Trump claims Washington's murder rate is higher than Bogotá or Mexico City. Here's what the stats from those countries say
During a press conference on Monday, Trump announced that he would place the Metropolitan Police Department 'under direct federal control' and deploy 800 National Guard troops in an effort to 'take back the city.'
'The murder rate in Washington today is higher than that of Bogotá, Colombia; Mexico City, or some of the places that you hear about as being the worst places on Earth. It's much higher,' Trump said.
Trump said the move to 'liberate' Washington was part of a broader initiative to 'take back control' of cities he said were threatened by violence.
'All is double or triple, so you want to live in places like that? I don't think so,' the president said, referring to the fact that Washington surpasses Latin American cities like Brasilia, Panama City, and San José in homicide rates.
Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser called Trump's decision to place the Metropolitan Police Department under federal control and deploy the National Guard 'alarming and unprecedented.' While she said she wasn't entirely surprised, she warned in a press conference that she would not 'minimize the intrusion on the autonomy' of the city.
Bowser also assured residents that the local government continues to operate 'in a way that makes citizens proud' and has since met with Attorney General Pam Bondi, who, according to the executive order, will have the authority delegated by Trump to coordinate actions with the city. The mayor also clarified that 'nothing has changed' in the Metropolitan Police Department's organizational chart.
Trump based his statements on a graph corresponding to 2024, which shows a homicide rate of 27.5 per 100,000 inhabitants in Washington, a figure that – according to him – would place it above Bogotá, Colombia (15), Panama City, Panama (15), San José, Costa Rica (13), Mexico City, Mexico (10), Lima, Peru (7.7), and Brasilia, Brazil (6.8).
Official statistics for all these cities, obtained from organizations such as Mexico's INEGI, the Public Prosecutor's Office of Panama, and the goverment of the capital of Brazil, Brasilia, among others, seem to confirm Trump's statement: Washington did surpass several Latin American capitals in the murder rate per 100,000 inhabitants in recent years, although this is only one of many other crime rates.
However, the most recent official data reflect a more nuanced picture.
According to an analysis by CNN journalist Daniel Dale, crime in Washington has declined significantly since a spike in 2023, when 274 homicides were recorded, the highest number in more than two decades.
In 2024, murders dropped to 187, and so far in 2025, they continue to decline. Data from crime expert Jeff Asher, cited by Dale, indicates that homicides in Washington fell 34% compared with 2023 through July of this year. Furthermore, the violent crime rate in 2024 was the second lowest since 1966.
A preliminary analysis by the Washington Metropolitan Police Department confirms this trend: Overall crime has also decreased so far in 2025, in line with the sustained decline seen in other major US cities, such as New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Pritzker, Klobuchar, Gallego flock to NH: Are they considering a run for president 2028?
Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Arizona, is set to visit New Hampshire Aug. 22, becoming the latest high-profile politician to fuel 2028 presidential race speculation by making a stop in the Granite State. "I'll be on the ground in New Hampshire... taking on the GOP's billionaire agenda and standing up for working families," Gallego, who was elected to the Senate last fall, said in a July 29 post on X. He follows Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, who in April caught attention for delivering a searing speech in New Hampshire aimed at 'do-nothing' Democrats, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., who in July campaigned for U.S. Senate candidate Chris Pappas. (Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., also visited New Hampshire in July, but then announced her run for South Carolina governor.) They join about a dozen Democratic politicians who have already begun to make moves seemingly towards a 2028 run. Former U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg spoke about existential questions facing Democrats and the country at a veterans-focused forum in Iowa in May, and California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Kentucky Gov Andy Beshear, and Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., have all trekked through South Carolina. Gallego's New Hampshire visit comes after he toured the Iowa State Fairgrounds on Aug. 8. He has also already visited states like Pennsylvania and Alaska. Gallego and other hopefuls are still being cagey about their intentions. (Gallego said it was "too early" to talk about 2028 in Iowa.) But they are 'testing the waters,' said Andy Smith, the Director of the University of New Hampshire Survey Center. 'And that doesn't mean the Atlantic,' said Smith. 'They're kind of brushing up their reasons to why they should be president, or should consider a run for president, and then trying those arguments out against people here in the state to go out and win an election.' Smith said that candidates often start visiting New Hampshire up to six years before the election year they're aiming for. Rather than trying to win votes, however, Smith said that the politicians are coming to the state to win the support of the people in the state that run campaigns. In New Hampshire, that would be people like Ray Buckley, the Chair of the New Hampshire Democratic Party. 'They're more likely not to try to make their events open to the public widely, because, frankly, they're not pros at this yet,' Smith said. 'This is also a chance for candidates to come up here and try out their message with some small groups of voters and work on the stuff to make it better.' According to WMUR, Gallego is expected to make a Politics & Eggs address to the New England Council, join a town hall with U.S. Rep. Maggie Goodlander and stop at a fundraiser for U.S. Rep. Chris Pappas, who is running for U.S. Senate. New Hampshire should expect to see many more candidates in the months to come, Smith said. An open primary in 2028, on both sides The shadow campaign is leading up to a race that some political observers believe will be among the Democratic party's most consequential presidential primaries in decades. It comes at a time when the 'party's brand is in the toilet,' Matthew Dallek, a historian and professor of political management at George Washington University, told USA TODAY. The party is facing abysmal approval ratings, and the only way to improve it, said Dallek, is through the next presidential nominee. "The stakes, in that sense, are higher,' Dallek said. 'It's not just the presidency. It's not just the nomination. There's a sense among Democrats that they need to do this, and there's a big debate." With no real front runner on either side, Smith expects many Democratic and Republican candidates to join the fray. It will be a far cry from the 2024 race, when former President Joe Biden, former Vice President Kamala Harris and President Donald Trump froze out most Democratic and Republican candidates. While some have said that Vice President JD Vance appears to be the heir apparent to Trump on the Republican side, Smith cautions that line of thinking. He pointed to Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who was doing well in the 2024 polls early on but whose message didn't resonate with New Hampshire voters. 'You got to try yourself out on the road and see what voters actually think of you too, and also what the politicos, the people that have run campaigns, tell you whether or not you got a chance or not,' Smith said. 'Pretty evident when somebody comes up and tries to run campaign that may work for them in a different state or in a different environment, they come up to New Hampshire and try to use the same language that just crashes and burns.' Will NH be first in the nation again? Smith thinks it's likely that New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary status will be returned to the state in 2028. In 2024, the Democratic National Committee announced that South Carolina would be the first state to vote instead of New Hampshire to have a more diverse state lead the way. However, New Hampshire refused to break tradition and held an unsanctioned primary (before South Carolina's primary) where President Joe Biden's name was absent from the ballot. But through a write-in effort led by Democrats in the state, Biden won anyways, garnering almost 64% of the vote. Smith said that Biden dropping out of the race later in the year gives New Hampshire Democrats a case to argue that if Biden had run in a real primary in New Hampshire like usual, there may have been a different outcome. Contributing: Phillip M. Bailey This article originally appeared on Portsmouth Herald: Presidential hopefuls flock to NH: Are they eyeing a 2028 run?
Washington Post
8 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Europe pushes hard to sway Trump before Alaska summit with Putin on Ukraine
BRUSSELS — European leaders are seeking to impress upon President Donald Trump one key point before he meets with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday: The West cannot — must not — negotiate away Ukrainian territory, especially for nothing in return. As Trump floats 'land swaps,' Kyiv's European backers have rejected a Russian proposal to trade Ukrainian land for an undefined truce. And they have issued declarations that 'international borders must not be changed by force.' European leaders are set to press their priorities in a call with Trump on Wednesday, organized by Germany Chancellor Friedrich Merz, which will include Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The call is intended to shape Trump's thinking before he sits down with Putin one-on-one in Alaska. The Europeans are insisting that Moscow agree to a ceasefire before negotiations over territory, and that Kyiv needs security guarantees. And, if such negotiations occur, a European counteroffer has pushed the idea that any retreat of Ukrainian forces from Ukrainian-controlled territory should be matched on an inch-for-inch basis by Russia's withdrawal from occupied Ukrainian territory, according to three people briefed on the discussions. European and NATO allies have often failed to sway Trump's thinking, or even to be heard by the U.S. president ahead of big policy decisions, such as to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. And they are frequently dismayed by Trump's policy moves, for example, his unilateral imposition of tariffs. The Europeans recognize that they can only do so much to influence a president who often veers off-script and likes nothing more than to declare a deal. But on Ukraine recently they have met with some success, for example, by persuading Trump to allow them to transfer U.S. weapons to Ukraine and purchase replacements for themselves. And in recent days, especially after a meeting with Vice President JD Vance in Britain over the weekend, they have found the U.S. administration receptive to some of their red lines. After that meeting, Vance, in a television interview, endorsed at least one European position — that the current line of contact and positioning of Ukrainian and Russian troops should be the starting point of any talks — rejecting a Russian demand that Ukraine first surrender its entire eastern Donbas area. Ahead of Wednesday's call some Europeans expressed guarded optimism, especially with Trump seeming to lower expectations of securing a deal in Alaska. There appears to be 'more of an understanding from the Americans that you can't just go for land swaps which would somehow give a prize to Russia,' said one European Union official, who like others in this article spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomacy. Still, the official added, 'it's clear that there are sort of discrepancies, and as we've seen it in the U.S. system by now, you have one man who will decide.' But even with Trump making a more concerted effort to consult allies and keep them updated, there has been confusion over whether Putin is even willing to swap territory, officials said. The administration understood that a partial Russian retreat might be possible after U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff returned from meeting with Putin in Moscow last week. However, the Russian offer apparently calls for a Ukrainian surrender of territory that Russian forces don't even control as a precondition for a ceasefire, the people briefed on the talks said. As that mix-up has come untangled, the administration has lowered expectations for the high-stakes Trump-Putin summit, officials said. Wednesday's call with Trump caps a flurry of meetings and statements organized by the Europeans since the Alaska summit was announced, all of which have provided a strong endorsement of Kyiv's position. Wednesday's virtual summit hosted by Germany will include the leaders of France, Britain, Italy, Poland, Finland, the E.U. and NATO. The Europeans will meet first with Zelensky before Trump and Vance are expected to join the call. Trump has also promised to call Zelensky and European leaders right after talking with Putin, to relay whether 'a fair deal' is on the table. 'It's not up to me to make a deal,' he told reporters Monday — seemingly echoing a European refrain that a truce cannot be sealed without them or Ukraine. 'I have many fears and a lot of hope,' Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said this week. Tusk said recent comments indicate Trump is increasingly understanding of Ukrainian and European views on the war, but that he was not so sure that would hold. 'I guess everyone's afraid Putin will play Trump's ego again like he has in the past,' said a second European official. 'Who knows, maybe he comes there with another noble-sounding offer or maybe they give [Trump] some state award.' Trump has repeatedly balked after threatening to pressure Russia into a ceasefire. As recently as last week, the president's mounting frustrations with Russia stalling on a ceasefire, and his threats of fresh U.S. sanctions, gave way to his invitation to Putin to meet on U.S. soil. While there has been speculation that Trump may yet try to involve Zelensky in the Alaska talks, European leaders are definitely not invited — giving them little sway over the diplomatic spectacle, even as they have become Ukraine's chief military and financial backer. Most proposals for a truce also envision a role for European nations in enforcing any deal that could reshape the continent's future security. In the scramble to sway Trump, European officials have also stressed that any deal must give Ukraine a bulwark against future attacks, especially because Putin is insisting that Ukraine be barred from joining NATO. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has suggested a deal could involve acknowledging de facto Russian control of some of Ukraine's regions, without Kyiv officially ceding them. If Trump's meeting with Putin advances to 'full-scale negotiations,' Rutte said Sunday, territory would 'have to be on the table,' as would security guarantees for Ukraine. Rutte said talks should recognize 'that Ukraine decides on its own future,' with 'no limitations' on its military or on NATO's posture in Eastern Europe. Freezing the current front lines would leave about one-fifth of Ukraine's territory in Russian hands. Ukraine, meanwhile, has little leverage for a land swap, holding a small toehold in Russia's western Kursk region since a faltering offensive last year. 'Europeans can say what they want, but in the end, Ukraine and Russia will have to agree,' said a third European official. 'It's unlikely there's a peace deal now where Putin says, okay, I'm going to withdraw from all of Ukraine.' The chief diplomat for the 27-nation European Union, Kaja Kallas, told the bloc's foreign ministers in recent days that the initial contours of a deal between Washington and Moscow seemed to 'focus on territory only' and that 'the Ukrainians are very worried,' according to a copy of a written note seen by The Washington Post. Kallas warned against a 'fragile ceasefire' that would solidify Russia's gains in more than three years of war. On Monday, Kallas held a four-hour virtual meeting of E.U. foreign ministers to deliberate on Ukraine ahead of the Trump-Putin meeting and on Israel's war in Gaza. The E.U. official said they didn't see 'willingness' from Kyiv or many of its staunch European allies for trading territory within Ukraine, citing distrust with Russia, which is pressing its advances in the east and attacks on Ukrainian cities. 'We have to understand the Ukrainian position, they have a million men who've been fighting for years now, so it's also something that President Zelensky wouldn't be able to have domestically accepted,' the official said. Though polls show war-weary Ukrainians increasingly favor a settlement to end the fighting, it would be tough to sell ceding territory — home to hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians and where forces built up defensive lines over years — for a ceasefire that can't be guaranteed. But even as Europe insists that Ukraine must receive security guarantees, its own ideas of what those guarantees would look like remain fuzzy. Ukraine's chief backers say guarantees should start with pledges of more weapons and training for its army, and that they will reject any Russian demand to limit Ukraine's military. Kyiv's top aspiration — NATO membership — seems far-fetched without U.S. buy-in, and a plan for European troops in Ukraine remains on a back burner. Carl Bildt, a former prime minister of Sweden, said European governments can shape the talks as Ukraine's chief suppliers of arms and cash. 'That blocks the possibility for Trump to make any concessions to Putin on what I think is among the most important of his demands,' to halt the flow of Western weapons to Ukraine, Bildt said. European leaders also still control billions in Russian frozen assets that will factor into negotiations, as well as the battery of sanctions that Russia wants lifted. Camille Grand, a former NATO and French defense official, said there was a disconnect between Europe's financial and political investment in the Ukraine war and its role in the upcoming talks. 'The Europeans today provide the bulk of humanitarian, economic and military aid, and have now accepted to pay for American weapons,' Grand told French public radio, 'while in the negotiations, they can at best hope to influence the American position or to support Ukraine.' Catherine Belton in London contributed to this report.
Los Angeles Times
9 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
From the Olympics to Oakland, California braces for Trump National Guard deployments
President Trump's decision to deploy hundreds of National Guard troops to Washington has California officials on high alert, with some worrying that he intends to activate federal forces in the Bay Area and Southern California, especially during the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics. Trump said that his use of the National Guard to fight crime could expand to other cities, and suggested that local police have been unable to do the job. Legal experts say it is highly unusual and troubling for forces to be deployed without a major crisis, such as civil unrest or a natural disaster. The Washington deployment is another example of Trump seeking to use the military for domestic endeavors, similar to his decision to send the National Guard to Los Angeles in June, amid an immigration crackdown that sparked protests, experts said. Washington has long struggled with crime but has seen major reductions in recent years. Officials in Oakland and Los Angeles — two cities the president mentioned by name — slammed Trump's comments about crime in their cities. Oakland Mayor Barbara Lee said in a statement that the president's characterization wasn't rooted in fact, but 'based in fear-mongering in an attempt to score cheap political points.' Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass called it 'performative' and a 'stunt.' Trump has said he would consider deploying the military to Los Angeles once again to protect the 2028 Olympic Games. This month, he signed an executive order that named him chair of a White House task force on the Los Angeles Games. The White House has not said specifically what role Trump would play in security arrangements. Los Angeles City Councilmember Imelda Padilla, who sits on the city panel overseeing the Games, acknowledged last week that the city is a 'little nervous' about the federal government's plans for securing the event. Congress recently approved $1 billion for security and planning for the Games. A representative for the Department of Homeland Security declined to explain to The Times how the funds will be used. Padilla said her concern was based on the unpredictable nature of the administration, as well as recent immigration raids that have used masked, heavily armed agents to round up people at Home Depot parking lots and car washes. 'Everything that we're seeing with the raids was a real curveball to our city,' Padilla said during a Los Angeles Current Affairs Forum event. It dealt 'a real curveball to [efforts] to focus on the things that folks care about, like homelessness, like transportation ... economic development,' she said. Bass, appearing on CNN this week, said that using the National Guard during the Olympics is 'completely appropriate.' She said that the city expects a 'federal response when we have over 200 countries here, meaning heads of state of over 200 countries. Of course you have the military involved. That is routine.' But Bass made a distinction between L.A. Olympics security and the 'political stunt' she said Trump pulled by bringing in the National Guard and the U.S. Marines after protests over the federal government's immigration crackdown. That deployment faces ongoing legal challenges, with an appeals court ruling that Trump had the legal authority to send the National Guard. 'I believed then, and I believe now that Los Angeles was a test case, and I think D.C. is a test case as well,' Bass said. 'To say, well, we can take over your city whenever we want, and I'm the commander in chief, and I can use the troops whenever we want.' On Monday, Trump tied his action to what has been a familiar theme to him: perceived urban decay. 'You look at Chicago, how bad it is, you look at Los Angeles, how bad it is. We have other cities that are very bad. New York has a problem. And then you have, of course, Baltimore and Oakland. We don't even mention that anymore —they're so far gone,' he said. 'We're not going to let it happen. We're not going to lose our cities over this.' White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said officers and agents deployed across the District of Columbia have so far made 23 arrests for offenses including homicide, possession with intent to distribute narcotics, lewd acts, reckless driving, fare evasion and not having permits. Six illegal handguns were seized, she said. Citing crime as a reason to deploy National Guard troops without the support of a state governor is highly unprecedented, experts said. The National Guard has been deployed to Southern California before, notably during the 1992 L.A. riots and the civil unrest after George Floyd's murder in Minneapolis in 2020. 'It would be awful because he would be clearly violating his legal authorities and he'd be sued again by the governor and undoubtedly, by the mayors of L.A. and Oakland,' said William Banks, a law professor at Syracuse University. 'The citizens in those cities would be up in arms. They would be aghast that there are soldiers patrolling their streets.' The District of Columbia does not have control over its National Guard, which gives the president wide latitude to deploy those troops. In California and other states, the head of the National Guard is the governor and there are legal limits on how federal troops can be used. The Posse Comitatus Act, passed in 1878 after the end of Reconstruction, largely bars federal troops from being used in civilian law enforcement. The law reflects a tradition dating to the Revolutionary War era that sees military interference in American life as a threat to liberty and democracy. 'We have such a strong tradition that we don't use the military for domestic law enforcement, and it's a characteristic of authoritarian countries to see the military be used in that way,' said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley Law School and a constitutional law expert. 'That's never been so in the United States, and many are concerned about the way in which President Trump is acting the way authoritarian rulers do.' Whether the troops deployed to Los Angeles in June amid the federal immigration raids were used for domestic law enforcement in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act is central in the trial underway this week in federal court in San Francisco. If Trump were to send troops to California, Banks said, the only legal lever he could pull would be to declare an insurrection and invoke the Insurrection Act. Unlike in D.C., Trump wouldn't be able to federalize police departments in other parts of the country. There are circumstances where the federal government has put departments under consent decrees — a reform tool for agencies that have engaged in unlawful practices — but in those cases the government alleged specific civil rights violations, said Ed Obayashi, a Northern California sheriff's deputy and legal counsel on policing. 'You are not going to be able to come in and take over because you say crime is rising in a particular place,' he said. Oakland Councilman Ken Houston, a third-generation resident who was elected in 2024, said his city doesn't need the federal government's help with public safety. Oakland has struggled with crime for years, but Houston cited progress. Violent crimes, including homicide, aggravated assault, rape and robbery are down 29% so far this year from the same period in 2024. Property crimes including burglary, motor vehicle theft and larceny also are trending down, according to city data. 'He's going by old numbers and he's making a point,' Houston said of Trump. 'Oakland does not need the National Guard.' Times staff writer Noah Goldberg contributed to this report.
