
Trump's DC move forces Democrats to again grapple with crime
Democrats were quick to note that violent crime in Washington, D.C., is down following Trump's announcement on Monday that he would federalize the city's police force and deploy the National Guard.
However, Republicans see the message as a winning one as signs suggest voters are concerned about crime regardless, leading some Democrats to warn their party against falling into the same political trap some see as having damaged them in the past.
'My advice to Democrats is don't take the bait,' said Mike Nellis, a Democratic strategist and former senior adviser to former Vice President Harris.
Nellis noted that voters could still feel strongly about crime even as statistics show improvement in metropolitan areas like D.C., thereby opening Democrats up to easy attacks from the GOP.
'All of the crime numbers suggest that violent crime is down in every major city. I don't think that people are going to believe that,' he said. 'I'm not saying that the numbers are wrong, it's just that the perception is what it is.'
Republicans have been quick to seize on that perception. One GOP operative compared the party's messaging on crime to how it framed inflation under the Biden administration, saying: 'At the end of the day, it's how voters feel.'
Polls show Republicans have the upper hand on the crime issue. According to a CNN survey released in June, 40 percent of voters said that the GOP's views on crime are closer to their own, while 27 percent said the same about Democrats.
'It's obviously a winning an argument for Republicans, especially anytime we're talking about crime in Democrat-run cities,' the national Republican operative said.
Republicans have touted the president's announcement, pointing to their own experiences in the city.
'In the Navy Yard where I stay when I'm in D.C., a member of Congress was carjacked, staffers have been assaulted and robbed, an Uber eats driver was killed by two 15-year old girls in a botched carjacking and retail stores closed because they were robbed so many times,' Rep. Stephanie Bice (R-Okla.) said in a post on X.
However, the president's critics and many Democrats have pointed to statistics showing that violent crime is down in the nation's capital.
According to data reported by the Metropolitan Police Department, the District of Columbia saw a 15 percent drop in crime and 35 percent drop in violent crime from 2023 to 2024 following a spike in 2023.
But there is still a perception among voters across the country that crime remains an issue.
According to a Gallup poll conducted in March, 47 percent of respondents said they believe they worry 'a great deal' about crime and violence. That figure is down from 53 percent in March of last year. Another 28 percent of respondents said in March they worry 'a fair amount' about crime and violence, up two points from 26 percent from last year.
Nellis, the Democratic strategist, encouraged the party to focus on other issues, like the economy, health care and corruption.
Trump's announcement on taking action to fight crime in D.C. comes as the administration is grappling with less-than-desirable economic data. The Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BLS) released numbers on Tuesday showing inflation holding firm in July amid the implementation of the president's tariffs. And earlier this month, data from BLS economy added 73,000 jobs in July, well below economists' expectations of around 100,000.
Additionally, Trump and his team have been plagued with questions about his administration's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case, which has led to rare scrutiny from his own political base.
'Trump's in a pretty tough political position,' one Democratic strategist said. 'When he's backed up against the wall, he wants to change the terrain.'
In addition to focusing on hitting Trump on the economy, many Democrats are also encouraging incumbents and candidates to emphasize their own record on combatting crime.
'I don't think it's necessarily super helpful to go up to voters and be like 'here's a graph,'' said one Democratic operative. 'That is just not proven effective.'
Democrats point to a number of examples of their members being tough on crime, including Reps. Don Davis (D-N.C.) and Gabe Vasquez (D-N.M.).
In June, Davis pushed back on a move to disband the town of Snow Hill's police department, while Vasquez introduced legislation last month that would target organized crime in border communities.
But Republicans argue Democrats are automatically defined by progressives members of their party who have called for defunding the police, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Democratic New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani.
'Trusting a Democrat to handle crime is like asking the fox to guard the henhouse,' said Mike Marinella, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee. 'Voters know they're less safe in Democrat-run cities, and no amount of spin can cover up their long record of backing Defund the Police, Abolish ICE, and every other pro-criminal policy in the book.'
The House Democratic campaign arm released their own statement, calling Republicans hypocritical on the issue.
'Firstly, the party that celebrates pardons for those who attacked Capitol Police on January 6 should never, ever be lecturing anyone about law and order,' said Viet Shelton, a spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
'Secondly, no amount of desperate misdirection will hide the reality that the American people are swiftly souring on House Republicans' failed agenda of broken promises and rising prices, and will reject them in the midterms,' he continued.
D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser (D) has struck a diplomatic tone with the administration, saying she will work with federal officials.
'I'm going to work every day to make sure it's not a complete disaster. Let me put it that way,' Bowser told reporters following her meeting with Attorney General Pam Bondi on Tuesday.
Some Democrats expressed concern about the precedent Trump's actions in the capital city could have on other metropolitan centers across the country.
'It's a dangerous stunt, but it's still a stunt,' Nellis said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Indianapolis Star
a few seconds ago
- Indianapolis Star
Vance's redistricting push tests Indiana's resistance to political extremes
I appreciated Sadia Khatri's column, "JD Vance hid in tunnels, but protesters made their voices heard." Indiana has historically bucked national trends when it comes to political extremes. Unfortunately, Vice President JD Vance's visit to Indiana shows that may no longer be the case. He came to make the case for Indiana to engage in the national political trend of gerrymandering. The ultimate goal of this campaign is for Republicans to hold on to power in the U.S. House of Representatives following the midterm elections. Opinion: Trump's tariffs weakened the economy, so he's lying about the data Republicans in other states around the country have become complicit in similar tactics to this end meant to usurp democratic norms. I hope our state leaders are able to resist the this presidential administration and maintain Hoosier values in the name of democracy. Republican or Democratic, Indiana ought to play by the rules.

USA Today
29 minutes ago
- USA Today
Mexico, under pressure from Trump, sends 26 cartel members to US
MEXICO CITY, Aug 12 (Reuters) - Mexico sent more than two dozen suspected cartel members to the U.S. on Tuesday, amid rising pressure from President Donald Trump on Mexico to dismantle the country's powerful drug organizations. Authorities shipped 26 prisoners wanted in the U.S. for ties to drug-trafficking groups, Mexico's attorney general's office and security ministry said in a joint statement. Mexico said the U.S. Department of Justice had requested their extradition and that it would not seek the death penalty for the accused cartel members. The transfer is the second of its kind this year. In February, Mexican authorities sent 29 alleged cartel leaders to the U.S., sparking a debate about the political and legal grounds for such a move. More: State Department updates Mexico travel advisory for Americans That Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum permitted yet another large-scale extradition of Mexican nationals underscores the balancing act she faces as she seeks to appease Trump while also avoiding unilateral U.S. military action in Mexico. In a statement, the U.S. Embassy said among those extradited were key figures in the Jalisco New Generation Cartel and the Sinaloa Cartel, which are Mexico's two dominant organized crime groups. 'This transfer is yet another example of what is possible when two governments unite against violence and impunity," U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Ronald Johnson said in a statement. "These fugitives will now face justice in American courts, and the citizens of both our nations will be safer.' More: Mexican President rules out Trump's reported military plan against Mexico's drug cartels Trump has tied tariffs on Mexico to the deadly fentanyl trade, claiming the country hasn't tackled drug cartels aggressively enough. Last week, he directed the Pentagon to prepare operations against Mexican drug gangs that have been designated global terrorist organizations. Sheinbaum has said the U.S. and Mexico are nearing a security agreement to expand cooperation in the fight against cartels. But she has flatly rejected suggestions by the Trump administration that it could carry out unilateral military operations in Mexico. (Additional reporting by Mrinmay Dey in Bengaluru; Editing by Chris Reese, Cassandra Garrison and Lincoln Feast.)

USA Today
29 minutes ago
- USA Today
The key to success at Trump-Putin Alaska summit on Ukraine? Low expectations.
Russia's progress has limited the risk of escalation and increased Moscow's willingness to continue fighting. Trump keeps trying to find a way to end the war, but time is not on Ukraine's side. The war in Ukraine is stuck, and has been stuck for years. Despite the media frenzy over the upcoming U.S.-Russia summit in Alaska, there is little reason to expect a breakthrough, barring a dramatic change in the U.S., Russian or Ukrainian positions. When President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin meet on Friday, Aug. 15, observers should keep expectations low. Any progress would be welcome. Since February 2022, the conflict has been a slow, grinding war of attrition in which Russia has gradually seized more and more Ukrainian territory. Russia's military progress dampened its incentives to escalate the conflict, an early source of U.S. concern. For example, in the fall of 2022, the high-water mark for Ukraine on the battlefield, U.S. intelligence estimated that there was a 50% chance Russia would reach for nuclear weapons if its forces in southern Ukraine were facing collapse. Were Russia losing today, the risks for Americans would be higher. Putin's will vs. Trump's way While Russia's progress has limited the risk of escalation, it has also increased Moscow's willingness to continue fighting. Since beginning his second term, Trump has tried to find a way to end the war, but the Kremlin has not shown much willingness to moderate its demands. Putin has insisted on Ukraine renouncing aspirations to join NATO or allow NATO forces on its territory; conceding Russian sovereignty over the four provinces it annexed in 2022; the demilitarization of Ukraine; and the 'denazification' of the country, by which it means dramatic reforms to how it governs itself domestically. Putin has also rejected a temporary ceasefire that doesn't engage on these issues. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. The debate over the what to do next often obscures more than it reveals. One hears reference to Ukrainian victory or Russian defeat without defining what those terms mean or what their implications would be. Does Ukrainian victory or Russian defeat mean Kyiv regaining all territory inside its internationally recognized borders? That isn't going to happen. Could Ukraine losing territory but keeping its sovereignty and military ‒ without NATO membership ‒ be portrayed as success? Many security scholars believe that such armed neutrality is the best that can be achieved for Ukraine. Opinion: I was the US ambassador to Ukraine. Here's why I resigned. Don't forget Zelenskyy's intransigence This is where Ukraine's intransigence comes in. Even though Ukrainian public support for continuing the war has cratered, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is using the Ukrainian Constitution as a firewall against concessions. As amended in 2019, it both prohibits the Ukrainian government from ceding any territory and somewhat clumsily commits it to pursue membership in NATO. In rejecting Trump's suggestion that there be land swaps as part of a settlement, Zelenskyy pointed at the constitution's provision against giving up territory, arguing that 'no one will step back from this, nor will anyone be able to.' The Ukrainian president's willingness and ability to end the war probably has less to do with high-minded constitutional principles and more to do with his own political survival. At this point, the war has produced total destruction in Ukraine, the evisceration of its territory, and all the ruinous human and economic costs of the war ‒ but without any U.S. security guarantees. Zelenskyy knows this would be a disastrous legacy, so he has a powerful incentive to obtain something he can portray as a benefit of the war. Gen. Wesley Clark: Trump needs to push Putin hard to end war in Ukraine – now | Opinion The question is whether Kyiv's position on the battlefield can sustain Zelenskyy's intransigence on the political issues, with or without more U.S. support. There are worrying signs that it cannot. Ukraine faces an array of manpower issues along the 600-mile front. Key towns seem to be in jeopardy. Time is not on Ukraine's side. As always, the Europeans are doing everything in their power to keep the United States at the center of the war in Ukraine ‒ and as the central provider of regional security. They called a virtual meeting with Zelenskyy and Trump two days before the Putin summit, and proposed a plan for Ukraine that would involve potential NATO membership in exchange for Kyiv conceding that it lost territory. After the meeting on Aug. 13, French President Emmanuel Macron and European Council President António Costa indicated Trump committed that the United States would participate in security guarantees for Ukraine. However, Trump has previously resisted European pleas for U.S. security guarantees to Ukraine, and make no mistake: That is just what NATO membership would be. With two consecutive U.S. administrations revealing that Washington does not perceive an interest in Ukraine worth fighting Russia over, such a commitment would be inherently incredible. In the coming days, avoiding any traps laid by the Europeans, the Ukrainians or congressional hawks is essential. From a U.S. perspective, patience and low expectations are the right course for talks with Russia. Above all, Trump must avoid backing into a reboot of the Biden administration's Ukraine policy, which involved an endless flow of weapons and hoping for a miracle. America's resources for and interests in the war in Ukraine are limited. Trump's policy should reflect that. Justin Logan (@justintlogan) is director of defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute. You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.