&w=3840&q=100)
National Guard moves into DC as Trump's law-and-order push sparks backlash from mayors
Troops load boxes of rifle ammunition at the District of Columbia National Guard Headquarters as President Donald Trump implements his order to use federal law enforcement and the National Guard to expel homeless people and rid the nation's capital of violent crime, in Washington, on Tuesday. AP
As National Guard troops were deployed to Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser pledged cooperation with federal authorities, underscoring the collaboration despite Democratic peers calling the move a dangerous overreach of law-and-order powers.
This security surge comes after President Donald Trump's directive to activate federal forces and exert control over local law enforcement, despite D.C. experiencing its lowest violent crime rate in three decades.
'I won't go into the details of our operational plan at this point but you will see the Metropolitan police department (MPD) working side by side with our federal partners in order to enforce the effort that we need around the city,' The Guardian quoted Bowser as telling reporters after a meeting with the attorney general, Pam Bondi, at the justice department.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Since Trump's return to power in January, Bowser has maintained a careful working relationship with the administration, steering clear of direct confrontations. On Tuesday, she struck a conciliatory tone, saying she would focus on using the additional federal resources to combat crime effectively.
'What I'm focused on is the federal surge and how to make the most of the additional officer support that we have,' The Guardian quoted her as saying.
'We have the best in the business at MPD and chief Pamela Smith to lead that effort and to make sure that the men and women who are coming from federal law enforcement are being well used and that, if there is national guard here, that they're being well used and all in an effort to drive down crime.
'So, how we got here or what we think about the circumstances right now, we have more police and we want to make sure we're using them,' she added.
In contrast, several Democratic mayors across the country have taken a sharper stance, warning Trump against extending what they describe as a law-and-order power grab to other major cities.
On Monday, Trump escalated his criticism of Democratic-led cities, telling reporters: 'We have other cities also that are bad,' specifically naming Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Baltimore, and Oakland.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
'You don't even mention them any more, they're so far gone," he added.
The next day, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller intensified the rhetoric, tweeting — without offering evidence — that crime statistics in large Democratic cities are 'fake' and that the actual levels of 'crime, chaos & dysfunction' are far worse.
'Democrats are trying to unravel civilization,' Miller wrote, adding, 'Pres Trump will save it.'
All five cities singled out by Trump are led by Black mayors, most of whom strongly condemned the president's actions.
'Sending in the national guard would only serve to destabilise our city and undermine our public safety efforts,' Brandon Johnson, Chicago's mayor, was quoted as saying in a statement.
Brandon Scott, the mayor of Baltimore, said: 'When it comes to public safety in Baltimore, he should turn off the rightwing propaganda and look at the facts. Baltimore is the safest it's been in over 50 years.'
Barbara Lee, the mayor of Oakland, wrote on X: 'President Trump's characterization of Oakland is wrong and based in fear-mongering in an attempt to score cheap political points.'
Karen Bass, the mayor of Los Angeles, where troops were sent earlier this month in a crackdown on protests, posted: 'Another experiment by the Administration, another power grab from local government. This is performative. This is a stunt. It always has been and always will be.'
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
With inputs from agencies
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
18 minutes ago
- Indian Express
When US bought Alaska for $7.2 million and why Trump and Putin's meeting revives the story
When Donald Trump said on Monday that he would meet his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin 'in Russia' this Friday, it sounded like another of the US President's verbal slips. But 158 years ago, he would have been right. Alaska, with its onion-domed churches, fur trade legacy and once Russian-named capital Novo-Arkhangelsk, was part of the Tsar's empire until 1867, when it was sold to the United States for just $7.2 million. The deal was mocked by Washington and mourned in St Petersburg, only to become one of history's most spectacular bargains. As Putin prepares to land in Alaska this week, traces of Russia's past are still visible. From the wild, rugged shores of Baranof Island to Anchorage's Orthodox churches, the legacy endures. In Sitka, the green dome of St Michael's Cathedral rises against a backdrop of glaciers, still standing on the same spot where it was built more than 150 years ago. Russia's presence in Alaska began with fur traders, not armies. In the mid-18th century, merchants and adventurers pushed east across Siberia in search of lucrative sea otter pelts. By the 1780s, Catherine the Great had authorised the creation of the Russian-American Company, granting it a monopoly over trade and governance in the territory. Alexander Baranov, a merchant, tightened Russia's grip in the late 18th century, expanding settlements and crushing native resistance, most famously from the Tlingit, who called him 'No Heart.' Russian Orthodox priests soon followed, building missions and churches. By the mid-19th century, the Russian empire saw Alaska as more liability than prize. The Crimean war had weakened the empire financially, and the growing reach of Britain's navy in the Pacific heightened fears that Alaska could be seized in a future conflict. As per a report by The Guardian, in July 1867, Eduard de Stoeckl, Russia's envoy in Washington and chief negotiator of the sale, confided to a friend: 'My treaty has met with strong opposition … but this stems from the fact that no one at home has any idea of the true condition of our colonies. It was simply a matter of selling them, or watching them being taken from.' The sale was intended as a diplomatic win for both sides. Russia gained much-needed cash and a potential ally across the Atlantic while avoiding a clash with Britain. The US acquired new territory that would push back European influence and extend its reach into the Pacific. At the time, neither country celebrated the deal as a triumph. In St Petersburg, many believed the price was insultingly low. As per a report by The Guardian, the liberal newspaper Golos condemned it as 'deeply angering all true Russians' and asked, 'Is the nation's sense of pride truly so unworthy of attention that it can be sacrificed for a mere six or seven million dollar[s]?' In the US, Secretary of State William H Seward, who negotiated the treaty, was ridiculed for spending what critics considered a fortune on an icy wilderness. The New-York Daily Tribune as per The Guardian, dismissed Alaska as 'the nominal possession of impassable deserts of snow' and wrote, 'We may make a treaty with Russia … but we cannot make a treaty with the North Wind or the Snow King.' Some suspected Russia had sold land of little value. 'Russia has sold us a sucked orange. Whatever may be the value of that territory and its outlying islands to us, it has ceased to be of any to Russia,' the New York World wrote on 1 April 1867. Within decades, those doubts vanished. Gold rushes in the late 19th century and the discovery of vast oilfields in the 20th century turned Alaska into one of America's most resource-rich territories. What critics once called Seward's folly became a symbol of strategic foresight. Yet the sale price remained a sore point in Russian memory. In 1974, during American protests over the low price the USSR paid for wheat, Soviet trade official Vladimir Alkimov drily noted that Alaska had been sold for only $7 million. In 1867, the deal briefly opened a period of warmth between Russia and the United States. The New York Herald wrote that 'the cession of Russian Alaska becomes a matter of great importance. It indicates the extent to which Russia is ready to carry out her entente cordiale with the United States.' That goodwill reached its peak in 1871 when Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich visited New York with a naval squadron, receiving parades, receptions and civic honours. When Trump and Putin meet in Alaska this week, the historical parallels will be hard to ignore. For Ukraine, the hope is that any renewed warmth between Washington and Moscow will not come at the expense of another nation's territory, and that the days of trading land like currency in great power deals remain firmly in the past. (With inputs from The Guardian)
The Hindu
18 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Russia makes biggest 24-hour Ukraine advance in over a year
The Russian Army made its biggest 24-hour advance into Ukraine in over a year on Tuesday (August 12, 2025) just ahead of the Trump-Putin summit, according to an AFP analysis of data from the U.S.-based Institute for the Study of War. The Russian Army took or claimed 110 square kilometres (42.5 square miles) on August 12 compared to the previous day. It was the most since late May 2024. In recent months, Moscow has typically taken five or six days to progress at such a pace, although Russian advances have accelerated in recent weeks. The U.S. and Russian presidents, Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, are to meet in Alaska on Friday. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky acknowledged Tuesday that Russian troops had advanced by up to 10 kilometres (six miles) near the eastern coal mining town of Dobropillia, but that Kyiv would soon "destroy them." Russia said Wednesday that it had taken two villages close to Dobropillia. About 70% of Russia's advances in Ukraine so far this year are in the Donetsk region in eastern Ukraine, which the Kremlin claimed to have annexed in September 2022. As of August 12, Moscow controlled or claimed to control 79 percent of the region, up from 62 percent a year ago. The Russian Army has also been attempting to seize the mining town of Pokrovsk for more than 18 months, following its capture of Bakhmut in May 2023. The last two major cities held by Kyiv in the region are also at risk. They are Sloviansk and Kramatorsk, which is an important logistical hub for the front. Russian progress in Ukraine has accelerated every month since April. Between August 12, 2024 and August 12, 2025, the Russian army captured more than 6,100 square kilometres, four times more than the previous year, according to the AFP analysis of the institute's data. However, these Russian advances account for less than 1 percent of pre-war Ukraine's territory, including Crimea and Donbass. Russia currently has full or partial control over 19 percent of Ukrainian territory.
The Hindu
18 minutes ago
- The Hindu
U.S. to probe Smithsonian museums to remove 'partisan narratives'
U.S. President Donald Trump's administration said on Tuesday (August 12, 2025) it had ordered a sweeping review of some Smithsonian museums to ensure their exhibitions laud American exceptionalism and "remove divisive or partisan narratives." Mr. Trump has moved to assert control over major American cultural institutions since starting his second term in January, while also slashing arts and humanities funding. The Smithsonian is one of America's most hallowed institutions, with its vast network of museums boasting tens of millions of artifacts for public display. A letter to the institution's secretary Lonnie Bunch, published on the White House website on Tuesday, said the administration would carry out a "comprehensive internal review of selected Smithsonian museums and exhibitions." "This initiative aims to ensure alignment with the President's directive to celebrate American exceptionalism, remove divisive or partisan narratives, and restore confidence in our shared cultural institutions," said the letter, signed by three senior White House officials. It will target eight major museums, including the National Museum of American History, the National Museum of African American History and Culture, and the National Museum of the American Indian, the letter said. The review aims to assess "tone, historical framing, and alignment with American ideals" across exhibitions, educational materials and digital content ahead of the 250th anniversary of the nation's founding next year. The Smithsonian's National Museum of American History removed last month a label referring to Trump's two impeachments, a move its parent institution later denied came under White House pressure. The review requires that the museums submit extensive documentation -- including exhibition plans, wall text, educational materials, grant information and internal guidelines -- within 30 days. The Smithsonian did not respond immediately to AFP's request for comment. It said in a statement to The New York Times that its "work is grounded in a deep commitment to scholarly excellence, rigorous research and the accurate, factual presentation of history." "We are reviewing the letter with this commitment in mind... and will continue to collaborate constructively with the White House, Congress and our governing Board of Regents," it said.
