Haberman warns Democrats against pushback on Trump's DC crime claims
'I think you see that in terms of [DC] Mayor [Muriel] Bowser, how she has reacted,' Haberman, who is also a contributor to CNN, said during an appearance on the network on Tuesday. 'There is a crime problem everywhere, in multiple cities. Big cities have traditionally had crime problems.'
'There are a lot of people who feel unsafe in big cities,' she continued. 'And so if the mayor pushes back on the president, she sounds like she's not addressing concerns of constituents.'
The journalist's comments were first highlighted by Mediaite.
Trump on Monday declared a state of emergency over crime in the district, taking control of its police force and deploying National Guard troops to help law enforcement on city streets.
Bowser, a democrat, on Monday called Trump's actions 'unprecedented' and 'unsettling' but has said she welcomes help to fight crime in the district, meeting this week with Attorney General Pam Bondi about the administration's moves.
Other Democrats have vocally condemned Trump's actions, citing statistics showing crime declining in D.C. in recent years and arguing the president is overstepping his authority for political reasons.
'Violent crime in Washington, D.C. is at a thirty-year low,' House Minority Leader Hakeen Jeffries (D-N.Y.) posted on social platform X. 'Donald Trump has no basis to take over the local police department. And zero credibility on the issue of law and order. Get lost.'
Trump has suggested federal agencies and the military could also deploy to other major U.S. cities, naming Chicago, New York City and Baltimore as possible targets.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
4 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
California pushes left, Texas to the right, with US House control and Trump agenda in play
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up However, Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott is expected to call another special session to push through new maps. Democratic lawmakers vowed to take the fight to the courts. Advertisement In California, Gov. Gavin Newsom said his state will hold a Nov. 4 special election to seek approval of redrawn districts intended to give Democrats five more U.S. House seats, in a counterpunch to undercut any gains in Texas. 'We can't stand back and watch this democracy disappear district by district all across the country,' Newsom said at what amounted to a campaign kickoff rally for the as-yet unreleased maps that Democrats have been shaping behind closed doors. 'We are not bystanders in this world. We can shape the future.' Advertisement The two states have emerged as the center of a partisan turf war in the House that could spiral into other states — as well as the courts — in what amounts to a proxy war ahead of the 2026 elections. Fight has gone national Newsom's announcement Thursday marked the first time any state beyond Texas has officially waded into the mid-decade redistricting fight. The Texas plan was stalled when minority Democrats fled to Illinois, New York and Massachusetts on Aug. 3 to stop the Legislature from passing any bills. Elsewhere, leaders from red Florida to blue New York are threatening to write new maps. In Missouri, a document obtained by The Associated Press shows the state Senate received a $46,000 invoice to activate six redistricting software licenses and provide training for up to 10 staff members. Newsom encouraged other Democratic-led states to get involved. 'We need to stand up — not just California. Other blue states need to stand up,' Newsom said. House control could come down to a few seats in 2026 Republicans hold a 219-212 majority in the House, with four vacancies. New maps are typically drawn once a decade after the census is conducted. Many states, including Texas, give legislators the power to draw maps. California is among states that rely on an independent commission that is supposed to be nonpartisan. The California map would take effect only if a Republican state moves forward, and it would remain through the 2030 elections. After that, Democrats say they would return mapmaking power to the independent commission approved by voters more than a decade ago. Newsom goes to LA to launch campaign for new districts In Los Angeles, Newsom and other speakers veered from discussing the technical grist of reshaping districts — known as redistricting — and instead depicted the looming battle as a conflict with all things Trump, tying it explicitly to the fate of American democracy. Advertisement An overarching theme was the willingness to stand up to Trump, a cheer-inducing line for Democrats as the party looks to regroup from its 2024 losses. 'Donald Trump, you have poked the bear, and we will punch back,' said Newsom, a possible 2028 presidential contender. Opposition to California plan begins to take shape Some people already have said they would sue to block the effort, and influential voices including former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger may campaign against it. 'Gavin Newsom's latest stunt has nothing to do with Californians and everything to do with consolidating radical Democrat power, silencing California voters, and propping up his pathetic 2028 presidential pipe dream,' National Republican Congressional Committee spokesperson Christian Martinez said in a statement. 'Newsom's made it clear: he'll shred California's Constitution and trample over democracy — running a cynical, self-serving playbook where Californians are an afterthought and power is the only priority.' California Democrats hold 43 of the state's 52 House seats, and the state has some of the most competitive House seats. In California, lawmakers must officially declare the special election, which they plan to do next week after voting on the new maps. Democrats hold supermajorities in both chambers — enough to act without any Republican votes — and Newsom said he is not worried about winning the required support from two-thirds of lawmakers to advance the maps. Nguyễn reported from Sacramento, and Lathan from Austin, Texas. Associated Press writer David Lieb in Jefferson City, Missouri, contributed.
Boston Globe
4 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trump's ‘safe and beautiful' move against D.C. homeless camps looks like ugliness to those targeted
President Donald Trump's housecleaning started with official Washington and the denizens of its marbled buildings, back in the bureaucracy-scouring days of the Department of Government Efficiency. Now he is taking on the other side of Washington, having sent some 800 National Guard troops to help local police go after crime, grime and makeshift homeless encampments. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up First came the spring cleaning Advertisement Back in early spring, Trump's efforts upended the U.S. Institute of Peace, among other institutions and departments. On Thursday, authorities brought in an earth mover to clear out an encampment within sight of that hollowed-out institute's handsome Constitution Avenue headquarters. The mission to clean the capital of criminal elements and ragged edges comes under Trump's Making D.C. Safe and Beautiful Task Force. Some in D.C. believe a different kind of ugliness is playing out. 'From the White House, the president sees a lawless wasteland,' said leaders of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington. 'We see fellow human beings — neighbors, workers, friends and family — each made in the image of God.' Advertisement For Andrew S., 61, the ugliness came Wednesday when agents he identified as being with the federal government treated him like an eyesore. They asked him to move from his resting place along the route where Trump would be driven to the Kennedy Center. 'You have to move because you're in eyesight of the president,' Andrew, originally from Baltimore, said he was told. He added, 'I didn't really take it serious until today, but the president really doesn't want us here.' He, Ms. Jay and some others interviewed and photographed by The Associated Press declined to give their full names in the midst of the heavy law enforcement presence in Washington. Saying goodbye to his belongings At the encampment near the peace institute, a man named George, 67, walked away Thursday carrying an umbrella in one hand and a garbage bag with some of his belongings in the other. City workers put his mattress and other possessions in a garbage truck idling nearby. He waved goodbye to it. It was that kind of day for others at the same site, too. 'I have known homelessness for so long that it is part of normal life at this point,' Jesse Wall, 43, said as he cleared his belongings Thursday from the site near the peace institute. 'What are you trying to prove here?' Wall asked, as if speaking with the law. 'That you're a bully?' David Beatty, 67, had been living at that encampment for several months. On Thursday, he watched as parts of it were roped off. Beatty and others were allowed to pack up what they could before the heavy machinery cleared remaining items from the area and dumped them into trucks and receptacles. Advertisement What about the Golden Rule? He quoted a variation of the Bible's Golden Rule — 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' — and said, 'The idea that he's targeting us and persecuting us feels wrong to me.' Much of the clearing out Thursday was at the hands of local police. D.C. officials knew federal authorities would be dismantling all homeless encampments if local police didn't. Wayne Turnage, a deputy mayor, said the district has a process to do it 'the way it should be done.' The expectation was clear, if not overtly stated: Local police would go about the work in a more humane way than the feds. Jesse Rabinowitz from the National Homelessness Law Center said that, according to the briefing he received on the operation, people would be given the choice to leave or be detained at eight federal and 54 local sites. The intent, Rabinowitz said he believed, was to trash tents in the daylight (because authorities want the public to see that) and do the bulk of arrests in darkness (because they don't want that widely seen). Once penniless, he's now an advocate Born and raised in Washington, Wesley Thomas spent nearly three decades on the streets, struggling with drug addiction, until other homeless people and charitable organizations helped him get clean through therapy and back on his feet. Now he has had a place to live for eight years and works as an advocate for a nonprofit group that supported him, Miriam's Kitchen, where he's helped dozens find housing. 'The first day I was out there I was penniless, homeless, frightened, only the clothing on my back, didn't know where I was gonna sleep nor eat,' he said. 'Fortunately, there were some homeless people in the area, gave me blankets, showed me a safe place, St. John's Church, to rest my head for the night.' Advertisement St. John's is across from Lafayette Park, which is across from the White House. It is known as the Church of the Presidents, because its sanctuary has seen all presidents since James Madison in the early 1800s. Thomas wanted the public to know that most of the people being moved off are not 'uneducated, dumb or stupid,' even if they are down on their luck. 'You got doctors, lawyers, businessmen, Navy SEALs, veterans, mailmen,' he said. 'Poor people come in all races, ethnicities and colors.' Kinnard reported from South Carolina. Associated Press journalist River Zhang contributed reporting.
Boston Globe
4 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trump and Putin to meet in Alaska for high-stakes summit on Russia-Ukraine war
Advertisement There are significant risks for Trump. By bringing Putin onto U.S. soil, the president is giving Russia's leader the validation he desires after his ostracization following his invasion of Ukraine 3 1/2 years ago. The exclusion of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy from the summit also deals a heavy blow to the West's policy of 'nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine' and invites the possibility that Trump could agree to a deal that Ukraine does not want. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Any success is far from assured, especially as Russia and Ukraine remain far apart in their demands for peace. Putin has long resisted any temporary ceasefire, linking it to a halt in Western arms supplies and a freeze on Ukraine's mobilization efforts — conditions rejected by Kyiv and its Western allies. Advertisement Trump said that even more important than his summit with Putin would be a subsequent meeting that also includes Zelenskyy, something he suggested could even happen before he departs Alaska — a possibility that Russia hasn't agreed to. Trump said in a Fox News radio interview Thursday that he didn't know if they would get 'an immediate ceasefire' but he wanted a broad peace deal done quickly. That seemingly echoes Putin's longtime argument that Russia favors a comprehensive deal to end the fighting, reflecting its demands, not a temporary halt to hostilities. The Kremlin said Trump and Putin will first sit down for a one-on-one discussion, followed by the two delegations meeting and talks continuing over 'a working breakfast.' They are then expected to hold a joint press conference. Trump has offered shifting explanations for his meeting goals In the days leading up to the summit, set for a military base near Anchorage, Trump described it as " really a feel-out meeting." But he's also warned of 'very severe consequences' for Russia if Putin doesn't agree to end the war and said that though Putin might bully other leaders, 'He's not going to mess around with me.' Trump's repeated suggestions that a deal would likely involve 'some swapping of territories' — which disappointed Ukraine and European allies — along with his controversial history with Putin have some skeptical about what kind of agreement can be reached. Ian Kelly, a retired career foreign service officer who served as the U.S. ambassador to Georgia during the Obama and first Trump administrations, said he sees 'no upside for the U.S., only an upside for Putin.' 'The best that can happen is nothing, and the worst that can happen is that Putin entices Trump into putting more pressure on Zelenskyy,' Kelly said. Advertisement George Beebe, the former director of the CIA's Russia analysis team who is now affiliated with the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, said there's a serious risk of blown expectations or misunderstandings for a high-level summit pulled together so quickly. 'That said, I doubt President Trump would be going into a meeting like this unless there had been enough work done behind the scenes for him to feel that there is a decent chance that something concrete will come out of it,' Beebe said. Zelenskyy has time and again cast doubts on Putin's willingness to negotiate in good faith. His European allies, who've held increasingly urgent meetings with U.S. leaders over the past week, have stressed the need for Ukraine to be involved in any peace talks. Political commentators in Moscow, meanwhile, have relished that the summit leaves Ukraine and its European allies on the sidelines. Dmitry Suslov, a pro-Kremlin voice, expressed hope that the summit will 'deepen a trans-Atlantic rift and weaken Europe's position as the toughest enemy of Russia.' European leaders who consulted with Trump this week said the president assured them he would prioritize trying to achieve a ceasefire. The summit could have far-reaching implications Foreign governments will be watching closely to see how Trump reacts to Putin, likely gauging what the interaction might mean for their own dealings with the U.S. president, who has eschewed traditional diplomacy for his own transactional approach to relationships. The meeting comes as the war has caused heavy losses on both sides and drained resources. Ukraine has held on far longer than some initially expected since the February 2022 invasion, but it is straining to hold off Russia's much larger army, grappling with bombardments of its cities and fighting for every inch on the over 600-mile (1,000-kilometer) front line. Advertisement Andrea Kendall-Taylor, a senior fellow and director of the Transatlantic Security Program at the Center for a New American Security, said U.S. antagonists like China, Iran and North Korea will be paying attention to Trump's posture to see 'whether or not the threats that he continues to make against Putin are indeed credible.' 'Or, if has been the past track record, he continues to back down and look for ways to wiggle out of the kind of threats and pressure he has promised to apply,' said Kendall-Taylor, who is also a former senior intelligence officer. While some have objected to the location of the summit, Trump has said he thought it was 'very respectful' of Putin to come to the U.S. instead of a meeting in Russia. Sergei Markov, a pro-Kremlin Moscow-based analyst, observed that the choice of Alaska as the summit's venue 'underlined the distancing from Europe and Ukraine.' Being on a military base allows the leaders to avoid protests and meet more securely, but the location carries its own significance because of its history and location. Alaska, which the U.S. purchased from Russia in 1867, is separated from Russia at its closest point by just 3 miles (less than 5 kilometers) and the international date line. Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson was crucial to countering the Soviet Union during the Cold War. It continues to play a role today, as planes from the base still intercept Russian aircraft that regularly fly into U.S. airspace. Weissert reported from Washington. Associated Press writers Matthew Lee in Washington and Vladimir Isachenkov in Moscow contributed to this report. Advertisement
