiming federal forces—National Guard, Border Patrol, even the military—are a threat to local citizens. On MSNBC’s All In, she asked: “Well, they’re going to arrest me for doing my job? As Mayor, my number one responsibility is to keep Angelenos safe.” She warned, “we are the experiment… sending the signal to the nation that this is what’s coming your way.”
Bass’s argument reflects a larger clash: when federal intervention steps in, is it protecting our communities—or politicizing security? Conservatives naturally champion local authority and the safety of families above bureaucratic showmanship. The mayor compared federalizing the National Guard to a “political stunt,” suggesting young service members have been rippped from their families and roles overseas. That kind of overreach, framed as virtue, risks burdening taxpayers and undermining trust in federal power.
Pulling troops into city streets without clear state consent chips away at federalism. The National Guard is meant for emergencies—not for political theater. When mayors position federal support as a hostile force, it sends a message to every governor: local needs come second to Washington optics. If communities lose sight of who’s protecting them, national security and public safety intersect in dangerous confusion.
Our security-first values rely on pragmatic teamwork, not sound bites. Collaboration between federal and local leaders should protect, not pit neighborhoods against national authority. Conservatives value a balanced approach: empowering states, guarding individual liberty, and keeping federal power in check.
Let’s keep the focus where it belongs—on real threats, real protection, and real lives, not political stunts.
