America’s great cities have become killing fields, where gangs sow chaos and the people supposedly in charge seem more interested in political posturing than public safety.

The next time a politician—particularly a Democrat—steps in front of a microphone, flanked by loyal supporters, to proclaim that whatever cockamamie idea is tumbling from their mouth is “for the American people,” remember to scoff. The truth is, they no longer represent the American people. That ship sailed long ago—right around the time Democrats decided to take their peculiar stance against ICE.

As most know, President Trump has taken bold action by deploying ICE agents and the National Guard to Democrat-led cities plagued by soaring crime and illegal immigration. His targets to date include Washington, D.C., Chicago, Memphis, and Portland—urban centers where chaos has replaced leadership.

In Chicago, Illinois, Governor J.B. Pritzker and Mayor Brandon Johnson erupted in outrage over the deployment of 300 National Guard troops to their city. Erupted may even be too mild a word. What else could you call it when the federal government offers help to a city drowning in violence—22 shootings and four murders in a single weekend—only to be met with hysteria?

Ironically, Pritzker, who has his sights set on the presidency, accused Trump of turning Chicago into a “war zone.” To drive his point home, he pulled out the Democrats’ favorite tool—the race card—claiming that the Guard was only “picking up people who are brown or black.” Sorry, J.B., but Chicago was a war zone long before Trump sent in the Guard.

Mayor Johnson soon joined the chorus, declaring, “This is about the president of the United States and his kind looking to stoke chaos and fear within our streets. We’re going to remain firm and fight back against this tyranny.” He even added that “Trump is unstable in every way possible.”

The following Monday, Johnson signed an executive order to “curb abuses” by ICE within city limits. Standing beside him was a large woman with disheveled hair and a bull ring through her nose, nodding at every word—a small but fitting portrait of our times. And it’s Trump he is calling unstable?

When Trump turned his attention to Portland, Oregon, a federal judge from the Ninth Circuit, whose decisions are overturned roughly 80 percent of the time when reviewed, decided to intervene. Eighty-three-year-old Judge John Coughenour called the executive order “blatantly unconstitutional” and issued a 14-day restraining order to block the Guard’s deployment. What should be unconstitutional is an 83-year-old man still on the bench after 40 years on the taxpayers’ dime.

Unfazed, Trump sent in units from California’s National Guard instead, prompting Governor Gavin Newsom to get his shorts in a wad. In response, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut promptly issued yet another emergency restraining order to halt the California Guard’s movement—though one has to wonder whether that ruling was truly hers or came straight from Newsom’s office. “We’re gonna sue,” Newsom declared—yet another favorite Democrat tactic to tie Trump up and prevent him from doing anything successful that might threaten their election prospects.

And so, here we are again: two unelected federal judges, each convinced they possess the authority to block the federal government from restoring order in cities collapsing under their own mismanagement—mostly, it seems, because they don’t like Trump. The president sent them in anyway.

Note to the corrupt politicians in Baltimore and New Orleans: you’re next.

The rule of law has become a partisan football; we must refuse any effort to weaken protections for those who need them most. I remember when Democrats thought so, too.