a Better Bubble™
ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for Dispatches, a newsletter that spotlights wrongdoing around the country, to receive our stories in your inbox every week.
The last time Missouri took control of St. Louis’ police force was just before the start of the Civil War, when the state’s secessionist-leaning leaders were trying to prevent police officers from taking up arms against the Confederacy.
The law that put the police department under state control was in effect for the next 152 years. In November 2012, nearly two-thirds of voters approved a statewide ballot measure, pushed by police reform activists and elected officials, that restored local authority and placed the department under the mayor’s jurisdiction.
Now, the state’s Republican governor and GOP-led legislature are again pushing to take over the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department. They argue that the Democratic-run city government is responsible for a drop in officer morale and that statistics that show a decline in crime are inaccurate.
The Missouri House voted 106-47 last week to transfer control from the city to a state-appointed board this summer. The five-member board would be made up of the mayor and four commissioners appointed by the governor, essentially leaving the governor with the votes to control the police department.
The state Senate is debating the measure, but a vote has not yet been scheduled.
The attempt to reverse a measure overwhelmingly approved by state voters, albeit more than a decade ago, is part of a broader pattern of Missouri’s conservative-led government trying to override the will of the electorate, from repealing voter-approved redistricting reform to trying to reinstate an abortion ban even though voters approved a constitutional amendment last year legalizing the procedure.
State takeovers of metropolitan police departments are rare; Kansas City, Missouri, remains the only major U.S. city with its police force under state control. Its arrangement dates to Reconstruction, when Missouri lawmakers, aiming to limit Black political influence, stripped the city of its oversight role.
After a brief return to local control in the 1930s, the state reasserted authority over Kansas City police to weaken political boss Tom Pendergast, who had used the department for patronage and election fraud.
Baltimore recently regained control of its police department after 160 years of state control.
Republican-led states have taken away control of other aspects of government from local leaders in other cities with majority-Black populations. In Mississippi, officials have expanded the jurisdiction of the state-run Capitol Police beyond government buildings into residential and commercial areas in Jackson, the state capital. They’ve also created a state-run court with appointed judges and increased police funding while the Black-led Jackson Police Department struggles to respond to calls.
Texas and Missouri have intervened in local schools and city governments, leading to disputes about local control — though these takeovers have generally been temporary, with a path to restoring local authority. In Tennessee, the state comptroller backed down from taking over the majority-Black city of Mason after local officials agreed that a certified public accounting or law firm would help the town complete audits, balance its budget and train officials on proper use of tax revenue. It happens in states led by Democrats, too, but less frequently.
“It really is removing this political power from residents, allowing them to have less authority, oversight and voice in how their system of public safety and policing operates,” said Sandhya Kajeepeta, a senior researcher at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund’s Thurgood Marshall Institute.
Some St. Louis leaders see the current effort there as echoing 19th-century efforts to limit Black political power. They argue that a majority-white, conservative government is again moving to strip authority from local officials and diminish Black influence over policing.
State Sen. Karla May, a Black Democrat from St. Louis who has testified against the push for state control, said it’s no coincidence that the plan became an urgent matter for legislators, and is advancing, during the tenure of Mayor Tishaura Jones, who also is Black.
May said the St. Louis Police Officers Association, the collective bargaining unit for city police officers, “does not want to be controlled by an African American mayor.” Representatives from the union did not respond to a request for comment.
A spokesperson for Jones did not make her available for an interview. But the mayor said in an emailed statement that “I don’t think Republican legislators want to give a Black woman who is also a Democrat credit for dramatically reducing crime, increasing officer pay and building out successful public safety programs.” She said advocates for state control have never explained how it would improve public safety.
The push to take control of the St. Louis police is a top priority for Gov. Mike Kehoe, a newly elected Republican whose State of the State address framed the issue in economic terms. He said what mattered was whether businesses felt “safe enough to invest in our cities.” Kehoe, who is white, frequently invokes his upbringing in St. Louis to push for state control.
The House sponsor of the measure, Rep. Brad Christ, a white Republican from the southwestern suburbs of St. Louis, argues that calling his proposal “state control” is misleading because the governor’s appointees would be required to have lived in the city for at least three years.
He noted that the effort to return the police to the state predates Jones’ term as mayor. A Black Democrat from St. Louis filed a similar bill that stalled in the House in 2019 during the tenure of Mayor Lyda Krewson, who is white. Christ said in a text that this was “clear evidence that the wild assertion that this effort has been race motivated is completely false.”
The Ethical Society of Police, a group that represents Black police officers in St. Louis, also supports a state takeover. Its president, Donnell Walters, wrote an opinion piece in 2023 with then-Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, a Republican, calling for state control and alleging mismanagement and low morale under city control.
Walters did not return messages seeking comment.
Heather Taylor, a retired sergeant who led ESOP from 2015 to 2020 — and who later worked in the Jones administration before resigning in 2023 after criticizing the mayor and the department on social media — said she worries the department will suffer under state control. But, she said, ESOP members believe that the city lacks urgency in providing basic support for officers and that the state might do a better job addressing those needs.
Jones has repeatedly pointed to city crime data showing a decline since she hired Robert Tracy as police chief two years ago. Notably, the city’s murder totals have plummeted.
But many argue that the city’s statistics on other types of crimes don’t reflect the sense of lawlessness in St. Louis. Ness Sandoval, a professor of sociology and demography at Saint Louis University who studies crime trends, said he believes the city underreports crime and lacks transparency. “Most people who rely on the data believe there probably should be an asterisk,” he said. Jones has stood behind the crime numbers, saying they are accurate.
Still, the mayor and her police chief maintain that state control does not necessarily reduce crime. In 2012, while the police were still under state oversight, Forbes magazine ranked St. Louis as the second-most-dangerous city in the nation.
Kansas City, which is still under state control, continues to struggle with violent crime. Efforts to restore local oversight have never gained much traction there. Despite past studies and proposals — including a 1968 report listing local control as the top recommendation after police killed six Black residents during riots, and a 2013 mayoral committee vote for local control that failed by a single vote — no serious push has materialized.
For years, some of America’s most iconic gun-makers turned over sensitive personal information on customers — without their knowledge or consent — to the gun industry’s main lobbying group. Political operatives then employed those details to rally firearms owners to elect pro-gun politicians running for Congress and the White House.
The strategy remained a secret for more than two decades.
In a series of stories in recent months, ProPublica revealed the inner workings of the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s project, using a trove of gun industry documents and insider interviews.
We also showed how the NSSF teamed up with the controversial political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica to turbocharge its outreach to gun owners and others in the 2016 election.
Additional internal Cambridge reports obtained by ProPublica now detail the full scope and depth of the persuasion campaign’s sophistication and intrusiveness.
The political consultancy analyzed thousands of details about the lives of people in the NSSF’s enormous database. Were they shopaholics? Did they gamble? Did women buy plus-size or petite underwear?
This story contains interactive graphics that are not displayed here. Read the full story on our website.
The alchemy had three phases.
Phase One: Amassing the DataSome of the data, excerpted here, was basic information you might find on a census, like marital status or ethnic group.
But the data also contained much more specific information about a person’s aesthetic preferences, purchasing habits and hobbies.
Other data highlighted consumers’ personal opinions, histories and even vices.
How Cambridge converted those tiny bits of data into massive political wins has never before been made public. Its methods raise disturbing questions about how our personal data can be used to manipulate us.
“There is a natural desire to stay anonymous and keep your own information, and this is such a violation of that,” said Calli Schroeder, privacy specialist at the Electronic Privacy Information Center.
The NSSF has said its “activities are, and always have been, entirely legal and within the terms and conditions of any individual manufacturer, company, data broker, or other entity.” Larry Keane, senior vice president of the NSSF since 2000, said the trade group’s 2016 voter outreach campaign involved only commercially available data.
But Cambridge emails and a report on the NSSF campaign said the data included 20 years of information about gun buyers harvested from manufacturer warranty cards given to the NSSF. A contractor for the trade group also handed Cambridge a database of shoppers at Cabela’s, a popular sporting goods retailer. (The general counsel for Bass Pro, which bought Cabela’s in 2017, said the company had been unable to find evidence of Cabela’s “sharing customer information that was not compliant with their privacy policies at or prior to the time of acquisition.”)
Cambridge documents show the firm compared names and addresses in the NSSF and Cabela’s data against the same names and addresses found in a vast array of consumer purchase and lifestyle information, supplied by data broker companies.
Phase Two: Creating the ProfilesNext, analysts used an algorithm to profile and score each person’s behavioral traits based on the data and a psychological assessment tool called OCEAN that measures a human being’s openness to new and different experiences, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism. From those scores, Cambridge organized people into five groups it called risk-takers, carers, go-getters, individualists and supporters. Members of each group received Facebook ads tailored to their group’s psychological profiles.
Below are political ads and descriptions of those personality groups pulled from Cambridge documents for the NSSF project. The ads include hypothetical messages along with the actual versions the firm sent for the NSSF’s election campaign, called GunVote.
The Risk-TakerCambridge Analytica Description: Scoring high on the scale for neuroticism, risk-takers are “easily frustrated, disorganized, often late and more prone to addiction than others.” They are “attracted to risky situations,” known for “overreacting to various situations,” act “without thinking” and are “often perceived to be outsiders.” Keywords include “security,” “enemies” and “take action.”
Persuasion Tactics: Messaging “could be constructed by first introducing negative scenarios, before providing a reassuring and authoritative solution.”
Sample AdAmong examples Cambridge gave of ads targeting risk-takers is one that depicts a masked person breaking into a home with the message, “What would you do? Protect the Second Amendment.” The sample ad creates a negative scenario that spotlights the concept of enemies and taking action.
Actual AdThe ad Cambridge sent to risk-takers conjures the specter of the Supreme Court turning into “an enemy to your gun rights.”
The Go-GetterCambridge Analytica Description: Scoring low on the neuroticism scale, go-getters are “efficient, productive, and focused on their goals,” often perceived as “self-assured, direct, welcoming and friendly,” as well as being “upbeat about the future.” They are self-aware, in control of their emotions and “like to keep busy and enjoy shared adventures with friends and family.” Keywords include “future” and “hope.”
Persuasion Tactics: Go-getters are best persuaded with messaging that “clearly aligns with the goals to which they are already committed,” according to Cambridge documents. “Imagery should show people collectively taking actions to solve problems in a positive environment.”
Sample AdCambridge’s example of an ad targeting go-getters focuses on shared adventures and a positive future by depicting young men hunting together with the message, “Help the next generation enjoy the hunt.”
Actual AdThe ad Cambridge sent shows what appears to be a father and son on a hunt, wearing matching camouflage jackets with rifles slung over their left shoulders. The image urges the go-getters to “protect your future.”
The SupporterCambridge Analytica Description: Primarily conscientious on the OCEAN scale, supporters are “relaxed and down to earth” and care about their communities, but “prefer not to be the center of attention.” They act judiciously and “react calmly in a crisis.” They are “rule followers” who “uphold traditional values” and “like their own space, which they share with a select few.” Keywords include “community,” “responsibility,” “reality” and “facts.”
Persuasion Tactics: Because supporters value consistency and commitment, they will respond to messages that include “the concept of reciprocity.” Ads should focus on the idea that “helping is a question of responsibility” between the individual and the people they care about.
Sample AdThe sample ad presents the phrase, “Protect your right to safe firearms use,” over the image of what appears to be a father and son standing in front of a picturesque, well-preserved landscape dotted by mountains.
Actual AdThe image Cambridge sent features a couple who appear to be on a hunt, looking directly at the camera. Hoping to spur supporters’ leanings toward reciprocity, the message says, “Senator Burr is working hard to protect your gun rights.”
The CarerCambridge Analytica Description: Found primarily in the late 50s to early 70s age range, carers are “often led by their emotions but are reluctant to express them, directing their anger inwards against themselves.” They gain control in life through caring for others and focusing on their jobs. They “enjoy voluntary and hands-on activities.” Keywords include “family,” “community,” “cooperation” and “values.”
Persuasion Tactics: Messaging should “appeal to their altruistic side” and should put forward concepts that “will enhance their family life or their lifestyle.” The carer is motivated by altruism, so messages should “appeal to their sensitivity and emotionality, directly leading to a ‘call to action.’”
Sample AdThe sample ad shows multiple generations of a family spending time together, with a message that appeals to the carer’s focus on family values and emotionality: “You take care of your family. Now take care of your country.”
Actual AdThe image Cambridge sent to carers depicts a happy family on a sunny day holding hands and surrounded by nature. The message refers to U.S. Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina “protecting your family’s way of life.”
The IndividualistCambridge Analytica Description: Scoring low in openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion and neuroticism, individualists are “stubborn,” “introverted homebodies” who “view others as potential enemies.” They “prefer the simple things in life and like to pursue activities alone.” Individualists tend to “lack empathy” and have “strong and unchanging beliefs about social norms and morality.” Individualists approach issues with “strict discipline and a ‘get-tough’ attitude.” Keywords include “traditions” and “concrete actions.”
Persuasion Tactics: Messaging to individualists should be “direct and straightforward.” They respond with appeals to “their traditional side and their independent approach to life.”
Sample AdThe sample ad shows a man holding a gun behind his back with the message, “If you can’t protect yourself, who will?” This approach focuses on the isolation and “get-tough attitude” that speaks to individualists.
Actual AdThe ad Cambridge sent to individualists depicts rows of U.S. flags in a field, an image widely associated with military sacrifice and remembrances of war. The message emphasizes the Supreme Court’s role as “the last line of defense for your rights.”
Phase Three: Delivering the AdsCambridge found the targeted people on Facebook and delivered ads through the platform aimed at voters in North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Ohio, New Hampshire and Wisconsin. Each pop-up ad said it came from the NSSF’s GunVote page, but they were crafted by Cambridge. The ads sent to potential voters in key states from June 21, 2016, through July 1, 2016, promoted Republican Sens. Richard Burr, Pat Toomey, Roy Blunt, Rob Portman, Kelly Ayotte and Ron Johnson.
Nearly 817,000 people saw the messages, according to Cambridge’s internal metric reports.
For the next three months, Cambridge included voters in Colorado, Florida, and Nevada in the multistate blast of ads and videos on social media. Altogether, they garnered nearly 378 million views and drove 60,140,280 visitors to the NSSF’s website.
Cambridge also mapped out the locations of people in the five personality groups in the key states and gave NSSF contractors lists containing their names and addresses. The contractors examined the numbers and locations of each persona on a county-by-county basis. Then they mailed to the potential voters’ homes messages designed to persuade them to cast ballots for the gun industry’s preferred candidates.
Targeting Voters at the County LevelCambridge Analytica's maps show voters broken down by psychological groups.
Ohio
Wisconsin
Missouri
(Persona maps from Cambridge Analytica documents)See a detailed view of voters grouped by persona in each of the states targeted by Cambridge.
stLouIST