At a Monday morning press conference, President Donald Trump announced plans to place the Metropolitan Police Department under federal control and deploy National Guard troops across Washington, D.C., vowing to combat crime and “restore the beauty” of the nation’s capital.
Trump told reporters that Washington, D.C.’s homicide rate now tops that of some of the world’s most dangerous cities, while car thefts have doubled and carjackings have more than tripled in the past five years.
Despite the obvious increase in violent crime, the homeless camps that have sprung up throughout the city, and the visible decline in public safety, Democrats insist there is no need for federal intervention.
Following Trump’s press conference, the airwaves were flooded with Democrats echoing a recent report claiming that violent crime in D.C. is at a 30-year low.
Below, New York Times correspondent and MSNBC analyst Peter Baker peddles the latest talking point and insists that Trump is “citing a nonexistent crime crisis.”
In fact, Baker claimed, “The worst single-day crime spree in modern Washington history, of course, took place on Jan. 6, 2021. Trump issued no order to the National Guard to intervene — Mike Pence did — and later pardoned the perpetrators.”
[Public records show that Trump recommended deploying National Guard troops ahead of Jan. 6, an offer that was declined by then–House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser. But I digress.]
Unable to contain his obvious bitterness, Baker wrote a third post: “Trump himself has been convicted of 34 felonies and is the first criminal elected president.”
Widely followed podcast host Dan Carlin also reacted on X:
Those of you who don’t know what authoritarianism looks like…this is it. All the gaslighting about previous presidents “what about…!!! Is bullsh**. I’ve been talking about the slide towards NOW for 30+ years. Those earlier concerns were nothing. Now we are HERE.
He continued his rant in a five-post thread which begins with the following tweet:
MSNBC contributor and Princeton professor Eddie Glaude said he was “trying to hold [his] temper.” He warned that Trump is “going to undermine the democratic process in the district!”
Moreover, Glaude argued that Trump’s D.C. crime crackdown is merely a diversion from the Jeffrey Epstein scandal — the Democrats’ all-purpose accusation.
Hillary Clinton, who has been relatively quiet since the recent releases of previously classified documents that showcase her role in the Russian collusion hoax, weighed in on X: “As you listen to an unhinged Trump try to justify deploying the National Guard in DC, here’s reality: Violent crime in DC is at a 30-year low.”
With her credibility already at a low point, it may have been wiser for her to sit this one out. White House deputy press secretary Abigail Jackson immediately fired back on X: “On top of being a big-time loser, you’re also a massive liar.”
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) also jumped into the fray.
Perhaps the stupidest take of all came from a retired reporter who said he travels into D.C. frequently and neither he, nor anyone he knows, has ever been carjacked. The kiss of death?
While it may be true that crime statistics for D.C. in 2024 were lower than in 2023, a year in which crime reportedly spiked, they all seemed to have forgotten that last month, a D.C. police commander was accused of altering crime statistics and suspended. The police union claimed his “directive to change offense classifications [came] from command staff.”
Setting aside the allegations against this officer and statistics showing crime in the city may have dipped from the record highs of 2023, why are Democrats so outraged by the Trump administration’s efforts to make D.C. safer? Why are they opposed to taking murderers, carjackers, and other offenders off the streets?
More to the point, why are Democrats siding with D.C. criminals over Trump? Would they rather see more murders and violent crimes than allow Trump another win? Well, it certainly looks that way.
Trump has a remarkable knack for pushing the Democratic Party into defending the indefensible. On the 2024 campaign trail, he forced Democrats to defend the Biden administration’s open-border policy, support for gender-affirming procedures for minors, and allowing biological males to compete in women’s sports.
In February, he compelled Democrats to oppose the Department of Government Efficiency’s push to cut waste, fraud, and abuse from the bloated, out-of-control federal budget, something every American should applaud.
By March, Democrats were going to extraordinary lengths to defend the due process rights of “Maryland Dad” Kilmar Abrego Garcia — a wife beater, suspected gang member, and accused human trafficker.
Since then, they have protested the deportation of illegal aliens, even those accused of the most heinous crimes. And now, they’re trying to bully Trump out of getting tough on crime in the nation’s capital.
Democrats can defend the indefensible for as long as they want, but voters are starting to catch on. This may explain their defeat in November and the dismal ratings of liberal news programs. They are losing the public’s trust — yet they keep doubling down on stupid.
Elizabeth writes commentary for Legal Insurrection and The Washington Examiner. She is an academy fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Please follow Elizabeth on X or LinkedIn.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY