This story was published in partnership with Mission Local.
On Thursday, the mayor of San Francisco revealed that Donald Trump called him directly—no intermediaries or advisors involved—and informed him that federal agents or troops would not be deployed to the city after all. The president simply picked up the phone and spoke with Daniel Lurie, abruptly ending a day of crisis and intense media coverage across the Bay Area about the potential arrival of border protection agents. Or did it? Oakland’s mayor, Barbara Lee, noted that she received no such call. Lurie and other local officials interpret the president’s remarks to mean the rest of the Bay Area will also be spared, though no explicit promise was made.
It’s a relief for San Franciscans that the president has whimsically reversed his decision to send troops, just as he whimsically made it. But the real takeaway, according to the president’s social media summary of his talk with Lurie, is that the commander-in-chief openly admits he’s basing domestic military deployments on the lobbying of his “friends”—billionaire CEOs like Nvidia’s Jensen Huang and Salesforce’s hometown figure Marc Benioff. Trump also mentioned that Lurie asked him “very nicely” not to set up a military presence in San Francisco.
That’s all well and good. But what if Huang and Benioff had been in favor of a military parade and urged troops to be sent? What if Lurie had been less courteous? If circumstances had shifted even slightly, federal immigration agents or armed soldiers might already be patrolling the city.
There’s no gentle way to put it: this is a deeply flawed approach to governing a nation. It feels like dealing with King George or a warlord from the Dark Ages.
San Francisco’s billionaires excel in certain areas, and those skills have earned them vast fortunes. But being successful in business doesn’t make the average billionaire an authority on military intervention, local drug issues, immigration policy, or urban crime.
Speaking of unpredictability, Benioff initially supported sending in the National Guard before opposing it. That’s no surprise: Salesforce insiders say Benioff would likely charm the president in a one-on-one meeting, given their similar personalities.
Despite his heavy coffee consumption, Daniel Lurie remains remarkably composed. When questioned about his conversation with Trump, Lurie told reporters he simply recited San Francisco’s encouraging crime statistics over the phone—repeating them and adding a bit of real estate enthusiasm along the way.
“Everything I told you is all I said to him,” the mayor stated today. “I kept emphasizing that violent crime is at a 70-year low, tent encampments are at record lows, more office space is being leased than vacated, retail is making a comeback, hotel bookings are up 50%, and convention bookings have also risen 50%. This is a city on the upswing. That’s what I told him, and that’s what I tell everyone.”
Lurie added that the president “asked nothing of me.” No one was pressured to buy Trump’s property at 555 California St. at an inflated price, and no promises were made to build a Trump Tower atop the Salesforce Tower to halt the deployment. It’s still unclear whether Lurie actually used Trump’s name during the call, but evidently, he wasn’t required to.
I’d like to imagine the mayor really did declare “retail is back!” to the man currently remodeling the White House to add a ballroom for those who find Versailles too modest. If he did, it worked.
But no one expects lasting peace: “They want to give it a ‘shot’,” Trump wrote. “Therefore we will not surge San Francisco on Saturday.”Lurie’s statements to the president—and to everyone—are accurate. We’ve repeated this before and will say it again: while you might not feel safe in San Francisco subjectively, objectively, you’ve rarely been safer. The city’s reported crime figures are low, a fact that held true even before the current mayor or president took office. We’re on track for the lowest number of homicides since 1954, and last year’s total was the lowest since 1961. Car break-ins, once so common they earned San Francisco the nickname “bip city,” have significantly decreased.
But the truth of the matter is irrelevant; what influences the president are the opinions of Huang, Benioff, and other billionaire friends.
The issue, however, is that parts of San Francisco still appear rough—arguably worse than in the 1970s when serial killers roamed the streets. There are areas where people live in visible squalor and misery, openly buying, selling, and using drugs. Homeless individuals, addicts, and those who are both continue to wander about. They may not pose a threat like the Zodiac killer, but their presence makes many uneasy. This sense of discomfort leads even highly connected tech CEOs and venture capitalists to feel unsafe, prompting them to publicly appeal to the president on social media to deploy the National Guard.
If Lurie managed to prevent an intervention by armed soldiers or aggressive immigration agents by telling the truth, then good for him. As the saying goes, honesty is often the best policy.
Yet, the opportunity Lurie has been given is to address a problem that, by the numbers, doesn’t exist. He is set to meet with Attorney General Pam Bondi, but it’s uncertain whether any federal help from the FBI or DEA to fight drug trafficking will come without unpredictable and severe conditions. Every deal with Trump and his associates carries the risk of a Faustian bargain.
San Francisco’s crime statistics have been improving for some time, but the perception of disorder hasn’t followed suit—which is why we recalled our district attorney and replaced our previous mayor. It’s not enough for Lurie to cite data; he must also create the right atmosphere to satisfy our billionaire class and the president they influence. That’s a tough task. Someone get that man a cup of coffee.
They say retail is making a comeback. Whether and when federal immigration agents will return remains to be seen.
Joe Eskenazi is an editor and columnist for Mission Local. Reporting contributions were made by Io Yeh Gilman and Xueer Lu.
Frequently Asked Questions
Of course Here is a list of FAQs about the reported plan and its reversal based on your prompt
General Beginner Questions
1 What was Trumps original plan for San Francisco
It was reported that former President Trump had intended to deploy federal troops to the city likely in response to concerns about crime and homelessness
2 Why did he change his mind and decide not to send troops
According to Joe Eskenazis reporting the primary reason was the significant political and legal backlash the move would have caused including from local and state officials who would have strongly opposed it
3 Who is Joe Eskenazi
Joe Eskenazi is a journalist and the managing editor of Mission Local a San Franciscobased news outlet He reported on the reasons behind the reversal
4 Was this a common thing for a president to consider
Deploying federal troops within the US is a rare and extreme measure typically reserved for instances of insurrection or when local authorities are unable to maintain order as seen during the 1992 Los Angeles riots
5 Did this actually happen or was it just a consideration
Based on the reports it remained a consideration and was not acted upon The plan was discussed but ultimately reversed before any troops were deployed
Advanced Detailed Questions
6 What specific problems was the troop deployment meant to address
The intention was reportedly to address San Franciscos highprofile challenges with openair drug markets property crime and homelessness which some framed as a law and order issue
7 What legal hurdles would have prevented this deployment
The Posse Comitatus Act generally prohibits using the US military for domestic law enforcement While there are exceptions using them in this context would have faced immediate and fierce legal challenges for being an overreach of federal power
8 How would local authorities in San Francisco have reacted
The citys mayor police chief and Californias governor would have almost certainly condemned the action as an unconstitutional invasion and a violation of states rights leading to a major political standoff
9 What are the potential downsides of deploying troops for urban issues like this
Military personnel are trained for combat not policing Their presence can escalate tensions lead to civil rights violations and damage community trust creating more problems than it solves
