I would have much more respect for Pritzker if he'd call me up and say, I have a problem, can you help me fix it? I would be so happy to do it.

No, I will not call the president asking him to send troops to Chicago. I've made that clear already.

CNN national political reporter Eric Bradner has been following the growing clash between Illinois Governor JB Pritzker and President Donald Trump. Trump says he's ready to send federal troops into Chicago, while Pritzger is pushing back hard, calling it an abuse of power.

We are ready to fight troop deployments in court and we will do everything possible to ensure that agents operating inside the confines of this state do so in a legal and ethical manner.

I asked Eric to break down what's happening and what this moment tells us about Pritzker, Trump, and the broader political landscape. I'm CNN Washington Bureau Chief and Political Director David Chalian, and this is the CNN Political Briefing. Stay with us.

Eric, thanks so much for joining me. Appreciate it.

Yeah, happy to join you.

You have been reporting on how Chicago is bracing for being Donald Trump's potential next target in terms of sending in federal forces. You know, is J.B. Pritzker, the governor of Illinois, in danger of being the boy who cried wolf here? Because it's not entirely clear that Trump is going in to Chicago just yet.

Yeah, that's right. Trump has said he is going to send troops into Chicago, but he has not said when. Pritzker at this point has been sounding this alarm for weeks and weeks. He actually offered some specifics at a news conference earlier this week. He said:

Donald Trump is positioning armed federal agents and staging military vehicles on federal property such as the Great Lakes Naval Base.

He said the Texas National Guard is preparing to be deployed to Chicago. And he said that Mexican Independence Day, which is September 16th, but the celebrations in the Chicago area begin on September 6th with a parade in Pilsen, which is lower west side. He said that that would be around the time this federal deployment into Chicago would begin. So he is out on a limb with these specifics. And it's not yet clear whether President Trump intends to follow through on the kind of timeline and specific actions that Pritzker has laid out here. We will know within the coming days, given the timeline Pritzinger has laid it out, but that's not yet clear.

Here in DC the law is different because of home rule and and what Donald Trump's abilities are which I totally understand and are very material differences here, but we also have seen just totally different approaches. So mayor Bowser here is more in the camp of sort of yes, please come help our city make it safer for its citizens and Pritzker, I'm not suggesting he's denying that there's a crime problem in Chicago, because I think that that is not what he's doing, but he is not, it doesn't seem in any way whatsoever sort of saying, hey, let's figure out a partnership here or perhaps I'm wrong. Maybe he's saying that. It seems much more he's taking a defiant, we don't want you here and then has to face headlines of continued spate of shootings over Labor Day weekend and I'm wondering how he is handling that dichotomy that there is clear crime and violence issues in Chicago. The President of the United States is saying I'm gonna solve this and you're being defiant that you don't want the help.

Yeah, defiant is exactly the right word. Pritzker is saying Chicago doesn't want or need federal help. The news conference he did alongside Chicago's mayor, Brandon Johnson, earlier this week was interesting, in part because those two are not fans of each other. Pritzker did not consider Brandon Johnson a political ally. He's criticized him a number of times. But part of that news conference was saying, Hey, we found some specific approaches, federal funding for grants for gun violence prevention programs that have worked, that have made a dent in violence in Chicago, and the Trump administration has taken those away. You're right, it's a really tough problem for Pritzker because Americans have this view of Chicago as a beautiful city, right, of course, and one that's significant, but. Where there is a problem with violent crime and that perception is not really accompanied by the nuance of, you know, let's compare crime statistics over years or decades, right? Because, I mean, Pritzker does have a point with violent crimes by most metrics is down relative to previous decades, but that's tough to sell when so much violent crime is. In your face, and in a city as big as Chicago, and the numbers over Labor Day weekend, for example, more than 50 people shot.

Chicago did experience a particularly brutal Labor Day weekend. Police say 56 people were shot, seven were killed, but across the board, crime is still down compared to last year.

That's really tough, and it's especially difficult given that Pritzker is, we'll see what his political future holds, but clearly positioning himself to run for president in 2028, where he would have to explain Chicago and explain these nuances to the rest of the country that maybe doesn't bring in that sort of historical perspective of the city and doesn't already know how things have evolved over recent years.

I do want to separate out sort of ICE enforcement, you mentioned the Mexican Independence Day celebrations that may be going around in neighborhoods in Chicago, from the violent crime issue, right? And I think Trump, of course, has been conflating these things, but it seems that maybe what Pritzker is bracing for is stepped up ICE enforcement in his city, not unlike maybe what we saw in Los Angeles a few months back, and I am wondering if you hear Pritzker making a distinction between sort of the ICE enforcement piece and the bringing down violent crime.

It's an important point because part of what Pritzker said is that the head of the Illinois State Police heard from the Department of Homeland Security about immigration enforcement specifically, but he has publicly at least blurred the line between immigration enforcement and what we saw in Washington, D.C. In fact, what Pritzker set earlier this week is that what happened in Los Angeles and in Washington D.C. Is coming to Chicago next. So blurring those lines and lumping the federal actions in those two cities together to portray them as what's coming to the Chicago.

And maybe for good reason, because it is clear that part of the Trump administration's mission in Washington with this takeover is also an ICE enforcement operation.

That's right. And the potential presence of the Texas National Guard in Illinois is another interesting wrinkle. It's not entirely clear what role they would play. If Pritzker is correct about their involvement.

Has Texas said that that's true?

I don't believe Texas has confirmed that. So again, as we discussed earlier, Pritzker is out on a bit of a limb here.

There's no doubt about it. Eric, we're gonna take a quick break. When we come back, we are gonna revisit that conversation about the politics that JB Pritzker is balancing as he prepares his city and his state for a possible law enforcement takeover by President Trump. We'll be back in a moment.

We're back with CNN reporter Eric Bradner, who's been digging in this week on JB Pritzker, the governor of Illinois, preparing his state for possible Trump administration action in taking over Chicago law enforcement or sending in federal troops to help bring down crime or step up ICE enforcement. It's not entirely clear. And in fact, JD Vance has said nothing's imminent and Donald Trump is now questioning whether or not he's gonna wait for a formal invitation for the governor before going in and also says we're going in. So we're not entirely clear as we're having this conversation what will happen. But what is clear is that JB Pritzker is not waiting for actual action to occur before he's trying to lay some political groundwork here and position himself against Trump. And you said he's clearly thinking about a 2028 run. He's running for a third term as governor in 2026. We've seen Gavin Newsom get a ton of attention in California for how he chose to sort of oppose Trump when the ICE enforcement was stepped up in LA and even more so with this ballot measure on redistricting to counteract what Trump orchestrated in Texas. Do you get the sense that Pritzker's looking around and being like, Hey, I need to be the tough guy too? Or when you were reporting that story out, did anyone that you talked to sort help explain Pritzker's motivation here?

Yeah, he absolutely is trying to portray himself as a tough guy, a strident opponent to Trump. And he certainly is watching what's happening with with Gavin Newsom. But this has sort of been his approach dating back several months, really, since President Trump took office. Pritzker has been traveling the country a bit and has been publicly calling on Democrats to fight to ardently resist the Trump administration to stand up to the Trump administration every way possible. He has been calling for a new era of feistiness in taking on Trump. So he certainly is trying to sort of stay in this national mix. He's seeing what's happening with Gavin Newsom. But it's not a new approach for Pritzker. This has been his approach since Trump returned to office.

Yeah, I mean, he's he has made clear that when he sees a Democrat with a national profile, who he thinks is sort of doing a little bit more go along to get along with Trump or to find some way to get some benefit out of Trump, he is not interested in that model of how Democrats he thinks should be responding to Trump. The question is, how is your sense of how this is playing at home? Is this seen as Pritzker on the right side of his own people? Or do people think that he's peacocking a bit too much? Do we have a sense how Chicagoans or Illinoisans are responding to him sort of looking at the national opposition to Trump?

'Yeah, it's a little difficult to tell. I mean, he certainly is - Pritzker does appear to be on course to win a third term in 2026, right? That is in part because Illinois is a very blue state. And he is seen as standing up to Trump, who is unpopular there, in part because he obviously has national ambitions, but also in part, because making Trump the enemy, making Trump his primary political opponent can help paper over some issues he has at home. In part, relationships with Chicago politicians, but also fights in Springfield. That's part of the strategy, right? Taking on Trump is extremely popular, and in a state and a city that is controlled by one political party, being able to have an opponent who is of the other party and who is a bigger figure than any of these local politicians is certainly useful to Pritzker.

Yeah, no doubt. And he's clearly getting under Trump's skin, right? I mean, Trump, I don't think Trump paid much attention to Pritzker all that long ago. But now he sort of lumps him in with Gavin Newsom, who he's been paying attention to for quite some time. And getting under skin, as you said, is a beneficial thing politically for any Democrat who's eyeing some kind of national profile. I do, we mentioned Newsom and redistricting. I know that Illinois' map is so heavily gerrymandered in favor of the Democrats already, but there is talk that perhaps Democrats could squeeze out an additional district out of that map in Illinois. Any thing from Pritzker about if that is a battle that he is looking to direct his party to take on the way Newsom did in California?

'Yeah, Pritzker has been asked about this several times recently, and he repeatedly says it's not something he wants to do. He is leaving the door open. He's saying that what he hopes happens is that Texas added by more Republican leaning seats, California countered, although there obviously has to be an election to finalize this, but countered by adding by more Democratic leaning seats. And he hopes that's it. As we are having this conversation, Missouri is poised to change its maps to add another Republican-leaning seat. Indiana is considering changes to its maps, Ohio and Utah, and so the redistricting arms race is not over. Other ambitious Democrats like Maryland Governor West Moore have indicated they are more open to changing their own maps. So this is not the last time Pritzker is going to be asked about it, and he has left the door open to a redistricting effort, but not in the same way that Gavin Newsom sort of eagerly grabbed hold of it, or that Wes Moore has clearly indicated he's interested in or willing to start pursuing it. Pritzker seems to not want to go down that route.

Which is so interesting because he did want to play in the space by welcoming those Texas Democrats to Illinois as safe harbor and stuff. He wanted to be their champion and identified with it. But interesting to hear you say that he is not yet sort of gung ho and asked the Democrats in the legislature to move move ahead with this. I want to go turn back to the crime thing. My last question for you, Eric, in your reporting this week. There's been so much talk, we hear from Democrats, high profile democratic strategists like Rahm Emanuel, the former mayor of Chicago or David Axelrod who really warn Democrats from falling into this trap of dismissing how real the crime issue could be when you're saying we don't want that. Do you have a sense from Pritzker? And I know we talked about his defiance, but do you see him seeking a way to acknowledge or find a way to not present himself to voters that he's oblivious to how salient crime and safety could be for voters.

'You know, Pritzker is careful in his public remarks to acknowledge it as a reality, right? He does not claim that Chicago is perfect. And at the same time, I think he has at times been frustrated with local leadership in terms of how it has handled some of these crime-related challenges. But it's tough. I mean, If he runs for president, people are going to identify him with Chicago and everything that happens there, regardless of how he sort of tried to frame it in the past. It's going to be a real challenge for him. And it's one that the Trump administration is obviously eager to exploit. But it's also kind of messaging that we've heard from a lot of Republicans all over country for a long time, in terms of how they've talked about Chicago and it's something that he's going to have to explain in obviously more depth at some point.

Eric Bradner, thank you so much for your time and for your great reporting on this story this week. Really appreciate it.

Thanks, David.

That's it for this week's edition of the CNN Political Briefing. We'll be back with a new episode next Friday. Thanks so much for listening.