March 25, 2026

Chicago Mayor’s Taxpayer-Funded Security Hypocrisy

By Larry Keane

Chicago’s latest political controversy is not really about whether a mayor should have security. Public officials often do. The issue is the now-familiar gun control politician double standard. It’s “gun control for thee, but not for me.”

Politicians in some of the country’s most restrictive gun control jurisdictions demand layers of armed protection for themselves, often at taxpayer expense, while demanding policies that make it increasingly harder for law-abiding citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights to defend themselves and their families.

Enter Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson.

Reports now circulating in Chicago political media and on social media reveal Mayor Johnson’s personal armed security detail includes as many as 150 Chicago Police Department officers at a cost to taxpayers of roughly $30 million a year.

In Chicago, Mayor Johnson has backed some of Illinois’ most restrictive firearm policies. After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in 2023 reversed a lower court’s preliminary injunction against Illinois’ ban on so-called “assault-style weapons,” or the popular Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) that are more common than Ford F-150 pickup trucks on the road, and other popular semiautomatic firearms, as well as state’s magazine restrictions, Mayor Johnson praised the ruling and called the law an “important step” that would keep “weapons of war” out of neighborhoods.

The practical message to Chicago residents was clear. Government officials and their armed details can enjoy armed personal protection but the public should accept tighter limits on the tools of lawful self-defense.

Security for Me, Not for Thee

This particular pattern is not new, and it is not limited to Chicago. In 2021, records show U.S. Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) spent nearly $137,000 on private armed security, despite his well-known anti-police, antigun rhetoric.

In 2024, then-Vice President Kamala Harris’ questionable personal firearm ownership and round-the-clock protection stood in obvious tension with the strict gun control agenda she promoted for everyone else. It was a major platform plank of her failed presidential campaign. The phrase fits because the facts keep fitting: gun control for thee, not for me.

During his failed 2020 presidential campaign, former New York City Mayor and gun control activist Michael Bloomberg was even more straightforward — if not demeaning — to voters during a televised town hall event. Asked if his life was more important than that of a town hall audience member, Bloomberg didn’t hesitate. “Alright, look… I probably get forty or fifty threats every week…That just happens when you’re the mayor of New York City, or very wealthy, or campaigning for the president of the United States. You’re gonna get lots of threats.” In their minds, the threats they may face are more dangerous than the threats everyday Americans face while running errands, or shopping at the supermarket or attending church service.

The same contradiction has surfaced yet again recently in Los Angeles. Just days ago, the New York Post reported that Los Angeles City Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez, a politician associated with anti-police and anti-LAPD defunding policies, relied on taxpayer-funded police protection for her own security. That report landed in a city where public officials have spent years cutting, criticizing or constraining law enforcement while residents are told to accept the consequences. Remember the LAPD’s “Be a good victim” press release?

What Chicago and Los Angeles Tell Voters

Los Angeles offered one of the clearest warnings about where this type of politics leads. In 2021, after the Los Angeles City Council voted 12-2 to cut $150 million from the police budget, the Los Angeles Police Department warned residents amid a robbery wave to “cooperate and comply” and “be a good witness.” The message was blunt and accurate: when elected leaders weaken public safety and restrict lawful self-defense at the same time, ordinary residents are the ones left exposed. Californians noticed, and law-abiding citizens responded — not by embracing the “be a good victim” advice, but by choosing lawful firearm ownership instead.

That is the real policy divide. Law-abiding Americans do not live inside a taxpayer-funded security bubble. They do not travel with police details, motorcades or specialized protection units. They lock up their homes, protect their families, run small businesses, commute, worship and go about daily life with no expectation that a government security cordon will arrive in a timely manner. That is why the Second Amendment matters. It is not a privilege reserved only for public officeholders. It is a constitutional guarantee for the people.

Voters Are Right to Notice

Reasonable people can debate the size of a mayoral security detail or the threat environment surrounding a major city executive. What is far harder to defend is a politician who demands armed protection for their own security while actively working to restrict the rights of the very citizens forced to live with the consequences of violent crime.

In gun control strongholds across the country, antigun politicians continue to prove they believe armed security is a necessity for those in power and a problem for everyone else. The Second Amendment was not written for mayors, councilmembers or political insiders. It was written for the people, and no amount of taxpayer-funded security can hide the hypocrisy of officials who act like that right belongs only to them.

You may also be interested in: 

Latest Anti-Lead Ammo Attack Isn’t About Ammo at All

Minnesota Gun Control Agenda Faces Split-Capitol Reality