Trump threatens takeover of Washington to fight crime
"We have a capital that's very unsafe," Trump told reporters at the White House. "We have to run DC. This has to be the best-run place in the country." Trump, who has threatened a federal takeover of the city multiple times, renewed those threats after a young staffer who was part of Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency was assaulted over the weekend.
Musk , the billionaire former adviser to Trump who once spearheaded the DOGE effort, said the man was beaten and received a concussion. "It is time to federalize DC," he wrote.
Asked if he was considering taking over the Washington police, Trump responded affirmatively.
"We just almost lost a young man, beautiful handsome guy that got the hell knocked out of him," Trump said.
The president posted a picture of the victim, Edward Coristine, known by the nickname "Big Balls," on social media, with blood on his face, arms, torso and legs.
"We're going to beautify the city. We're going to make it beautiful. And what a shame, the rate of crime, the rate of muggings, killings and everything else. We're not going to let it. And that includes bringing in the National Guard, maybe very quickly, too," Trump said.
A spokesperson for Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser declined to comment.
Violent crime in the first seven months of 2025 was down by 26 percent in Washington compared to last year while overall crime was down about 7 percent, according to records on the police department's website.
Overall crime was down 15 percent in 2024, compared to 2023, the website showed.
The District of Columbia was established in 1790 with land from neighboring Virginia and Maryland. Congress has control of its budget, but resident voters elect a mayor and city council, thanks to a law known as the Home Rule Act. For Trump to take over the city, Congress likely would have to pass a law revoking that act, which Trump would have to sign.
The president said on Wednesday that lawyers were already looking at overturning the Home Rule Act.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
![[Mohammad Hosseini] Dangers of White House AI plan](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwimg.heraldcorp.com%2Fnews%2Fcms%2F2025%2F08%2F10%2Fnews-p.v1.20250810.90387f8575894fad8521f3bf1516bf2e_T1.jpg&w=3840&q=100)
![[Mohammad Hosseini] Dangers of White House AI plan](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fall-logos-bucket.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fkoreaherald.com.png&w=48&q=75){kind=small}
Korea Herald
3 hours ago
- Korea Herald
[Mohammad Hosseini] Dangers of White House AI plan
'America's AI Action Plan,' unveiled by the White House on July 23, aims to accelerate the innovation of artificial intelligence by dismantling regulations and privatizing infrastructure. What the plan does is conflate innovation with deregulation and frame AI as a race to be won rather than a technology to be governed. US President Donald Trump signed three executive orders to ensure that the federal government approves data centers as quickly as possible, promote the exporting of AI models for the sake of American dominance, and guarantee that federally supported AI systems are 'ideologically neutral' and reject 'wokeism and critical race theory.' In its 24 pages, the plan does not mention 'ethics' at all and cites 'responsibility' once, in the context of securing AI systems against adversarial attacks. The 'Build World-Class Scientific Datasets' section is the only part of the action plan that explicitly mentions human rights: 'The United States must lead the creation of the world's largest and highest quality AI-ready scientific datasets, while maintaining respect for individual rights and ensuring civil liberties, privacy, and confidentiality protections.' However, without protection measures, there is no encouragement for responsible use and deployment. For example, the plan prioritizes a narrow interpretation of national security without addressing critical ethical needs such as the protection of vulnerable populations, children, neurodivergent individuals and minorities — issues that the European Union AI Act addresses. And the plan's only nod to misinformation is framed as a free speech issue. Instead of trying to address it, the plan suggests that references to it should be eliminated: 'Revise the NIST AI Risk Management Framework to eliminate references to misinformation, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, and climate change.' Placing misinformation, DEI and climate change in one bucket suggests that these very different things can be treated the same way. The implications of this policy include that Google search, now enabled by AI, might censor references to these topics. The plan also contains significant accountability gaps. By rejecting 'onerous regulation,' the administration effectively green-lights opaque AI systems, prioritizing deregulation over transparency. It does not incentivize processes to help us understand the results produced by AI, enforceable standards or oversight mechanisms. For example, when AI systems discriminate in hiring or health care, there is no clear answer to questions such as: How did this happen? Who is responsible? And how can we prevent this in the future? The plan delegates oversight to private corporations, relying on self-policing as a substitute for governance. This hands-off approach mirrors a broader deregulatory playbook: During a May 8 Senate hearing led by US Sen. Ted Cruz, the Republican from Texas hailed 'a light-touch regulatory style' as a key strategy. This approach to data governance also raises serious concerns about fairness. While it calls 'open-weight' and 'open-source' AI the engines of innovation, it mandates that federally funded researchers must disclose 'non-proprietary, non-sensitive datasets' used in AI research. This creates a double standard: Academic researchers and institutions should share data in the name of transparency, while private corporations are free to hoard proprietary datasets in their ever-expanding data centers. The result is an ecosystem in which public research fuels private profit, reinforcing the dominance of tech giants. Indeed, rather than leveling the playing field, the plan risks entrenching imbalances in access, ownership, possession and control over the data that powers AI. Furthermore, by ignoring copyright, the plan invites the unchecked scraping of creative and scientific work, which risks normalizing extracting data without attribution and creating a chilling effect on open scholarship. Researchers might ask themselves: Why publish clean and reusable data if it becomes free training material for for-profit companies such as Meta or OpenAI? During his introductory remarks at a White House AI summit, Trump provided the rationale: 'You can't be expected to have a successful AI program when every single article, book or anything else that you've read or studied, you're supposed to pay for.' However, before the recent wave of deregulation, AI companies had begun forming licensing agreements with publishers. For instance, OpenAI's two-year agreement with The Associated Press, signed in 2023, showed that publishers could license high-quality, fact-checked archives for training purposes and also allow their content to be displayed with proper attribution in AI-generated outputs. Without a doubt, the plan can turbocharge corporate American AI — but likely at the expense of the democratic values the US has long worked to uphold. The document positions AI as a tool of national self-interest and a driver of global divides. While Americans have the right to want to win the AI race, the greater danger is that they might win it on terms that erode the very values the nation has for so long declared to defend. Mohammad Hosseini, Ph.D., is an assistant professor in the Department of Preventive Medicine at Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine. He wrote this for the Chicago Tribune. The views expressed here are the writer's own. -- Ed.
![[Lee Kyong-hee] Alliance for NE Asia nuclear-weapon-free zone](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwimg.heraldcorp.com%2Fnews%2Fcms%2F2025%2F08%2F10%2Fnews-p.v1.20250810.2f91038fbc774aa2806d7111cc6e5872_T1.jpg&w=3840&q=100)
Korea Herald
3 hours ago
- Korea Herald
[Lee Kyong-hee] Alliance for NE Asia nuclear-weapon-free zone
Eighty years since a nuclear Armageddon leveled two Japanese cities, ending the bloodiest armed conflict in history, nuclear anxiety is rising in this region. At the crux of this paradoxical security dilemma is the Korean Peninsula, with no end in sight to its division, imposed by the Allies upon their victory. North Korea continues to expand its nuclear stockpile as a de facto nuclear power, and big-power rivalries intensify to reshape the geopolitical landscape. North Korea's nuclear and missile capability poses a major security threat in the region and beyond, with cross-border dialogue frozen for years, deepening security concerns. Successive administrations in Seoul and Washington have tried to curb Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions over the past three decades, but to no avail. Negotiations for denuclearization fell apart, with the three stakeholders aiming for different goals. The Joint Declaration of the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, signed by both Koreas in 1992, says they 'shall not test, manufacture, produce, receive, possess, store, deploy or use nuclear weapons, and shall use nuclear energy solely for peaceful purposes.' A perfect description of denuclearization at that time, the document has a critical shortfall: It regards denuclearization as business between the two Koreas, whereas the United States would be the real party in any strategic conversation with the North. In February 2019, US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un met in Hanoi amid fanfare. Hampering their second summit were incompatible notions of what 'complete denuclearization' meant, and what sanctions would be lifted as a reward. The historic summit was cut short with 'no deal.' As the dialogue for denuclearization at the government level faltered, oftentimes due to the conflicting policies of South Korean and US administrations, the civil society movements toward establishing a 'Northeast Asia nuclear-weapon-free zone,' or NWFZ, have also failed to gain traction. Still, the momentum of such movements survives among the civic and academic communities, especially those advocating for peace on the peninsula and in the region. Unlike a bilateral agreement, the treaty for an NWFZ constitutes a legally binding multilateral mechanism. It prohibits the acquisition, possession, placement, testing and use of nuclear weapons. Under the treaty, signatories already armed with nuclear weapons would promise not to use or threaten to use them against any other state in the zone. Within the Northeast Asia framework, it would involve six countries — the two Koreas, Japan, the US, China and Russia — in a shared approach to global nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. The UN Disarmament Commission provides a set of principles and guidelines for the establishment of an NWFZ. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, in Article VII, says, 'Nothing in this Treaty affects the right of any group of States to conclude regional treaties in order to assure the total absence of nuclear weapons in their respective territories.' Currently, 115 countries belong to six NWFZs, covering most of the Global South. They include Latin America and the Caribbean, the South Pacific, Southeast Asia, Africa, Central Asia and Mongolia. While the existing NWFZs can be guidance for creating and operating a new zone in Northeast Asia, the unique circumstances surrounding the Korean Peninsula will present unprecedented challenges. A peace regime on the peninsula will be a prerequisite, which will only be attainable when North Korea is given security assurances that pacify its fear of US deterrence. It appears to be the right time, with the Lee Jae Myung administration pursuing dialogue and reconciliation with the North. In his summit with Trump, reportedly scheduled for later this month, Lee may put all necessary matters on the table to redraw the security map around the peninsula for a permanent peace regime. What is noteworthy about the movements for a 'Northeast Asia free from fears of nuclear war' is that they are based on alliances between South Korean and Japanese civic groups. It appeals as a strength this particular year, marking the 80th anniversary of the atomic bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki on Aug. 6 and 9, 1945, respectively, which led to Japan's surrender and Korea's liberation from Japanese rule. Northeast Asia is the sole region of the world to have suffered the atrocity of nuclear warfare, and Koreans, alongside the Japanese, experienced its cataclysmic destruction. In Hiroshima and Nagasaki, some 210,000 people are known to have died by the year's end. According to separate statistics announced by an association of Korean victims, some 40,000 Koreans died, most of them mobilized for wartime forced labor. Numbers don't tell everything, though. 'Real war is hell. And the atomic bomb — what poetry could capture that? What painting, what song, what novel? Nothing,' wrote Takashi Nagai, a radiologist at Nagasaki Medical University and survivor of the bombing, in his 1949 book, 'The Bells of Nagasaki,' which is recognized as one of the most powerful testaments to nuclear horror. Nagai goes on, 'It was a silent, apocalyptic force, flattening everything like a roller over an anthill. There's no beauty. No honor. Just death. Oh mankind, plan no more wars. With the atomic bomb, war is suicide.'
Korea Herald
a day ago
- Korea Herald
US officials considered demanding Korea raise defense spending to 3.8% of GDP in tariff talks: report
Officials of US President Donald Trump's administration considered demanding that South Korea raise its defense spending to 3.8 percent of its gross domestic product during tariff negotiations, a news report said Saturday, citing internal US government documents. US officials also weighed the idea of requiring South Korea to publicly support operational flexibility of the US Forces Korea to better deter China, The Washington Post reported, though it is not clear whether their suggestions were actually discussed in the negotiations with South Korea that were concluded last month. The documents indicated that the Trump's administration might intend to use tariffs to help achieve a range of national security goals beyond its stated objective to reduce America's trade deficits and boost domestic manufacturing, the newspaper noted. "The US also wanted Seoul to boost defense spending to 3.8 percent of GDP, up from 2.6 percent last year, and to increase its $1 billion-plus contribution to cover the annual costs of basing the roughly 28,500 US troops in South Korea," the newspaper said. It also cited an early draft of a "US-Korea agreement," which suggested, "The South Korean government should be urged to endorse a change in the positioning of US troops stationed there under the United States Forces Korea command." Moreover, the document included a requirement that "Korea will issue a political statement supporting flexibility for USFK force posture to better deter China while continuing to deter (North Korea)." Pressure has been building on Korea to boost its defense spending, as the Pentagon has said that Korea and other Asian allies are subject to the "global standard" of spending 5 percent of their GDP, amid expectations that Trump might demand a hefty rise in Seoul's share of the cost for stationing USFK. South Korea's defense budget this year stands at around 61.2 trillion won ($44.2 billion), which is about 2.32 percent of its GDP, according to Seoul's defense ministry. Speculation has also persisted that the Trump administration might seek greater strategic flexibility of American troops in South Korea, as the Pentagon seeks allies' greater "burden-sharing" and prioritizes deterring an increasingly assertive China. Strategic flexibility is a hotly debated issue that resurfaced as Seoul and Washington are envisioning the "modernization" of their alliance. It refers to the use of US troops in South Korea for a wider range of expeditionary operations, including roles for China-related contingencies -- a move further away from their traditional dedication to deterring North Korean threats. The issues of Korea's defense spending and the operational scope of USFK could be topics for the summit between South Korean President Lee Jae Myung and Trump, which is expected to take place later this month, as Seoul and Washington are working on shaping the summit agenda and other details. (Yonhap)
