D.C. needs real policing, not propaganda

I’m worried Trump is only going to make crime worse

Win McNamee / Staff

Crime is a good issue for Republicans, because it’s one where the public’s broad values are very conservative — it’s the opposite of health care in that regard. So in raw political terms, Trump’s decision to take over D.C.’s local police department and send in the National Guard is an easy win for him. It shifts crime to the center of the national political conversation and invites progressives to express their views about crime, which involves appealing to values and concepts that most voters reject.

I think it’s also clear that, on some level, Trump is actively seeking the emergence of a mass protest movement against him.

When he deployed the National Guard in Los Angeles, he seemed excited about the idea of confronting protesters. When the protests fizzled, the troops themselves were mostly coping with boredom, and Trump basically sidled away from the whole thing. On paper, it’s clearly good for the city to have federal law enforcement agents supplementing the D.C. police’s manpower. If you think about why previous administrations haven’t sent investigators from the F.B.I. and other federal law enforcement agencies to serve as beat cops in D.C., it’s for the obvious reason that this isn’t in the national interest. But additional cops on the beat aren’t something any D.C. mayor or most D.C. residents would complain about.

Yet Trump clearly seems to want complaints, so he’s throwing a fit about one guy who threw a sandwich. He’s going beyond the extensive powers that are genuinely granted him by the Home Rule Act to do additional, illegal stuff, like trying to unilaterally override D.C.’s immigration rules. He is, generally speaking, looking for a fight.

As a concerned citizen of the United States of America, I worry about where the politics of all this is going. But as a longtime D.C. resident, I have two more specific worries:

1. I would like people to have accurate rather than inaccurate information about the crime situation, and the current situation has brought out a ton of misinformation.

2. I worry that running the police department for presidential propaganda purposes is going to leave D.C. with more rather than less crime.

My basic view is that there is not an “emergency” crime situation in DC — the city was safer in 2024 than in 2023, and the 2025 trends were moving in a positive direction before Trump intervened. On the other hand, while D.C. is not the most dangerous city in America (the most dangerous cities in America are almost all poor cities in the South), it is a lot more dangerous than the other Discourse Cities, like New York and San Francisco.

D.C. is also a partial exception to big national crime trends. It’s a rare city that had more murders in 2023 than in 2021, and while crime was falling in 2025, it was falling at a slower rate than in most cities.

There are many genuinely constructive things the federal government could do about this, without invoking any extraordinary power or abrogating Home Rule. The federal government is already extensively involved in D.C. governance, notably in running the courts and criminal prosecutions and most of the parks and the parole system. All this work is generally not done very well, precisely because it’s in the hands of officials who are not accountable to D.C. voters. It would be amazing if Trump became earnestly concerned about D.C. local governance and started performing all the federal aspects of this in a constructive way.

But I think the more likely outcome is the reverse: that the feds taking over local police will simply lead to local law enforcement being run in the same neglectful, half-assed way that the National Park Service runs our local parks.