Quick Read
- President Trump reversed plans to send federal troops to San Francisco after a phone call with Mayor Daniel Lurie.
- Lurie emphasized local priorities and partnerships with federal law enforcement, but opposed military deployment.
- Protests and concerns over immigration enforcement continue across the Bay Area.
- Some local leaders remain wary of increased federal law enforcement presence.
- Governor Newsom and Speaker Pelosi praised Lurie’s leadership and commitment to community safety.
Mayor Daniel Lurie’s Direct Appeal Changes Federal Plans
It was a moment that underscored the power of local leadership and the unpredictability of federal intervention. On October 23, 2025, San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie stood outside City Hall, fresh from a pivotal phone conversation with President Donald Trump. The message he delivered was clear: the White House was officially calling off plans to send federal troops into San Francisco—a decision that had loomed over the city for days, stirring anxiety among residents and leaders alike.
Lurie’s announcement followed hours of speculation and protest, as federal officials began arriving at the Coast Guard base in Alameda, ready to expand immigration enforcement operations. The mayor revealed that he had spoken with both President Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who reaffirmed the decision to halt the National Guard deployment. “We have work to do, and we would welcome continued partnerships with the FBI, DEA, ATF, and U.S. Attorney to get drugs and drug dealers off our streets, but having the military and militarized immigration enforcement in our city will hinder our recovery,” Lurie stated, emphasizing the importance of local values and priorities.
Behind the Scenes: Negotiation and Pressure
According to KQED, Lurie’s approach to Trump was measured and pragmatic. Rather than sparking confrontation, he appealed directly to the president, asking for the chance to address San Francisco’s challenges without federal military involvement. Trump, for his part, acknowledged in a statement on Truth Social that Lurie had asked “very nicely” to rethink the surge. “I told him I think he is making a mistake, because we can do it much faster, and remove the criminals that the Law does not permit him to remove,” Trump wrote, but ultimately deferred to the mayor’s request, saying, “Let’s see how you do.”
The decision was influenced not just by Lurie’s diplomacy, but also by pressure from prominent Bay Area figures. According to Politico, tech leaders like Jensen Huang and Salesforce founder Marc Benioff weighed in, urging Trump to give Lurie and the city a chance to resolve its issues independently. Benioff, who had earlier voiced support for federal intervention, later apologized, reflecting the complex and shifting sentiments among the city’s business elite.
Community Response: Relief and Lingering Concerns
The news of the canceled deployment was met with relief in many quarters. Demonstrators at the Alameda Coast Guard base cheered as word spread, but the mood was not entirely celebratory. Activists vowed to continue protesting against expanded immigration enforcement, wary of the presence of federal agents and the potential for future military intervention. In Oakland, Mayor Barbara Lee said her city had not received new information and would continue to prepare for any federal action. San José Mayor Matt Mahan praised Trump’s reversal, expressing confidence in local efforts to maintain safety “regardless of immigration status.”
Yet, not all local leaders were satisfied. San Francisco Supervisor Jackie Fielder, representing the Mission District, voiced concerns about Lurie’s willingness to work with federal law enforcement agencies, many of which have been reassigned to immigration enforcement under Trump. “Welcoming ATF, FBI, DEA under Pam Bondi is a dangerous invitation to a fascist administration,” Fielder argued, pointing to the risk of targeting law-abiding residents and undermining the city’s sanctuary policies. Her comments reflect a broader tension between ensuring public safety and protecting vulnerable communities from overreach.
The Political Backdrop: Protest, Policy, and Power
The standoff in San Francisco did not occur in a vacuum. In recent weeks, Trump had threatened to deploy the National Guard to the Bay Area, citing crime and disorder, and floated the possibility of invoking the Insurrection Act. According to ABC News, federal officials arrived in the East Bay amid protests and confrontations, with at least two demonstrators injured in clashes near the Alameda base. Governor Gavin Newsom condemned the move, calling it part of an “authoritarian playbook” designed to justify militarization by provoking unrest and then using it as a pretext for force.
Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi commended Lurie’s leadership, saying his handling of the crisis demonstrated “a steadfast commitment to the safety and well-being of San Franciscans.” Pelosi stressed that public safety must be driven by local priorities and respect for the city’s diverse communities, echoing the values Lurie sought to uphold throughout the negotiations.
What Comes Next for San Francisco?
While the immediate threat of federal troop deployment has receded, uncertainty lingers. Lurie emphasized that his administration would continue to monitor developments and remain “prepared for any scenario.” The mayor also recognized the unity displayed by city leaders and residents, describing it as “the best of our city.” Yet, the broader debate over federal involvement, immigration enforcement, and local autonomy is far from settled.
Protests are expected to continue, and federal agencies remain active in the Bay Area. As the city navigates these challenges, Lurie’s ability to broker compromise and maintain public trust will be tested in the weeks ahead. His approach—marked by direct negotiation, coalition-building, and a focus on local priorities—offers a model for cities facing similar dilemmas in an era of heightened federal-state tensions.
Ultimately, San Francisco’s experience serves as a reminder that leadership is not just about making decisions, but about forging consensus amid complexity, uncertainty, and competing interests. In turning back a federal “surge,” Daniel Lurie has shown that the path to public safety is best built on dialogue and respect—for the law, for communities, and for the city’s future.
Daniel Lurie’s intervention highlights the delicate balance between local autonomy and federal power in times of crisis. His success in persuading President Trump to stand down—while maintaining local control and prioritizing community values—may prove instructive for other cities grappling with similar threats. Yet, the episode also exposes deep-seated tensions over law enforcement, immigration, and the boundaries of federal authority, signaling that the debate is far from over.