White House touts D.C. crackdown; no timeline on National Guard deployment
'At the direction of POTUS, our nation's capital is a SAFER place – and we are just getting started,' U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi posted to X.
The attorney general said that since the operation began on Aug. 11, law enforcement officials have made 465 arrests, adding that 'nearly half' of the 'arrests have occurred in the high-crime areas' of the district.
The D.C. Police Union has calculated major decreases in crimes since 'Liberation Day,' including 83% drops in carjackings, 46% decreases in robberies, 22% drops in violent crime, 21% decreases in car theft, and 6% drops in property crime. The group adds that there has been an 8% reduction in crime overall.
The group argues for a long-term solution that would require repealing 'the misguided Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Act to make these changes permanent.'
The figures come on the heels of Republican governors announcing deployments of additional National Guardsmen to the district.
Trump initially announced that 800 National Guardsmen from D.C. would be deployed to patrol the district streets. Now, governors from Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio, South Carolina and Tennessee will send more than 1,100 guardsmen to the district. To be sure, the federal government will be flipping the bill for the deployments.
During a Tuesday afternoon White House briefing, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters that there is currently no timeline for how long the National Guard may be deployed to the district.
More unknowns remain; specifically, how much taxpayers can expect to dole out for the deployment of troops.
'We won't know the cost until the mission concludes. We have nothing more to provide currently,' a defense official told The Center Square.
Lodging per diem rates for the District of Columbia are $183 per night and $92 a day for meals and incidentals.
Using those figures, it would cost taxpayers roughly $11 million to house approximately 2,000 troops for 30 days and over $5 million for food and incidentals.
For reference, following the 2021 U.S. Capitol riots, 26,000 National Guard troops were deployed to the nation's capital, and the U.S. military secured nearly $500 million to cover the costs. All remaining troops, which were significantly reduced by March 2021, were eventually withdrawn by May 2021.
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
11 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Here's why you don't want the Trump administration to buy stock in Intel
Back in 1935, the drafters of Social Security told Congress of their plans to build up a government pension reserve that would reach $47 billion. The number shocked lawmakers. It was nearly three times the outstanding federal debt of the time. 'What in heaven's name are you going to do with $47 billion?' Sen. Arthur Vandenberg, Republican of Michigan, asked Arthur Altmeyer, one of the drafters. 'You could invest it in U.S. Steel and some of the large corporations,' Altmeyer suggested. Vandenberg threw up his hands in horror. 'That would be socialism!' he exclaimed. Yet the idea of federal government investments in public corporation stock has never died. It walks among us like a zombie today, with the Trump administration talking about taking a 10% ownership stake in the chipmaker Intel and musing about creating a sovereign wealth fund akin to those established by Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Norway and other countries. Here's what history tells us about the virtues of this idea for the United States: There aren't any. Such funds 'usually reflect the quality of governance of the states that sponsor them,' observed Steven Feldstein and Jodi Vittori of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in April. 'Considering the Trump administration's self-dealing and erosion of accountability, there is an acute risk that the U.S. SWF could become a source of graft to reward Trump's friends, coerce political support for his priorities and bring personal enrichment.' Leaving aside the quality of governance in Trump's White House or legislators' fears of 'socialism,' the idea of federal investment in public companies has never found lasting favor on Capitol Hill, for it has been almost impossible for lawmakers to overcome the touchy economic, political and philosophical issues. A federal fund with the authority to purchase corporate stock would be one of the largest and most potent investors in the market. As I wrote in 2005, when the idea of allowing Social Security to invest its trust fund in equities was under consideration again, the potential for conflicts of interest is inescapable. The government might be a major shareholder in a corporation it was prosecuting for criminal activity. The government might end up on one side of an international issue as a member of a coalition of nations, and on the opposite side as a shareholder. Its financial interests might stand in opposition to its social interests: In his 1999 State of the Union message, for example, President Clinton simultaneously threatened to sue the tobacco industry over its threat to public health, and advocated allowing Social Security to invest in all equities — tobacco included. In 1935, Congress addressed the conundrum by mandating that the Social Security Administration invest its reserves only in U.S. Treasury securities, a rule that exists to this day. Social Security's would-be reformers periodically revive proposals to shift some of the program's trust fund — which held more than $2.7 trillion in treasuries at the end of last year — into equities, pointing to their superior long-term returns compared with bonds. But those efforts have never come to fruition. The federal government taking an equity stake in a public company wouldn't be unprecedented. In 2009, the Obama administration acquired a 60.8% ownership of General Motors in return for almost $50 billion in bailout funds. The government also acquired a smaller stake in Chrysler, which was subsequently sold to Fiat. The government sold the last of its GM holdings in 2013, booking a direct loss of about $10.5 billion. But its bailout has been deemed a success, given that it saved as many as 1.9 million jobs at GM, Chrysler and their suppliers. The auto bailouts were emergency initiatives, taken to stave off what was shaping up as the auto industry's imminent collapse. Obama made clear that these were temporary measures and that the government would sell off its stockholdings as soon as that was practicable. The government abjured any control over GM's day-to-day operations, but it did orchestrate the exit of GM Chief Executive Rick Wagoner, oversaw the replacement of a majority of its board members and imposed compensation limits on its top executives. The auto bailouts followed numerous examples of U.S. government takeovers, or attempted takeovers, of private businesses. In 1791, Congress authorized the government to take a 20% stake in the Bank of the United States, and in 1816, to take the same stake in the Second Bank of the United States. These are seen today as precursors to the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank as a central banking authority. During the Great Depression, the Reconstruction Finance Corp., a Hoover creation that lived well into Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, took preferred shares in numerous impaired banks in return for capital infusions they needed to survive. By the end of 1935, RFC-owned preferred stock amounted to nearly 40% of total bank common stock in the United States; the RFC's hard-charging chairman, Texan Jesse Jones, was not shy about imposing 'reasonable' compensation caps on its executives or replacing them when they faltered, or prodding their managements to make loans to private borrowers, a key element of FDR's program of economic recovery. The government also exercises effective control over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two government-sponsored mortgage companies, via a conservatorship implemented in 2008, when the housing crash heralded the outset of the Great Recession. Stock in both companies remains in private hands, but warrants allow the government to acquire up to 79.9% of the common stock of each. Those warrants haven't been exercised, but they equate to firm government authority over the firms' activities. Trump's proposed Intel investment would occur in a very different economic environment and have very different features from any of those precursors. The terms of the plan have been murky. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick confirmed during an appearance on CNBC Tuesday that the government would demand Intel shares in return for the roughly $10 billion in funds allocated to Intel via the Biden-era CHIPS Act, which aimed to shore up America's position in high-tech hardware. 'We'll deliver the money, which was already committed under the Biden administration,' Lutnick said. 'We'll get equity in return for it.' He quoted Trump as saying, 'If we're going to give you the money, we want a piece of the action.' A $10-billion stake would be about 10% of Intel's shares. That would make the government the company's largest shareholder, outstripping the stakes held by institutional investors Vanguard and BlackRock. Lutnick said the government wouldn't exercise voting rights or involve itself in governance. But he didn't talk about a time-limited ownership, or specify what corporate policies the Trump administration would favor. As it happens, Trump has publicly demanded the resignation Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan, a Malaysian, over Tan's ostensible connections to China. Despite its stumbles in recent years, Intel doesn't appear to be facing extinction, as the automakers arguably did in 2008 and 2009. Nor would Intel's demise have anywhere near the impact on the U.S. economy that a GM collapse might have had amid the Great Recession. Once the linchpin of the high-tech boom of the 1990s, Intel has plainly lost its mojo. As my colleague Queenie Wong reported, its strategic blunders have included missing out on the artificial intelligence investment boom that has made Nvidia, the maker of chips for AI development, a darling of today's stock market. Intel hasn't commented on the White House's interest in taking an equity stake, but Intel investors don't appear to know what to make of the idea. Shares in the company gained about 7% on Aug. 19, after Bloomberg first reported on the possibility, but have since fallen back, despite news that the Japanese investment firm SoftBank would take a $2-billion stake in the company. Intel shares fell 7% Wednesday in Nasdaq trading, closing at $23.54, a hair below their price prior to the Bloomberg report. Whether Trump could resist jawboning Intel, or any other companies in which the government holds shares, into instituting policies he favors is doubtful. He has frequently tried to exert pressure on CEOs of companies in which the government has no ownership, after all. That concern would be heightened if the administration has control over a sovereign wealth fund. Trump aired that proposal via an executive order in February. The order called on Lutnick and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to submit a plan by the beginning of May, but none has yet surfaced. A U.S. sovereign wealth fund wouldn't be based on the same principles as those of many other such ventures. 'SWFs have traditionally been set up by states rich in natural resources to manage their budgetary surplus, diversify their economies, and protect their wealth for future generations,' observed the Carnegie Endowment's Feldstein and Vittori. That's the case with the funds of both Saudi Arabia and Norway. The U.S., however, 'doesn't have excess funds to put into a SWF,' Feldstein and Vittori write. In a fact sheet accompanying the executive order, Trump mentioned $5.7 trillion in government assets, including 'natural resource reserves.' He has also talked about profits from crypto investments and the government take from tariffs — though the latter are essentially a tax on American consumers, who might have different ideas about how to spend the money. The Carnegie researchers note that the most successful sovereign wealth funds such as Norway's 'maintain operational independence and make investments based on rigorous financial criteria.' Neither quality is a hallmark of the Trump administration. Feldstein and Vittori point out that by building a U.S. fund via tariff income or income from Trump's 'gold card' proposal, which would give rich foreigners the right to live in the U.S. for a $5-million fee, might allow Trump to evade Congress's constitutional monopoly on raising and spending money and even allow him to manage the fund behind closed doors. Still, it would be up to Congress to establish the fund and oversee its operations. Will the lawmakers accept their responsibility? If not, Trump's idea is a dangerous one. 'Giving a president who aspires to be a king a potent financial weapon with ill-defined purposes and methods,' Feldstein and Vittori write, 'presents a grave risk to American democracy.'
CNN
12 minutes ago
- CNN
Trump's federal takeover is disrupting Washington, DC's ailing economy
Business has never been this slow for Jovan Richards, who sells shirts, hats and souvenirs emblazoned with the likeness of the nation's capital. Every day for the past four years, Richards and her husband have set up a table to sell merchandise near the Washington Monument. Richards, 56, said she made made less than $100 in sales last week, when President Donald Trump announced plans for a federal takeover of the city's police force. On a good day of sales, she typically makes around $1,500. 'I'm not making any money, so I'm just sitting here wasting my time,' Richards told CNN on Sunday. Federal troops have descended near tourist attractions and bustling neighborhoods in Washington, DC, on Trump's command to crack down on crime (which, according to police data, is down compared to recent years). In response, residents and visitors are hunkering down, directly cutting into the profits of businesses around the city. But the takeover could have a more severe effect on Washington's ailing economy — already strained by mass federal layoffs — if convention planners pull the plug on future events. 'If there's a perception that DC is turning into a police state, then there's going to be some hesitancy to go out and explore the city,' said Adam Kamins, director of regional economics at Moody's. 'That would be true of visitors from overseas but also of local residents who just want to steer clear of all of this.' 'But the bigger concern if this persists for longer is if conference organizers start to look elsewhere,' he added. Washington's streets have been quieter than usual over the past week. Despite Trump's claim earlier this week that DC restaurants have been 'busier than they've been in a long time,' reservations tracked by OpenTable have been down recently. On August 11, when Trump announced the takeover, seated diners dropped 16% compared to a year ago. Two days later, when troops mobilized around the city, seated diners fell 31% compared to a year ago. 'Definitely a huge drop in our weekday business, for sure,' Patrick Marshall, assistant general manager of a popular sports and betting bar in Washington, told CNN. 'We used to see huge crowds walking by, but it's just been very, very quiet. People aren't coming out like they used to.' And the takeover couldn't come at a worse time for DC restaurants. It's currently the district's annual summer 'Restaurant Week,' in which restaurants offer deals and special menus. Restaurant visits were down 22% compared to last year, as of Monday, according to OpenTable. 'We've already had a record number of restaurant closures happening this year,' said Shawn Townsend, president and CEO of the Restaurant Association of Metropolitan Washington, which organizes Restaurant Week. 'We are still grappling with pandemic-like issues that other industries have have been able to move past, and now there's this.' And it's not just restaurants. Visits at various different kinds of stores in Washington have been down over the past week, according to data provided to CNN by pass_by, a retail technology firm. In the week starting August 11, foot traffic was down about 81% of retail-store categories in Washington compared to data from a year ago, according to pass_by, with car dealerships, department stores, convenience stores and beauty-supply shops seeing some of the steepest drops. 'There are no lines on the street to get into clubs,' said Miguel Trinidade Deramo, an advisory neighborhood commissioner for a district in Northwest Washington. 'Everyday people just don't want to be out there when there are masked federal agents who refuse to identify which agency they're with.' Several DC bars have detailed in media interviews how business has tanked since Trump announced his takeover. Mark Rutstein, a co-owner of Crush Dance Bar on U Street and 14th, a hub of DC nightlife, told WUSA9 that the gay bar just had its 'worst Friday in history.' 'We lost a little more than $15,000 that night,' he said. 'Three more weeks of this? I mean, we're talking about a couple hundred grand.' Conventions play a crucial role in fueling Washington's hospitality industry, which employs tens of thousands of people. But the increased law enforcement presence has some organizers on edge. The American Chemical Society, which held its annual fall conference this week, emailed attendees about Trump's attempted takeover of the city police department, several attendees told CNN. The organization said in a statement that it was trying to offer 'clear guidance to attendees to ensure a safe, respectful, and inclusive environment.' Elliott Ferguson, president and CEO of Destination DC, the city's tourism marketing arm, said he has reached out to convention planners with upcoming events to tell them that the data doesn't back up Trump's claim that the city is experiencing a crime surge. 'Convention are extremely important because they're tied to the economics of our city,' Ferguson said. 'Now we're dealing with a depiction of Washington as a crime infested city, which is not accurate, and there was already a lot of hesitancy before that.' Saifullah Omar Nasif, a PhD student from Australia, is visiting Washington for the first time to attend the ACS conference. He told CNN that he's uneasy about the increase in police presence, planning to only stay in his hotel and attend conference sessions. 'As a foreign citizen visiting here, I don't feel comfortable roaming around,' Nasif said on Saturday at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center while picking up his badge for the conference. For now, the full economic impact of Trump's police takeover of Washington remains in up in the air. 'It's safe to say that the leisure and hospitality sector could be seeing signs of a slowdown with fewer international travelers, concerns about federal job cuts, as well as concerns about national guard personnel patrolling popular nightlife spots, but most evidence is anecdotal at best,' said Barbara Denham, a senior economist at Oxford Economics. 'But a continued or growing presence of (law enforcement) personnel could hurt the sector if they were to stay through the busier fall season when Congress is back in session and business travel resumes,' she added. CNN's Brian Todd contributed reporting.
Fox News
12 minutes ago
- Fox News
The President's Plan to Ban 'Debanking'
President Donald Trump wants to put an end to 'debanking,' the practice of closing accounts or denying services based on political beliefs. The president claims it has happened to him, his family, and other conservatives who suddenly lost access to financial services. FOX Business Network's Brian Brenberg, co-host of The Big Money Show, joins the Rundown to break down what 'debanking' is, reports that bank executives were pressured by Democrats to target certain businesses and industries, and what the president is doing to try to stop it. This week, thirty alleged members of the violent Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang and their associates were charged by a federal grand jury in Colorado in two separate indictments. This followed a nine-month investigation involving local police, the FBI, the DEA, and the ATF. The charges include murder-for-hire, drug trafficking, and firearms offenses. ATF Special Agent in Charge for the Denver Division, Brent Beavers, discusses the investigation. Then, Aurora City Councilwoman Danielle Jurinsky explains how the case was politicized early on and how the Trump administration's immigration enforcement policies have impacted her community Plus, commentary from the host of FOX Across America and FOX News Saturday Night, Jimmy Failla. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit
