Chicago Mayor Relies on Massive Armed Security While Pushing Strict Gun Laws

Taxpayers foot the bill for 150 officers protecting the mayor, even as he backs policies restricting public's self-defense rights.

Apr. 10, 2026 at 7:41pm

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A photorealistic painting depicting a lone police officer standing guard outside a government building, the scene bathed in warm, golden light and deep shadows, conveying a sense of solitude and the weight of responsibility.The stark contrast between the armed protection afforded to politicians and the self-defense restrictions imposed on the public fuels ongoing debates over gun control policies.Chicago Today

Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson has backed some of Illinois' most restrictive firearm policies, including a ban on so-called 'assault-style weapons' and magazine restrictions. However, reports reveal that 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. This has sparked accusations of a 'gun control for thee, but not for me' double standard, where politicians in restrictive gun control jurisdictions demand layers of armed protection for themselves while making it harder for law-abiding citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

Why it matters

This pattern of politicians in gun control strongholds enjoying armed personal protection while restricting the public's self-defense rights has become a growing point of contention. It highlights the perceived hypocrisy of officials who believe armed security is a necessity for those in power but a problem for everyone else. The Second Amendment was written for the people, not just for those in positions of authority.

The details

Reports show that Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson's personal armed security detail includes as many as 150 Chicago Police Department officers, costing taxpayers roughly $30 million a year. This comes as Johnson has backed some of Illinois' most restrictive firearm policies, including a ban on so-called 'assault-style weapons' and magazine restrictions. The mayor has praised these laws as an 'important step' to keep 'weapons of war' out of neighborhoods, even as he enjoys the protection of a large armed security force.

  • In 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed a lower court's preliminary injunction against Illinois' ban on so-called 'assault-style weapons' and magazine restrictions.
  • In 2021, U.S. Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) spent nearly $137,000 on private armed security, despite his anti-police, anti-gun rhetoric.
  • In 2024, then-Vice President Kamala Harris' personal firearm ownership and round-the-clock protection stood in obvious tension with the strict gun control agenda she promoted.

The players

Brandon Johnson

The mayor of Chicago who has backed some of Illinois' most restrictive firearm policies while being protected by a large armed security detail.

Chicago Police Department

The police force providing the 150-officer security detail for Mayor Brandon Johnson at a cost of roughly $30 million a year to taxpayers.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“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.”

— Michael Bloomberg, Former New York City Mayor and gun control activist

What’s next

The ongoing debate over the mayor's armed security detail and the perceived double standard on gun control policies is likely to continue, with calls for greater transparency and accountability from both supporters and critics.

The takeaway

This case highlights the growing divide between politicians who enjoy the protection of armed security details while pushing strict gun control measures that limit the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. It underscores the perception of a 'gun control for thee, but not for me' mentality among some elected officials, which erodes public trust and raises questions about the fairness and effectiveness of their policies.