Operation Midway Blitz

A New Experiment in Federal Power

by Robert A. Pape

Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago and Director of the Chicago Project on Security and Threats (CPOST)

Published: March 6, 2026

On September 8, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) launched Operation Midway Blitz in Chicago, as part of the Trump administration’s goal of removing 1 million unauthorized immigrants from the United States in its first year back in office.

As this report shows, Midway Blitz was not merely a large operation; it represented a federal experiment in a new style of immigration enforcement, one that was later extended to other US cities, including Minneapolis.  Although previous U.S. presidents had used military assets for immigration support near the border and in agricultural areas, President Trump’s enforcement actions in 2025-26—in their scale, intensity, and tactics in residential areas in Chicago and other US cities—are unprecedented in modern US history. 

In Chicago as elsewhere, these unprecedented actions also occurred over the strong objections of local political leaders, including the Governor of Illinois and Mayor of Chicago.   These operations detained some 4,000 immigrants, the vast majority of whom had no felony or other criminal records.  Hence, these people did not generally fit the phrase “the worst of the worst” often used by federal authorities to characterize the individuals targeted for removal from the country.

As such, Midway Blitz represented a testing ground for a new model of federal power—one that blurs the line between immigration enforcement and political control.  The operations in Chicago may have lasted only during the fall of 2025.  Their implications are more far reaching.

For Midway Blitz, DHS surged 80 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and 220 Customs and Border Protection agents to Chicago, increasing personnel in the city by about 600%.  Over nine weeks, squads of these federal agents—masked, heavily armed, in armored vehicles, and occasionally using military-style helicopters—conducted surprise raids in neighborhoods across the city and suburbs. 

Day after day, these militarized teams carried out incursions and established effective checkpoints in communities, targeting local building supply stores and other businesses and frequently detaining and interrogating anyone they suspected may be an undocumented immigrate.    These actions occurred mainly in daylight and during the time when the residents were active, going to and from work, taking and picking up kids from school, and going to grocery stores and other businesses.  

Overall, 284 enforcement events were reported across the Chicagoland area between September 9 and November 15, an average of 4 events a day and cumulatively impacting much of the city.  This number likely represents a minimum, since these are the enforcement events reported in the Chicago media as collected by the University of Chicago Project and Security and Threats.

Research on political violence has long shown that the use of militarized violence within a civilian population generates resentment, especially if local leaders and the population do not consent.  From Vietnam to Afghanistan to Iraq, the United States military has learned hard lessons about the ways in which sustained and surprise intrusion in communities provokes resistance and ultimately undermines the mission.  

During Midway Blitz many of those lessons were re-learned, but this time by the Department of Homeland Security operating inside the American homeland. As a result, Operation Midway Blitz raises fundamental questions about the use of militarized force for law enforcement and its consequences for the perception of legitimate governance.

To understand the impact of Midway Blitz on the people and life in Chicago, it is important to understand how the purpose of the operation was articulated by the President of the United States and the narratives used to frame the operation by the Department of Homeland Security.

President Trump famously ran for president in large part on a promise to conduct the largest deportation operation in US history, and to expel the “murders, rapists, and thugs” illegally in the country.  Hence, the fact of expanded deportation operations caught few by surprise once he took office.

What was new was the approach and the metaphor of war to describe operations in US cities. Most famously, the President announced Midway Blitz as “Chipocalypse Now” with a post that also included the statement: “Chicago about to find out why it’s called the Department of War.”

The war-rhetoric escalated two weeks into Midway Blitz. On September 30, President Trump told an unprecedented gathering of all 800 Generals and Admirals in the US military that:

DHS online rhetoric also consistently adopted war-rhetoric to characterize the new immigration enforcement mission, often using emotionally charged moralizing narratives.   A review of the official DHS website found countless posts, memes, and videos depicting the deportation mission as (1) moral struggle, not administrative law; (2) ICE heroes versus “enemies” from within, not neutral enforcers of law; and (3) linked to identity conflicts, not legal violations.

To be sure, this moralizing war rhetoric mobilizes supporters. But in the process, it effectively presents anyone in Chicago who disagrees as not just a fellow citizen with whom one may have a political disagreement, but an enemy who needs to be opposed.  For decades, research on political violence has found that such demonizing framing encourages “us versus them” attitudes that provoke division and anger.  In this case, it is the federal government and its most senior leaders and security institutions tasked with the protection of the homeland using such narratives.  As President Trump told America’s generals and admirals, the plan is to use federal military agents in liberal cities to “straighten them out”—not just deport undocumented immigrants.

In late September, the University of Chicago Project on Security and Threats conducted a survey of the residents of the city of Chicago.  This survey was fielded by the NORC at the University of Chicago, a respected polling firm known for high quality representative samples.  Hence, the results of the sample of over 1000 adult residents of Chicago can be confidently extrapolated to all 2.2 million adult residents, within a margin of error of under 4 percent.

The results paint a clear picture of broad and consistent opposition to DHS immigration enforcement efforts:

• More than 60% opposed the deployment
• Only 21% supported it.
• A majority in every region of the city opposed DHS actions.
• 62% believed a National Guard deployment would end in violence
• 54% thought the goal is for the Federal government to seize political control of the city.
• Even 36% of Republicans agreed that the goal is to impose new political leadership.

Overall, the survey shows that strong majorities believed that the real objective of Midway Blitz was not enforcement, but to menace.

The conduct of Operation Midway Blitz also supports the assessment that the operation was part of an experiment in the projection of federal power into American cities.  Beyond the broad concept of operations—characterized by raids throughout Chicago’s residential neighborhoods using military-style helicopters, armored vehicles, and small unit assault tactics—these operations sparked spontaneous protests, and the use of tear gas and other chemical munitions to suppress them.  

To be clear, surprise militarized raids by federal agents, protests against enforcement operations, and tear gas against protesters did not occur as separate, isolated phenomena.  What emerged was a recurring, predictable dynamic of militarized immigration enforcement and escalation to use of force against protesters and bystanders. 

A three-step pattern occurred repeatedly over the 9 weeks, depicted in the figure below.

First, ICE and CBP performed enforcement actions in the city and surrounding county, using tactics that were disruptive to daily activities.

Second, those communities reacted spontaneously by protesting, in immediate and direct response to the surprise raids.

Third, especially as protests became threatening to agents, ICE and CBP responded by attempting to suppress them utilizing pepper bullets and tear gas. In one case, they used live rounds. These suppression tactics often dispersed the crowds but also created collateral harm that fueled future cycles of protest.

The cycle of escalation merits closer attention.

Step 1. Immigration Enforcement by ICE and CBP

Starting in the first week of September, DHS deployed over 300 additional federal immigration officers to Chicago, including 80 ICE officers and 220 Customs and Border Protection agents under the command of Gregory Bovino. During the 68 days of Midway Blitz, they conducted 284 enforcement events prominent enough to be reported by the media in Chicago, an average rate of 4 raids a day. 

Operations included targeted operations against known immigration violators and “roving patrols” that stop American citizens and immigrants alike based on their appearance (so-called “Kavanaugh stops”). In one raid, federal agents in combat gear rappelled from Black Hawk helicopters onto an apartment building in South Shore. Sweeps in Latino areas like Little Village and at Home Depot and other box store parking lots were typical.

This activity itself was highly militarized. ICE and CBP agents often wore military-style tactical gear, which gave them a first impression more akin to a military-like army operation rather than a civilian police force. The operations involved use of armored vehicles and were conducted raids in residential neighborhoods.

Midway Blitz impacted Chicago and its communities significantly. DHS reported 4,000 arrests throughout the Chicago area between September and mid-November, with at least 500 reported in the media according to data collected by CPOST. These operations literally reshaped daily routines of vast numbers of people in Chicago. School attendance dropped abruptly, in one case by 15% in the East Side neighborhood after raids there the previous day. Businesses shortened hours and lost significant revenue, in the case of a Little Village restaurant by as much as 60%.  

Step 2. Resistance, Resentment, and Spontaneous Protest

The militarized style of deployment intensified both the perception of threat and community anger. When military forces are deployed to civilian areas—whether it is in Northern Ireland, Iraq, Afghanistan, or domestically—citizens infer intent from appearance. ICE and CBP arrived and operated as if Chicago was a hostile environment.  Even if many Chicagoans oppose the Trump administration politically, these militarized optics of immigration enforcement are how ordinary people infer the purpose of the use of force by the federal government:  Whether a deployed force is there to protect them, or to menace them.

Protests thus occurred spontaneously, in direct reaction to DHS enforcement action. Many Chicagoans mobilized to protect their communities. They reported on immigration activity in their neighborhoods and gathered at ongoing immigration stops and detentions to protest.   According to CPOST data, 48 of the 284 enforcement raids reported during Operation Midway Blitz sparked spontaneous protests.

Additionally, there were near daily protests outside ICE’s Broadview detention facility, especially on Fridays and Saturdays.

Step 3. Protest Suppression

Federal immigration forces were most likely to use force when protests appear to interdict an enforcement operation or made agents feel threatened. Suppression often involved the deployment of crowd control measures, at times including tear gas. Suppression tactics in residential areas commonly produced collateral harm, including to bystanders, families, and children who may not be active protestors but are merely present in the community.

CPOST data shows 17 spontaneous protests at which federal immigration agents deployed chemical munitions such as tear gas and pepper balls to disperse crowds. Federal agents used lethal force as well. Two people were shot, killing one and wounding another. These patterns drive fear and anger, increasing support for resistance and raising the likelihood of future escalation.

It is important to understand that protests, even in highly charged political atmosphere of fall 2025, do not automatically evolve into clashes with authorities.  The largest protest in Chicago during the period of Midway Blitz occurred on October 18.  This involved an estimated 250 thousand demonstrators marching virtually all day in downtown Chicago, calling for the withdrawal of ICE from the city, without incident.

The protests that led to clashes were typically spontaneous, unplanned by any organization, and immediately in response to surprise militarized raids in residential neighborhoods. 

The Trump administration’s experiment in using militarized forces for law enforcement ultimately undermined a key pillar of power: Legitimacy. When governments are perceived as legitimate, citizens accept their authority and cooperate with their efforts. But when governments are not perceived as legitimate, that leads to resentment and resistance.

The survey of Chicagoans’ attitudes show that large majorities believed the federal government had ulterior political motives for the intrusive enforcement operations.  Given the militarized appearance and aggressive tactics of the federal agents, warlike rhetoric by the President and projected by DHS communications, and the resulting disruption of everyday life likely undermined the administration’s legitimacy in the eyes of Chicagoans.  

Other factors also undermined public trust.  When officials deny visible facts, credibility and legitimacy erode.  Indeed, there have been multiple gaps between public statements by DHS and the evident reality.

First, DHS claims to target the ‘worst of the worst.’  Yet, according to ICE's own data, nearly two-thirds (65%) of immigrants arrested in the first month of Midway Blitz had no prior or pending criminal convictions. The fact that DHS relied heavily on broad sweeps and roving raids also created evident gaps between the manner of arrest and idea of targeting violent criminals.  For example, large sweeps through Loews or Home Depot, which occurred dozens of times during Midway Blitz, are not designed to target specific criminal offenders.

Second, DHS claims that Chicagoans protesting enforcement actions are “domestic terrorists” and has justified even lethal violence against them on this basis. The most vivid example is the shooting of Marimar Martinez, who was shot by a CBP officer five times. DHS claimed that “Border Patrol law enforcement officers were ambushed by domestic terrorist that rammed federal agents with their vehicles,” and that “Marimar Martinez… took defensive fire from CBP agents.” But when these claims were tested in a court of law, Federal prosecutors quickly dropped all charges.  Body camera footage showed that CBP had rammed Martinez, not the other way around – a contradiction between DHS statements and video footage similar to those observed in the Renee Good and Alex Pretti shootings in Minneapolis.

In Chicago Headline Club vs. Noem, a lawsuit filed against DHS, federal Judge Sara Ellis found that the available video footage often directly contradicts claims made by DHS,  for example, claiming that a protestor had ripped an agent’s hair from his face, only to later admit that there was no evidence that it had taken place. Ellis concluded, “While Defendants may argue that the Court identifies only minor inconsistencies, every minor inconsistency adds up, and at some point, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to believe almost anything that Defendants represent.”

These misstatements are not minor matters.  They go to the heart of restraint in the use of force by the state. When the government appears to be protecting itself—not the public it is sworn to serve—public trust erodes.

Given the dimensions of Operation Midway Blitz, and the political framing by President Trump and DHS, renewed presence of militarized federal agents in residential areas of Chicago is likely to remain a subject of great concern to Chicagoans across the city.   Should this happen during the period of national elections—early voting, election day, counting and certification of the votes—the concern could become alarm.

Local political control is highly important to people.  It is how they have confidence in how their cities are governed and how they will lead their lives.  Yes, people may complain about their local leaders, but that does not mean they want outsiders to impose them. When force is perceived to operate above or against elected local institutions, public trust erodes. For that to happen during periods of elections would be especially damaging.  Even the appearance of federal militarized interference in elections would risk erosion of public trust in America’s core democratic institution, damage difficult to reverse.   

This suggests that the Trump administration’s experiment in a new concept of federal power has larger potential consequences beyond enforcement of immigration as normal law enforcement.  Especially during the months surround America’s elections, this report recommends a moratorium against federal militarized operations in US cities without the express consent of senior elected political leaders, the Governor and Mayor.  Ultimately, the American “experiment” in democracy should take precedence.