
Trump wants to fight democrats on crime. They're treading cautiously
Donald Trump
has pushed the issue of crime back to the foreground of American politics.
In doing so, he's invited a fight with Democrats, who are treading cautiously as they seek to forcefully oppose the federal incursion into the nation's capital, something no president has ever attempted, without getting caught up in a debate over public safety on Trump's terms.
Trump
and his Republican allies wielded the sharp increase in violent crime in urban areas during the pandemic as a campaign cudgel, winning control of the House in the 2022 midterms. Trump expanded his winning coalition two years later, in part with promises to prevent the rest of America from becoming like the cities he called "unlivable, unsanitary nightmares," deriding the data that showed improvement across the country.
While his tactics in Washington are extraordinary, the effort is an actualization of one of his most tried-and-true political arguments: Democrats -- often Black Democrats -- have let lawlessness run rampant in the cities and states they were elected to run. At a moment when Trump's approval ratings even among his supporters are declining, he appears to be laying the groundwork for Republicans to once again weaponize the issue in the midterm elections.
Trump has sent
National Guard
troops to patrol the streets, turned federal law enforcement officers into beat cops and sought to put the local police department fully under his administration's control. And the president has suggested he wants to bring his brand of law and order to Chicago; Baltimore; Oakland, California; and New York, all liberal cities in blue states, while avoiding any mention of high-crime cities in red states, such as Memphis, Tennessee, or St. Louis.
Live Events
Among Democrats, there is widespread agreement that Trump is stoking fear for political gain and exaggerating statistics to justify a power grab.
But there is also recognition that the party must acknowledge that concerns about public safety continue to resonate not just with Trump's supporters, but with their own.
"We as Democrats should be careful not to cede the issue of public safety to Donald Trump and Republicans," Rep. Ritchie Torres, who represents the Bronx borough of New York City, said in an interview. "We should own the issue of public safety, because it matters to voters."
For his part, Trump made clear last week he sees his moves as a political slam-dunk.
"I think crime is maybe 100 to nothing, so I think we may get very well some Democratic support," Trump said Wednesday.
Trump made inroads across blue states including New York, New Jersey and California in 2024, alarming Democrats who worried that his messages about crime, immigration and quality of life had appealed to their voters, too. That year, a survey by Pew Research Center found that nearly 6 in 10 adults, including almost half of Democrats, wanted the reduction of crime to be a top priority for American leaders -- a figure that had grown since 2021.
The differing approaches the party has taken to Trump over his crackdown in Washington were on display in neighboring Maryland, where a group of lawmakers, including five members of Congress, raised grave concerns for democracy. They framed the president's assertion of federal oversight of the Metropolitan Police Department and his use of the National Guard to patrol the streets as a "soft launch of authoritarianism."
By contrast, Gov. Wes Moore, a Democrat, called the takeover a distraction, echoing party leaders including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York.
"I see this as performative and nothing more," Moore said in an interview, "because if he wanted to have a serious conversation about violent crime, he should have to pay attention to the work we're doing in the state of Maryland to be able to address the issue."
Moore accused Trump of ignoring the fact that the homicide rate in Baltimore is the lowest it has been in 50 years. "That doesn't fit his narrative," Moore said. "This is just a series of ignorant tropes that he continues to lay out."
Some Democrats, though, warn that reality is not as important as perception -- something that Trump has long been adept at shaping with his will and his echo chamber.
They recall Democrats' ineffective efforts during last year's presidential election to promote statistics showing that the economy was improving -- while Trump and his allies hammered away at the pain people felt over persistently high prices. He won the support of voters with deep economic concerns.
"D.C. presents the easiest opportunity for him to make crime an issue when it's not, and politics is perception," said Mike Morey, a Democratic strategist who advised former Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney in the 2022 race he lost to Rep. Mike Lawler, a Republican, largely over the issue of crime.
That contest was waged in New York City suburbs where crime was relatively low, but Lawler and his allies repeatedly attacked Maloney using headlines from the city's pandemic crime spike. Public safety is an issue in this fall's contest for mayor of New York City, while Republicans are signaling their intent to raise the matter during next year's race for governor of New York.
"We have to be careful not to lean too heavily on statistics, because people form their judgments about public safety based on their own lived experience," Torres said.
There are signs that the party is better prepared to ward off Trump's attacks on crime than it was in 2020 and 2022.
"What Democrats need to do is keep calling out the lack of reason to do this other than to distract and to assert more power," said Rep. Dan Goldman of New York, who called Trump's actions "authoritarian fascism."
Some Democrats have seized the opportunity to talk about their own credentials on public safety in places where violent crime has fallen on their watch, while being careful to acknowledge that a falling crime rate doesn't mean there isn't a problem.
"No mayor in the country, myself included, is saying that we solved this issue of violent crime," said Brandon Scott, the mayor of Baltimore, adding that "we have to keep going until we make our cities even safer."
In Washington, Mayor Muriel Bowser, a Democrat, appears well aware that Washington's historically low rate of violent crime hasn't prompted a significant change in people's perception of the issue. (A Washington Post-Schar School poll conducted last year found that 65% of Washingtonians rated crime as an "extremely serious" or a "very serious" problem in the District, up from 56% in 2023, when the crime rate was actually higher.)
She initially responded to Trump's takeover last week with a cautious and conciliatory tone. Even as she called it "unsettling and unprecedented," she acknowledged that some residents wanted to see more done to reduce crime.
Her tone grew more defiant after the Trump administration sought to tighten its grip over the city police.
Hashtags

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


Economic Times
29 minutes ago
- Economic Times
NATO chiefs to discuss Ukraine security guarantees
Synopsis NATO military chiefs discussed Ukraine's security guarantees. US and European military leaders talked about peace deal options. Donald Trump met Volodymyr Zelensky and European leaders after meeting Vladimir Putin. Russia claimed advances in Donetsk. Russian strikes killed civilians in Kharkiv. Attacks hit Kostiantynivka and Okhtyrka, wounding many. Zelensky stressed the need to pressure Moscow through sanctions. AP President Donald Trump, center, walks in the Cross Hall with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, followed by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, Finnish President Alexander Stubb, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, at the White House, Monday, Aug. 18, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon) NATO military chiefs were set Wednesday to discuss the details of eventual security guarantees for Ukraine, pushing ahead the flurry of global diplomacy aiming to broker an end to Russia's even as diplomatic efforts continued Wednesday, Russian forces claimed fresh advances on the ground and Ukrainian officials reported more deaths from Moscow's details have leaked on the virtual meeting of military chiefs from NATO's 32 member countries, which is due to start at 2:30 pm (1230 GMT). But on Tuesday evening top US officer Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, held talks with European military chiefs on the "best options for a potential Ukraine peace deal," a US defence official told AFP. US President Donald Trump brought Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and European leaders to the White House Monday, three days after his landmark encounter with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska. Trump, long a fierce critic of the billions of dollars in US support to Ukraine since Russia invaded in 2022, earlier said European nations were "willing to put people on the ground" to secure any settlement. He ruled out sending US troops but suggested it would provide air support while Trump said Putin had agreed to meet Zelensky and accept some Western security guarantees for Ukraine, Kyiv and Western capitals have responded cautiously, as many of the details remain vague.- Fresh Russian strikes -Russia's defence ministry said on Telegram Wednesday that its troops had captured the villages of Sukhetske and Pankivka in the embattled Donetsk are near a section of the front where the Russian army broke through Ukrainian defences last week, between the logistics hub of Pokrovsk and the eastern Kharkiv region, the prosecutor's office said a Russian drone strike on a civilian vehicle had killed two people, aged 70 and glide bombs hit housing in the eastern Ukrainian town of Kostiantynivka overnight, trapping as many as four people under rubble, said the town's military administration chief Sergiy Russia aerial attacks on the northeastern town of Okhtyrka in the Sumy region wounded at least 14 people, including three children, according to regional governor Oleg said these latest strikes showed "the need to put pressure on Moscow", including through sanctions.

Hindustan Times
29 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
UN's renaissance: Navigating a multipolar world with emerging bipolarity
The United Nations (UN) was born out of the need for a neutral convenor in a world highly suspicious of unilateralism. However, immediately after its creation in 1945, it had to navigate a tight bipolarity and a Cold War between the US and the erstwhile Soviet Union. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, owing to the economic rise of countries like India, China, South Korea, Brazil and others, a multipolar world order emerged. The UN, despite facing several new challenges as opposed to the situation in 1945 and up to 1991, continued navigating through geopolitical storms. However, what was witnessed was increasing inefficiency, as its vetoes in the UN Security Council paralyse action on key conflicts. It was assumed that in a multipolar setup, the UN's inclusivity would be its strength. However, in 2025, as geopolitical winds change again, the UN faces its own crossroads. FILE PHOTO: The United Nations headquarters building is pictured though a window with the UN logo in the foreground in the Manhattan borough of New York August 15, 2014. REUTERS/Carlo Allegri/File Photo(REUTERS) In the swirling vortex of geopolitics in 2025, the winds of change are unmistakable. The dominant rivalry in the international system is now between the US and China. However, the diffusion of power throughout the existing rules-based international order also cannot be wished away. The US under a second Trump administration, has pivoted inward, attempting an America First policy, which includes irrational trade skirmishes with foes like Beijing and friends, partners, and allies like India, the European Union (EU), Japan, Taiwan and South Korea alike. China meanwhile, once at the pinnacles of economic success, now grapples with domestic economic headwinds and a foreign policy shift from the Belt and Road exuberance to a more cautious stance propagating multilateralism, while still harbouring hegemonic aspirations. While the world stands divided in understanding which of these two powers--the US or China is more capable of leading the international system, middle powers like India, Brazil and the EU assert themselves, as regional alliances become increasingly commonplace. In this flux, the UN, while a relic of post-World War II optimism, also has an increased role as a vital arbiter, if it can adapt boldly. If peacekeeping were taken as an indicator, it is seen that despite the world being increasingly divided, UN operations remain the primary tool for maintaining international security, albeit fraying relations and resource shortfalls reduce efficacy. The 2025 Peacekeeping Ministerial in Berlin had highlighted precisely this, while urging members to innovate for future missions and multipolarity. At least 305 million across the globe are still in need of aid, while the UN coordinates humanitarian efforts. From Gaza's malnutrition crises to displacement in Sudan, there are examples galore and from across the globe. A decline in multilateralism actually weakens institutions like the UN and the World Trade Organization (WTO), with stalled pollution talks to illustrate hurdles in negotiations. The US led order's collapse, as Trump accelerates withdrawals, creates space for China to gain ground, without it yet having capacities for full replacement. Yet, this also creates opportunity, as a reformed UN could reclaim preventive diplomacy and peacebuilding. Given Trump's unpredictability and tendency to throw allies and partners under the bus, it is currently unclear what the U.S. actually wants. Trump's lifting of restrictions on chip sales to China, his stalling of the impending ban of TikTok, his fawning praise of Xi Jinping, along with his irrational targeting of India for being the second largest buyer of Russian oil, while letting China go scot-free, signal at attempts at a G2 between the US and China. However, Trump also keeps emphasising his policies to Make America Great Again, which presumably mean the US wants to remain the leading actor of the international system. As far as China is concerned, it clearly wants to be the leading actor of the international system and wants the coveted position to itself. While Trump figures out what he sees the role of the US as either as a subservient partner to China or to continue being the hegemon of the system, other important players need to push for the reforms of the UN. The year 2025 marks the 80th anniversary of the UN. Interestingly, the UN thanks to the changing geopolitical headwinds, also stands at a pivotal juncture. The roles of both the US and China have been diminished, owing to their own economic policies which now force them to look inwards or to tweak their economic engagements abroad, with reduced roles. The need of the hour amidst geopolitical headwinds is to reduce domination and to create greater space for dialogue, and the UN, if empowered, is uniquely positioned to conduct it. To thrive, the UN must reform, and the first of many steps would be the expansion of the UNSC, for broader representation, enhancing legitimacy in multipolarity. A failure to adapt, risks irrelevance, while success holds promises of a more equitable world. The UN needs to be revitalised, lest the winds scatter global stability. This article is authored by Sriparna Pathak, professor, China Studies and International Relations, Jindal School of International Affairs, OP Jindal Global University, Sonipat.


Hindustan Times
29 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Putin Calls Zelensky the West's Illegitimate Puppet. Can He Talk Peace With Him?
If Russian President Vladimir Putin agrees to meet his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky, as urged by President Trump, he will come face-to-face with a man he has spent 3½ years excoriating as an illegitimate leader and puppet. Negotiating directly with Zelensky would run sharply counter to the narrative Putin has carefully constructed and sold to Russians in an effort to justify his 2022 invasion of Ukraine: that the war is part of a broader conflict with the West in which Zelensky and his country are mere pawns. Trump's call for a meeting puts Putin in a bind. If he declines, he risks angering the U.S. president, who has already threatened him with more sanctions. But sitting down with Zelensky could damage him politically with the Russian elite and the broader public. Trump said Tuesday that he was working to bring the two leaders together as the next phase in his efforts to forge a lasting peace in Ukraine, but he nodded to the challenge at hand. 'They haven't been exactly best friends,' he said in an interview with Fox News, adding that Putin and Zelensky will have to iron out details of a possible meeting if they agree to one. The question of Putin's willingness to meet his Ukrainian counterpart has taken center stage following a Trump-Putin summit in Alaska and discussions Monday at the White House between Trump, Zelensky and European leaders. On Tuesday, Russian officials gave little indication they were working toward such a meeting. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said plans for any contacts between officials should be laid out 'with the utmost care.' Other Russian officials ridiculed Zelensky as an unserious politician. Agreement from Putin to meet Zelensky won't likely come quickly—or easily. He has dismissed the Ukrainian leader repeatedly as a servant of the West, and has insisted that various complex issues be solved before the two leaders sit down. He has also questioned Zelensky's legitimacy after he extended his mandate beyond the usual five-year term, citing the problems with holding an election during a war. Putin has questioned his authority to sign any peace agreement. Ukrainian servicemen installing antidrone nets in the eastern Donetsk region words 'For Russia' on a wall in Mariupol, which Russian forces captured from Ukraine in 2022. Putin has said a meeting between the two leaders should come at the end of a peace process—and more as a formality to sign the necessary documents. 'I'm ready to meet, but if it's some kind of final stage, so we don't sit there endlessly dividing things up, but bring this to an end,' he said in June. 'But we will need the signature of the legitimate authorities.' The issues also go far beyond Zelensky. Putin sees the war as part of a broader Russian push to relitigate grievances the country has felt since the end of the Cold War, analysts say. Putin's engagement with the Trump administration is part of an effort to secure an agreement that goes far beyond territorial concessions in Ukraine and concerns the very makeup of Europe's security architecture. 'For Putin, this is a much wider confrontation with the West. And Ukraine is a battlefield between Russia and the West,' said Tatiana Stanovaya, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center. 'In Putin's eyes, Zelensky is not a player,' she added. 'The fact Ukrainians are fighting at all is because of Western support.' Most important, a meeting with Zelensky could end the delicate dance Putin has performed around Trump's peace efforts. To avoid more punishing sanctions, the Kremlin leader has professed his desire for peace while escalating offensives have won Russian troops important gains in the country's east. A summit with Zelensky could bring an unwelcome moment of truth. 'A meeting could indicate that he's really willing to negotiate the end of this war, and I don't think he's ready,' said Samuel Charap, veteran Russia watcher and senior political analyst at Rand Corporation. The first and only time Putin met Zelensky was in 2019 at a very different moment in Russian-Ukrainian relations. At the time, Putin appeared to have high hopes for a relationship with his newly elected counterpart who had made peace with Russia a main campaign priority. The meeting between Putin and Zelensky was hailed as a step toward peace after Russia had seized Crimea and backed separatists in eastern Ukraine with soldiers and money. But far from being the start of a working relationship, disagreements erupted over the details of a peace deal, including disengagement across the front line. Ties quickly deteriorated thereafter and the two haven't met since. Since the start of the war, Zelensky has believed that he could make headway in his relationship with Putin if he could sit down face-to-face with the Kremlin leader, but he has also drawn the ire of Moscow by issuing a vaguely worded decree that calls talks with the Kremlin leader impossible. To satisfy Trump and Zelensky's own desire to meet, Putin has said he isn't opposed to talking face-to-face, but that various conditions would need to be met, including signals from Kyiv that it is ready to make serious concessions. Zelensky, for his part, has shown openness to meet without preconditions, most recently abandoning an earlier demand for a cease-fire to facilitate talks. 'If Ukraine begins setting various preconditions for a meeting—including justified ones regarding a cease-fire—then the Russians will present 100 of their own,' he said after his meeting with Trump and European leaders in Washington on Monday. 'I think we should meet without conditions and explore what further progress there can be on this path to ending the war.' Zelensky has successfully used the Kremlin leader's resistance against him. In May, Trump had expressed his desire for Putin to come to Turkey where he could meet face-to-face with Zelensky. When Putin passed up the chance, Zelensky flew into Turkey and bemoaned how the Kremlin was 'too afraid' to meet. This time, however, the political stakes are higher, adding pressure on the Kremlin leader. With rising demands from Trump and European leaders, Moscow has hinted it will double down on its refusal and continue to paint Zelensky as a dilettante that Putin shouldn't stoop to meet. Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova went on the offensive on Tuesday to level accusations against the Ukrainian leader to justify Putin's own refusal to meet. Ultimately, analysts say, Putin is likely to pour cold water on the idea of a meeting without actually refusing one outright—a strategy he has previously deployed in response to calls for a cease-fire. Agreement over maximalist peace terms that Russia handed to Ukraine in Istanbul, according to Stanovaya, is likely to serve as Moscow's precondition for a meeting. Those terms include Ukraine's disarmament, political neutrality, and abandonment of its aspiration to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. 'What Putin will say now is 'let's do it,' but first we need to talk about common documents we can finalize in such a meeting,' she said. 'And we'll find ourselves in the same situation as before the Alaska summit.' Write to Thomas Grove at and Matthew Luxmoore at Putin Calls Zelensky the West's Illegitimate Puppet. Can He Talk Peace With Him?