Latest news with #JasonWillick
Washington Post
5 days ago
- Politics
- Washington Post
What does Trump's takeover mean for D.C.?
You're reading the Prompt 2025 newsletter. Sign up to get it in your inbox. Welcome to the martial state! On Monday, President Donald Trump announced that he would nationalize the D.C. police and deploy the D.C. National Guard in the city, an extraordinary escalation in his attempt to confront what he calls the 'complete and total lawlessness' inside the nation's capital. I'm joined by my colleagues Megan McArdle and Jason Willick to discuss this moment in D.C. history. — Robert Gebelhoff, editorial writer 💬 💬 💬 Robert Gebelhoff Trump probably has the legal power to do this (pulling from authority laid out in the Home Rule Act of 1973, which gave D.C. limited autonomy). So, let's talk about whether he should be doing this. Is it justified, or just political theater? Megan McArdle Crime in D.C. is falling, but it is still outrageously high. That has enormous costs not just to victims, but to the people who have to take precautions against it, whether installing an alarm system, as we did last year, putting bars on their windows, or avoiding certain areas. It also takes a toll on the city's economy, driving tourists away and encouraging suburbanites to get out of the city after dark. So, I'm very sympathetic to Trump's desire to get things under control. That said, I am skeptical that deploying the National Guard is a solution, and the way Jeanine Pirro was talking about the problem — charge more teenagers as adults! Lock 'em up and throw away the key! — recaps the failed anti-crime politics of the 1990s. Jason Willick I'd also note that some people might dispute his legal authority here. The statute requires that he make a finding that an emergency exists. If crime is at its usual levels (even if too high), one could argue that it is not an emergency. I wouldn't be surprised if D.C. sues. But I think Trump will prevail, because the way the law is written hinges on his discretion. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Rob That's a fair point, Jason. And I'm similarly skeptical about whether this will work, Megan. I do think having military members with guns walking around deters crime, but this is no long-term solution. Megan Yes, we have better ways to address crime than giving 14-year-olds adult sentences. We need to punish more consistently, not more harshly, which means more police on the streets and more state capacity to deliver quick justice. Jason I'd zoom out a bit. Police power is the most fundamental aspect of state sovereignty. Trump is making a display of taking control over D.C. I don't think he's thinking so deeply about the actual mechanics of crime control. In his proclamations implementing this, he basically says the federal government must have sovereignty over D.C. to function. That attacks the idea of 'home rule' implemented here in 1973. Rob Is he right? Should the federal government have more sovereignty over the city? Certainly many Republicans in Congress agree with that. Jason And Democrats think the opposite. D.C. statehood, of course, would prevent the president from taking control of the local police force. Trump is a genius polarizer. My guess is that this will cause Democrats to redouble their push for D.C. statehood — a national issue because it would change the power balance in the Senate. My view has always been that the best solution for D.C.'s quasi-self-government problem is to give the parts not directly around federal buildings to Maryland. Megan My preference would be for D.C.'s government to treat public order as the primary public good they provide. They've gotten better in recent years, but the levels of disorder and crime are still entirely unacceptable. If you don't have clean, safe streets, you don't have anything else: Your schools won't work, your economy won't work, your citizens will flee. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Rob On that point, city officials have been pretty indignant about Trump's moves. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson noted that crime in the city is at 30-year lows, and has been falling in the past few years. Are they wrong to be defensive? Jason It's a fair logical point, but it misses how Trump simply wants control. And that current conditions might be unpopular even if they are not an emergency. Rob That's certainly true. People don't care too much about the actual crime statistics. They see crime and disorder and don't feel safe. City officials can't wish that away. This is an issue that Democrats have struggled with for a long time. What should be their response strategy here? Megan In 2024, D.C. had 187 homicides. That is, thankfully, lower than 274 in 2023. But it is still extremely high! New York City, with more than 10 times D.C.'s population, had 382 during the same period. People rightfully resist this. Democrats should come up with a serious crime-control strategy that doesn't involve the National Guard and also doesn't involve promising, falsely, that crime will fall on its own after we've solved every other social problem. National Democrats have moved in this direction, as have mayors in blue cities facing voter revolts. Rob Does that mean Pirro is right? Democratic officials should go harder on offenders, including teens? Megan Criminals are what psychologists call 'hyperbolic discounters,' which is a fancy way of saying they don't think much about the future and just grab what they can in the present. Amping the possible punishment up from five years to 10 years doesn't get you much. What criminals do respond to is a very high likelihood of getting caught and punished right now. That's especially true of kids. D.C. is not giving them certainty of punishment, both because we don't clear enough crimes and because we tend to go light on kids who do get arrested. Jason Crime control is usually a political decision by states and localities. D.C. is more liberal than most places, so it decided on this more lenient approach to crime. Trump wants to overturn that decision because he doesn't like the balance D.C. has struck. He thinks the federal government's interest in an orderly city should take precedence over D.C.'s democratically expressed preferences. Rob One last question: How should Mayor Muriel E. Bowser proceed? This is a fraught moment for her politically and for the city's autonomy. There are a lot of residents who want her to resist Trump, but I doubt that's the wise path forward. Megan Ask for more money for more cops, zero tolerance for homeless encampments and public drug use, and get the D.C. Council to revise probation and diversion terms to require home monitoring and home confinement. Jason She has avoided the resistance tack thus far. But look where it got her! She will presumably need to oppose the commandeering of D.C.'s police while appearing to take crime seriously. That will take some finesse. And it will depend a lot on how well-executed Trump's takeover is.
Washington Post
22-06-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
Will the U.S.-Iran conflict spin out of control?
Three columnists discuss whether Trump's stated plan of a one-off strike on Iran is realistic given their capacity to retaliate. You're reading the Prompt 2025 newsletter. Sign up to get it in your inbox. One day after President Donald Trump ordered attacks on Iranian targets to thwart their nuclear program, facts are still scarce about how effective the strikes have been. Even the Pentagon admitted in a Sunday morning briefing that a proper battlefield assessment was still forthcoming. Meanwhile, the White House is trying to sell the decision to the public as a one-time operation while also warning Iran not to retaliate. Can the U.S. keep it all from spiraling into a larger conflict? I spoke with my colleagues Jason Rezaian and Jason Willick about the potential for escalation. —Damir Marusic, assignment editor 💬 💬 💬 Damir Marusic Trump threatened severe retaliation should Iran itself retaliate for these strikes. How credible do you think those threats were? And what can Iran actually do from here on out? If you were Iran, would you think twice after Trump's threats, basically? Jason Willick On the one hand, Iran knows that Trump is prepared to use force. On the other hand, it also knows he wants to avoid getting drawn into a protracted conflict, and it knows U.S. munitions supplies for an air campaign aren't limitless. I expect it thinks it can get away with some kind of meaningful response. Jason Rezaian To me, the threats are very credible, as it looks like Benjamin Netanyahu is making decisions for the U.S. president on this in that he appears to have been able to force us into a war that Trump didn't want to get us involved in. Jason Rezaian The reality is that Iran doesn't have many meaningful options. Conventionally, they were much weaker than the U.S. and Israel to begin with. The threats they pose have always been asymmetrical and more real for their own population and their direct neighbors. They are looking more like a paper tiger than ever, and their defenses have been decimated. I think they would be smart to look for a diplomatic way out, but their professed ideological positions and their tenuous grip on power make that difficult. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Damir Marusic Does the Iranian regime have to do something in response to stay in power? Can it not react and survive? Jason Rezaian It can not react and survive for now. But again, Bibi has shown his intelligence and military might is superior to Iran's. Add in the U.S., and Iran would be wise to play it cool. Not sure that's what they think in Tehran, though. Damir Marusic For what it's worth, I'm not that keen on the assertion that Netanyahu is making decisions for Trump. The United States is more sovereign than any other country in the world. This is Trump's policy, not Netanyahu's. He owns it. Jason Rezaian He does now. But he had to be pushed into it by a chorus of his own party's pressure and Israeli force. So, yes, they are full partners in this from here on out. Jason Willick Trump could easily have declined to use the bunker-busters. He seemed thrilled by Israel's success and wanted 'in' on the operation. My impression was not that he was forced in but that he actively wanted a piece of the action. Jason Rezaian I got that impression from his speech last night. I don't think he felt so good about it previously. Regardless, I'm still very unclear on how he plans to proceed now. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Damir Marusic From the American perspective, what's our threshold for escalation with Iran? I presume if they launch rockets at our bases, we will hit their launchers. But what happens if their proxies hit? Do we hit Iran then? Jason Willick After the Soleimani strike in Trump's first term, Iran responded by hitting U.S. bases without killing any troops but injuring some (head trauma). Then the U.S. basically called it even. If something like that happened this time around, that would be a decent outcome. Jason Rezaian I agree that that would be the best possible outcome for now. But that also presupposes that Trump and Bibi share the view that this isn't about regime change. I don't think we can say that. Damir Marusic Well, that's a good question right there: Inn the Pentagon's briefing this morning, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ruled out regime change as a goal, presumably as a means of reassuring Iran that if they do nothing, no further attacks are forthcoming. But do such assurances matter? We're in a different logic now, the logic of tit-for-tat. Jason Rezaian I think those assurances matter only if there are direct discussions happening about what is possible. And to be frank, although I have never been a regime change supporter, decimating Iran's defenses and then letting them stay in power to terrorize their citizens, dissidents and opponents around the world would be a massive failure. Good options from here seem few. It's not like they are going to magically change their worldview because we told them they have to. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Damir Marusic Does the intent of the Trump administration matter for what happens next? If there is a significant attack from Iran, what's to stop an escalatory spiral? Jason Willick Our escalation dominance and the regime's desire for survival. Look, in recent years and decades, Iran seemed to underestimate the U.S. and Israel. And the U.S. and Israel seemed to overestimate Iran's competence. Now a readjustment is happening. Jason Rezaian Yeah, I think that's right. I also think the intent matters a lot for Iran's Persian Gulf neighbors. Damir Marusic This assumes a lot of rational calculation on Iran's part. Jason Willick I've been struck by the lack of rational calculation by Hamas and Hezbollah vis a vis-à-vis Israel — we'll see whether that same sort of grandiosity extends to the regime. Jason Rezaian Their calculations were all pretty rational until their top leadership started getting taken out very quickly. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Damir Marusic Does Trump have to go back for another set of strikes if it turns out these first ones were not definitively successful — if it looks like Fordow was damaged but not destroyed? Or does 'one and done' mean just that — we did our part, the rest is up to Israel? Jason Willick I don't think he goes back for another set of strikes except as part of retaliation for an Iranian attack on U.S. bases. The tougher question, to me, is how does Israel wrap this up. Let's say the combination of Israeli and American strikes were successful at essentially destroying Iran's nuclear program. That doesn't end the war. Israel may be ready to call it quits, but Iran will certainly keep firing at Israel. The U.S. gambit is basically: We helped Israel accomplish their most difficult military objective. Now carry on with the war as you were. Jason Rezaian Well, I think he's said 'one and done' and maybe shouldn't have until there were assessments of the success. All of this matters, including the messaging. Iranians — the people and the regime — are watching all of this trying to make sense of it. Are we at war with the regime or with Iran's nuclear program as Vice President J.D. Vance said? To ordinary Iranians, it's starting to look a lot more like, not just that the Islamic Republic is suffocating us, but Israel and the U.S. are bombing us to death. People there have to be asking, 'What's in it for us?' The U.S. hasn't even tried to offer justifications that would satisfy that particular audience, and it appears to me that we should start doing so pretty quickly. I guess my concern is that there is no plan to speak of.
