SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
crime
How the Left Can Flip Crime From a Political Liability to a Political Advantage
Democrats can go on offense by defining what it actually means to be serious about safety: not by stoking fear, but by advancing a clear, consistent, solutions-driven agenda that both prevents crime and breaks its cycle.
May 17, 2026
As the economy falters, prices surge, and yet another Middle East conflict grinds on with no clear endgame, Donald Trump’s presidency appears to be slipping into free fall. His support has eroded among the very voters who once powered his return to office, and Americans are losing confidence in the issues that once defined his appeal—especially the economy and immigration. With the midterms looming, Republicans are flailing.
But Trump and the Republicans always have a tried-and-true political playbook: fearmongering about crime. And unless Democrats go on the offensive, it just may work.
Trump has already signaled that crime will once again be a centerpiece of the midterms. In support of that aim, he has repeatedly urged Congress to pass “a tough new crime bill,” falsely taken credit for bringing down crime rates, and exploited crime victims to cast Democrats as cold and uncaring in the face of tragedy. But crime is not the strength it once was for Trump.
Thanks to his unpopular federal troop deployments and violent mass deportation tactics, voters are losing confidence in his approach to public safety.
As ICE, the National Guard, and other federal forces expand their footprint in communities across the country, voters are getting a clearer picture of what “tough-on-crime” governance looks like in practice—and most don’t like what they see.
To be clear, Republicans still hold an overwhelming advantage on crime in public opinion. But that edge is driven less by outcomes than by emphasis: They talk about crime relentlessly—even when rates are near historic lows—amplifying and exploiting understandable fears. Democrats, by contrast, too often cede the narrative—either by pivoting to safer ground or by trying to one-up Republicans with “tough-on-crime” rhetoric that voters don’t find convincing.
Today, Democrats of all stripes are talking loudly and often about affordability—the right tactic after being perceived as out of touch in the wake of the 2024 election. But they have yet to find a unified message around public safety, leaving them vulnerable to the inevitable barrage of GOP attack ads stoking fears of crime and immigration.
My team and I have briefed dozens of candidates and elected leaders over the past several months, and the message we are so often left with is one of hesitation and uncertainty around public safety. From our work with Hill offices to mayoral candidates, the reality is that the party is not prepared to truly address crime. Unless Democrats define the issue on their own terms, they’ll once again be forced to play defense on one of the most politically potent issues in American life.
Democrats cannot afford to go silent on crime, nor can they afford the “tough-on-crime” approach that some in the party are advocating—a familiar playbook that echoes the advice many received last year on immigration enforcement. But those who followed that guidance are now finding themselves under attack for it. Votes once seen as smart politics—backing measures like the Trump-backed Laken Riley Act, resolutions praising US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers, or increased funding for the Department of Homeland Security—are quickly becoming political liabilities. As ICE, the National Guard, and other federal forces expand their footprint in communities across the country, voters are getting a clearer picture of what “tough-on-crime” governance looks like in practice—and most don’t like what they see.
This moment presents an opportunity. Democrats can go on offense by defining what it actually means to be serious about safety: not by stoking fear, but by advancing a clear, consistent, solutions-driven agenda that both prevents crime and breaks its cycle. In a country where nearly half of all people have had a family member incarcerated and about 3 in 10 people say they or a member of their household have been a victim of a crime, we must chart a new path forward. Democrats don’t have to look far to see which solutions truly deliver on safety.
Democratic mayors are working to drive historic declines in crime—through sustained investments in youth programs, community violence intervention, crisis response, targeted gun enforcement, and rebuilding trust between police and the communities they serve. Leading cities of all sizes, they’ve seen firsthand how violence shatters families and makes everyday life feel unsafe. They’ve also seen the damage of blunt “law and order” approaches that destabilize neighborhoods, limit opportunity, and erode cooperation with law enforcement.
These leaders are channeling a broader political reality: Most Democratic and independent voters want leaders who are serious about safety, not a return to reflexive “tough-on-crime” politics. That means a comprehensive approach that responds swiftly to stop violence, solve crime, and prevent it in the first place. It pairs accountability with fairness—holding everyone to the same standard, including police and elected officials. And it reflects a continued belief that public safety is strengthened not just through enforcement, but by giving people a real chance to break cycles of incarceration and build stable lives. Importantly, as we head toward the midterms, polling shows that when Democrats demonstrate to voters that they are truly serious about safety, this approach consistently outperforms “tough-on-crime” rhetoric.
Notably, these local leaders come from across the Democratic spectrum. Regardless of whether they consider themselves progressives, moderates, or something in between, they share an approach that works to deliver safety and win elections. They know that safety isn’t about scoring political points; it’s about building credibility and delivering what works. It’s time Democrats learned that lesson as well.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Total BS': DHS Gives Trump's Deportations Credit for Decline in Violent Crime That Began Years Ago
"Violent crime has been dropping nationwide for three years. Now Trump comes in and claims that magically that's all his doing."
May 11, 2026
The US Department of Homeland Security is trying to give President Donald Trump's "mass deportation" crusade credit for a decline in violent crime, even though the trend began well before he took office.
Linking to a report from Axios detailing the decline in violent crime across US cities over the past year, the department’s account on X wrote that "under the leadership" of Trump and Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin, "violent crime is PLUNGING in cities across the country.”
"By removing criminal illegal aliens from our nation, we’re making our communities SAFE again," it continued.
The report draws on quarterly data from 67 major US law enforcement agencies, collected by the Major Cities Chiefs Association, which is often cited as a source for previewing crime trends before the annual FBI reports are released in the fall.
The first-quarter data show significant declines in crime rates from the first quarter in March 2025 that "show up across every major region, suggesting a systemic, nationwide trend," according to Axios.
- Homicides dropped 17.7%.
- Robberies fell 20.4%.
- Rapes declined 7.2%.
- Aggravated assaults decreased 4.8%.
However, as the report acknowledges, this drop in crime is not a new phenomenon, but the continuation of "a nationwide decline that began after the pandemic-era crime spike... with drops beginning in the second half of the [Joe] Biden presidency and continuing under Trump."
According to FBI data, homicides fell by 22.7% from January-June 2023 to January-June 2024, while robbery decreased 13.6%, rape decreased 17.7%, and aggravated assault decreased 8.1%.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, called it "total BS" for DHS to give Trump credit for this past year's drops.
"Violent crime has been dropping nationwide for three years," he said. "Now Trump comes in and claims that magically that's all his doing."
Crediting Mullin in particular is especially odd, considering that he had held the role of secretary of homeland security for just over a week when the yearlong data collection period ended on March 31.
But at any rate, there's little reason to believe that immigration enforcement bears much responsibility for the continued crime decline.
A study of incarceration data by the libertarian Cato Institute published in March found that between 2010 and 2024, the incarceration rate for undocumented immigrants was 44% lower than that of native-born US citizens, while that for legal immigrants was 75% lower.
Notably, the data includes undocumented people detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for immigration-related offenses, meaning that the rate of violent crimes committed by undocumented immigrants is likely even lower relative to citizens.
And while the Trump administration has claimed to target "the worst of the worst" immigrants for deportation by ICE, The Guardian found that 77% of those who entered deportation proceedings for the first time in 2025 had no criminal convictions.
Nearly half of those who did had only been convicted of traffic or immigration-related offenses. Just 9% had been convicted of assault, while only 1% were for sexual assault, and just 0.5% were for homicide.
Reichlin-Melnick said: "There is no evidence at all that deportations have reduced crime rates. None. Zero."
In fact, it's possible that the Trump administration's aggressive ramp-up of deportations has made it harder to fight violent crime.
In September, amid Trump's military occupations and surges of immigration agents into cities like Chicago, Cato received records showing that more than 25,000 federal officers—including more than 2,800 with the FBI, 2,100 with the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), and 1,700 with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) had been diverted to assist with immigration enforcement. This amounts to more than 1 in 5 FBI agents, nearly half of DEA agents, and over two-thirds of ATF agents.
The Marshall Project wrote about how this shift in priorities was taking shape:
In May, the FBI ordered its agents to scale back investigations of white-collar crime and focus on immigration instead. In Baltimore, FBI agents on the city’s domestic terrorism squad were investigating online child predators when they were ordered to work full-time on immigration enforcement, MSNBC reported. About 10 agents were reportedly reassigned from building cases against what the FBI described as a “nihilistic violent extremist” group in order to help the Department of Homeland Security arrest immigrants.
“It’s a good time to be an American-born criminal,” Jason Houser, formerly ICE’s chief of staff under Biden, told The Marshall Project at the time. “When the FBI, DEA, ATF are all doing checkpoints in [Chicago’s] Little Italy tomorrow, the human trafficking, the sex trafficking, the Jeffrey Epsteins, the fentanyl traffickers—they don’t quit.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Denounced for Enabling 'Crime Spree' With Mass Pardon of Capitol Insurrectionists
The sentencing of a man for child pornography is but one of dozens of cases—including charges or convictions for child sex crimes, rape, and weapons offenses—involving pardoned January 6 attackers.
Mar 31, 2026
President Donald Trump was elected twice on promises of upholding "law and order," but his blanket pardon of January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrectionists—dozens of whom have since run afoul of the law—is drawing renewed criticism in the wake of one particularly heinous crime.
On Monday, a federal judge in Massachusetts sentenced Daniel Tocci to four years in prison followed by five years of supervised release after he was convicted of possessing more than 100,000 child pornography images, as well as photos and videos showing extreme deadly violence against women and animals.
Tocci had been previously charged with crimes connected to the storming of the US Capitol on January 6. Trump—who was impeached for a historic second time for inciting the insurrection—pardoned more than 1,500 Capitol insurrectionists, including those who brutally attacked law enforcement officers, on his first day back in the White House.
The largest US police union warned at the time that the mass pardon sent "a dangerous message" that would "embolden" criminals, a warning that was echoed by numerous civil society groups.
However, Trump was undaunted, railing against a "corrupt" system that wrongfully persecuted "patriots."
Those pardoned "patriots" subsequently went on what the editors of The New York Times on Tuesday described as a "crime spree." At least 33 of them were rearrested, charged, or sentenced for other crimes between the time of their pardon and December 2025, according to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).
"Six of the pardoned January 6th insurrectionists are charged with committing child sex crimes, ranging from sexual assault to possession of child pornography," CREW continued. "At least five were charged with illegal possession of weapons, including at least two who had a previous domestic violence conviction. Five were arrested or charged with driving while impaired or under the influence. In two of these cases, the defendant’s reckless driving resulted in a fatality. Two were charged with rape."
This is Andrew Paul Johnson. Andrew was convicted of insurrection on January 6 for assaulting cops.Trump pardoned Andrew. 9 months later, Andrew was caught molesting children, sharing CSAM, & buying victims' silence by giving them money from a Justice Dept settlement.Trump protects pedophiles.
[image or embed]
— Qasim Rashid, Esq. (@qasimrashid.com) March 6, 2026 at 7:30 AM
The Times editors wrote that Trump's "self-serving pardons are so numerous that public attention cannot keep up with them."
"He has created a veritable pardon industry, in which people with White House connections accept payments from wealthy convicts," they continued. "Among those on whom he has bestowed freedom are dozens of people convicted of fraud."
In May 2024, Trump was convicted of 34 fraud-related felonies after he falsified business records regarding hush money payments to cover up sex scandals during the 2016 presidential election.
"He has also pardoned Juan Orlando Hernández, a former president of Honduras, who helped traffic hundreds of tons of cocaine into the United States, and Ross Ulbricht, who was serving a life sentence for running Silk Road, a sprawling criminal enterprise that sold drugs," the Times editors added.
Yet Trump ordered the invasion of Venezuela and the kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife for alleged narco-terrorism offenses. He also ordered the campaign of nearly 50 airstrikes on boats allegedly smuggling drugs on the high seas and sent troops into Ecuador in the name of fighting drugs.
Emboldened by their pardons and, critics say, Trump's aura of impunity, some pardoned Capitol insurrectionists have parlayed their participation in the attack into runs for elected office. Some are reveling in their embrace by a Republican Party that has enabled Trump's crimes for years and has whitewashed the terror that lawmakers of both parties felt during the Capitol attack.
Steve Bannon: The J6ers are here at CPAC! All of them! The J6 choir is gonna play the Kennedy Center! pic.twitter.com/Lkj3nRPxqD
— Grace Chong, MBI (@gc22gc) February 20, 2025
Others are suing the federal government for tens of millions of dollars, alleging that the law enforcement officers—five of whose deaths are linked to the events of January 6—physically and emotionally harmed them that day. One woman, Ashli Babbitt, was shot and killed while storming the Capitol; the Trump administration agreed to a nearly $5 million settlement with her family and the Air Force offered full military funeral honors.
Responding to Tocci's sentencing for child pornography possession, Scott Kelley Ernest, a former white supremacist who now helps others leave hate groups, quipped on Bluesky, "Another one bites the dust... until Trump hires him to be an ambassador."
That's exactly what the president did for Charles Kushner, the father of Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, who in 2005 was convicted of 18 felony counts including illegal campaign contributions, tax evasion, and witness tampering. Trump pardoned the elder Kushner in 2020 and, in 2025, appointed him ambassador to France and Monaco, a known hub of illicit financial activity.
Keep ReadingShow Less
New Polling Shows That the Bottom Has Fallen Out for Trump’s Economic Job Performance
These numbers are so dramatic that they argue for a reboot of the Trump administration’s economic messaging.
Dec 12, 2025
Polling released by the AP/NORC on December 11 shows that the bottom has fallen out for President Donald Trump on his job performance on the economy. Just under a third (31%) approve of Trump’s work on the economy. This is a nine-point drop and is the lowest that the AP/NORC has recorded in either Trump’s first or second terms. Fully 80% of Independent voters give Trump negative scores on his economic stewardship. As you could have guessed, Democrats are nearly unanimous in giving Trump failing grades on the economy (93%). What is quite significant is that 29% of Republicans give Trump failing grades on the economy.
Voters’ perceptions of the economy are also very pessimistic. Overall, 68% say that the economy is in poor shape. Both Democrats (84%) and Independents (80%). Republicans offer a more mixed picture (56% good, 44% poor).
The most significant part of the AP/NORC findings is not Trump’s scores on the economy as they have been poor for some time. What is striking is that on his two signature issues of crime and immigration, Trump fares very poorly. Fully 60% of voters disapprove of Trump’s work on immigration including 70% of Independents. Trump’s grades on immigration are boosted by his GOP support (80% approve, 19% disapprove).
Only in relative terms, does Trump fare better on the issue of crime. Forty-three (43%) approve. Two-thirds (66%) of Independents give Trump failing grades on the economy. As was the case with immigration, Trump’s scores on crime are boosted by his strong support among Republicans (80% approve, 19% disapprove).
If the Trump administration is looking at the data honestly, they must be troubled that Independents and Democratic are on question after questions almost in alignment on their negative assessment of Trump’s job as president.
There is literally no good news for Trump or for that matter the GOP in the AP/NORC polling. These numbers are so dramatic that they argue for a reboot of the Trump administration’s economic messaging. Trump’s ratings on crime and immigration are a real problem, but what really threatens Trump are voters’ perceptions of his economic stewardship. Trump won the presidency in large part because voters thought that he would do a better job on the economy than Vice President Kamala Harris.
Rather than change course on the economy, the Trump administration seems likely to continue to blame the Biden administration for the state of the economy. There is nothing in polling data that would indicate that this will work. Furthermore, Trump’s remarks in Pennsylvania on December 9 also indicate that he is not aware or willing to accept voters’ perceptions of his handling of the economy. This is a clear warning sign of a Democratic landslide in 2026.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Corporations, Not Immigrants, Are Driving a US Crime Wave
Even the Cato Institute found that incarceration rates for immigrants are far lower than those for the native-born.
Sep 28, 2025
Fear of street crime and criminals is a politically charged issue. Politicians stoke that fear to gain the consent of voters, from the anti-Black Willie Horton commercial ads of US GOP President George H. W. Bush against Democrat Michael Dukakis in the presidential campaign of 1988 to President Donald Trump’s 2016 and 2024 successful runs for the White House. After decades of economic globalization and climate disruptions, the tough-on-crime platform has evolved from anti-Blackness to migrant demonization. While the former remains central to US politics, the latter demonizes the national origin of criminals, actual and fictional, right up to the president castigating immigration as an invasion creating social ruination at the United Nations recently.
How does such rhetoric match up with data on incarceration for immigrants and the native-born in the US.? We turn to a new study from the Cato Institute, a contributor to the Department of Government Efficiency, a wrecking ball on federal programs and workforce, and Project 2025, the Trump White House’s playbook for restructuring US democracy.
Cato scholars Alex Nowrasteh and Krit Chanwong analyzed annual data from the American Community Survey and found that incarceration rates for immigrants are far lower than those for the native-born.
To this end the duo plotted “the incarceration risk for individuals born in 1990 by immigration status. For the 1990 cohort, native-born Americans were 267% more likely to be incarcerated than immigrants by age 33. Eleven percent of native-born Americans in that year-born cohort have been incarcerated compared to just 3% of immigrants. Other countries really are sending their best.”
In contrast, White House border czar Tom Homan is involved with federal immigration raids that, according to him, are “targeting the worst of the worst.” Homan allegedly took $50,000 in a Federal Bureau of Investigation sting recently.
What about the incarceration risks for immigrants and native-born Americans who are Asian, Hispanic, Black, and white?
Immigrants born in 1990 had a significantly lower incarceration risk than native-born Americans for all races and ethnicities born in the same year. All (legal plus illegal) Hispanic, Asian, Black, and white immigrants as groups each have a lower incarceration rate than white native-born Americans. Asian illegal immigrants have the lowest incarceration risks at around 0.08%.
Here’s a reason why immigrants may have lower incarceration rates. “Noncitizen criminals who are incarcerated are deported after serving their sentences,” according to Alex Nowrasteh and Krit Chanwong, “which means they don’t respond to future American surveys because they are no longer on American soil. Put another way, our study measures whether the respondents have ever been incarcerated.”
All things equal, one thing is clear. Immigrants are not driving a crime wave in the US. There is a wave of corporate crime stateside, however, with companies such as Boeing and its 737 MAX aircraft crashes a case in point.
Keep ReadingShow Less
WaPo Poll Shows Broad and Deep Disapproval of Trump Across Issue Areas
But Democrats still have to win over voters on key issues.
Sep 23, 2025
Polling from the Washington Post conducted by Ipsos shows that Americans disapprove of US President Donald Trump’s job performance on a wide range of issues by significant margins. At the same time, voters remain wary of the Democrats on key issues.
Fully 55% of registered voters disapprove of Trump’s overall job performance with 46% saying that they strongly disapprove. Sixty percent of female voters disapprove of Trump’s job performance while Independent voters (67% disapprove) render an even harsher judgement. Trump receives his highest scores among his base of white non-college voters (60% approve, 40% disapprove).
On Trump’s signature issue of immigration, 55% disapprove including just under two-thirds of Independents (64%). Once again, Trump’s base of non-college white voters back him on immigration (62% approve).
Trump does even more poorly on his handling of the economy (40% approve, 59% disapprove) than he does overall. A decisive 70% of Independent voters disapprove of Trump’s handling of the economy.
Voters are clearly telling the Democrats it is not enough to be just the anti-Trump. Democrats need to tell voters in no uncertain terms how they would make their lives better.
Even on the issue of crime which the Trump administration has focused on in the last several weeks does not generate any good news for the president. A 54% majority disapprove of his job performance on crime while 44% approve. Trump’s job performance on crime does resonate with voters ages 50 to 64 (54% approve, 45% disapprove).
Trump’s job performance numbers clearly indicate that he has been playing to his base among non-college white voters and ignoring the rest of the electorate. For a candidate who ran on the economy, his economic job performance numbers must be worrying. The logical thing for Trump to do would be to pivot from his focus on crime and immigration and focus on the cost of living. While this is the politically smart thing to do, Trump seems unlikely to take this path. Instead, he will continue to focus on his base. This is a real gamble because it is unlikely that there will be enough non-college white voters to enable the GOP to keep the House in Republican hands.
Fifty-three percent of respondents say that in 2026 they would vote to support Democrats to oppose Trump while 42% say they would vote for the GOP to support Trump’s agenda. Fully 59% of Independents say they would vote Democratic for Congress to oppose Trump’s agenda.
All this so far, is exceptionally good news for the Democrats. However, Democrats still have far to go with voters on key issues. On the question of which political party can best handle the economy, 32% prefer the Democrats, 39% the Republicans, and 28% say neither. A 47% plurality of Independents say neither party while 25% say the Democrats and 26% the Republicans.
On the issue of immigration, Republicans have a clear advantage as 42% of voters prefer the GOP while 29% support the Democrats and 28% say neither. Independent voters offer a very mixed picture on the question of which party can handle immigration (20% Democrats, 30% Republicans, and 48% neither).
Thirteen months from the 2026 midterms, Democrats have many things to feel good about in these polling numbers. However, they also face a challenge. Voters do not trust them on immigration and the economy. The Democrats may be able to triumph next year without winning the majority of voters on immigration. It is likely that they will not be able to win without winning voters on both the economy and immigration.
Job No. 1 for the Democrats for the 2026 midterms is to produce an economic message. Given Trump’s poor economic job performance numbers, this would seem an easy task. However, it was something that they failed to do in 2024, and I would argue that it cost them the White House. Voters are clearly telling the Democrats it is not enough to be just the anti-Trump. Democrats need to tell voters in no uncertain terms how they would make their lives better. If the Democratic Party fails here, they will hand GOP control of Congress for at least two more years. None of us can afford this outcome.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Fighting Crime Is a Pretext; Trump Wants Control
The deployment of out-of-state troops to occupy cities cannot plausibly promote public order. It’s blunt force, a brutal power grab, and it runs afoul of the Constitution and the proper role for states.
Sep 02, 2025
US President Donald Trump has threatened to send troops to Chicago to “straighten that one out.” New York City, he says, might be next.
Already, armed National Guard regiments are patrolling the streets of Washington, DC. All this on top of the deployment of troops to Los Angeles earlier in the summer.
The deployment of out-of-state troops to occupy cities cannot plausibly promote public order. It’s blunt force, a brutal power grab. It runs afoul of the Constitution and the proper role for states.
I write history books and consider myself an expert on the presidency. I can think of few analogies—not in this country, anyway—for such a move by a chief executive.
Why is this particular turn so alarming? After all, public safety is important, and fighting crime is a worthy goal. My colleague Liza Goitein explains the legal and constitutional issues:
Trump is on even thinner legal ice with this plan than he is in Los Angeles and DC. Unlike in the capital, the president doesn’t command the Illinois National Guard unless he calls them into federal service (i.e., “federalizes” them). There are various laws that authorize him to federalize the guard, but none of them would apply here.
In Los Angeles, Trump is relying on a law (Section 12406 of Title 10 of the US Code) that authorizes federalization when “the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States,” meaning federal law. Immigration law is federal law. Trump claimed that the protests rendered him “unable... to execute” ICE raids. Although dozens of raids happened during the protests and the administration did not cite a single raid that was thwarted, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals deferred to Trump’s assessment.
But that law simply wouldn’t apply to the type of crime Trump has cited in Chicago—essentially, violent street crime. The laws that are implicated are largely those of Illinois and Chicago, not the “laws of the United States.”
Even under the Insurrection Act—which is the main exception to the law barring deployment of the military for domestic law enforcement—the president may deploy troops to execute the law only in situations involving either federal laws or those state laws designed to protect the constitutional rights of classes of people (basically, civil rights laws).
Nor can Trump ask other states’ governors to send their guard forces into Chicago, as he did in DC under a law known as Section 502(f), which authorizes governors to voluntarily use their guard forces for missions requested by the president or secretary of defense. Under this law, presidents have asked governors to deploy guard forces within their own states, in other states that consent, or (as only Trump has done) in DC without local consent. No governor has sent guard troops into another state that did not consent, as would be the case here. That’s because guard forces deployed under this law remain state officers as a legal matter. And under the Constitution, states are sovereign entities vis-à-vis one another. That means one state cannot invade another, even at the president’s request.
If the president wants to send one state’s National Guard forces into an unwilling state, he must federalize them first. But to federalize them, he needs statutory authority. And there is no statutory authority to federalize the guard to police local crime.
The Pentagon reportedly sees its planned military deployment in Chicago as a model for other cities. And of course, the other cities Trump has name-checked in this context are governed by Democrats: Baltimore, Los Angeles, New York, and Oakland.
Flooding “blue” cities with soldiers on the pretext of fighting crime would be an unprecedented abuse of power that would violate states’ rights and threaten our most fundamental liberties. The plan is profoundly un-American. And it is illegal.
Public safety matters greatly. But facts belie the (ever shifting) rationale. New York, for example, remains one of the nation’s safest large cities. As Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch told Attorney General Pam Bondi yesterday, crime has dropped dramatically, even this year. Fighting crime is not a rationale—it’s a pretext.
The cities targeted so far have two things in common: a Black mayor and a fusillade of presidential rhetoric denouncing them as “hellholes.”
Bill Kristol, founder of The Bulwark and a longtime prominent Republican, surveyed events and put it this way: “What we are seeing is not merely a ‘slide toward authoritarianism.’ It’s a march toward despotism. And it’s a march whose pace is accelerating.”
What can be done to push back? Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker warned federal forces: “Do not come to Chicago. You are neither wanted here nor needed here.” Trump, in turn, mused: “They say... ‘He’s a dictator. He’s a dictator.’ A lot of people are saying, ‘Maybe we’d like a dictator.’” He added, “I don’t like a dictator. I’m not a dictator.” (As presidential quotations go, it’s about as reassuring as Richard Nixon’s “I am not a crook.”)
Pritzker and New York Gov. Kathy Hochul can play pivotal roles. States and cities can go to court—an epic legal battle. They can rally the public in their states and around the country. They can monitor and document the conduct of deployed forces.
We must all speak out when our Constitution is under threat.
Hopefully you got some rest this Labor Day. It’s going to be a busy fall.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Crime and Punishment US Style: an Interview with David Garland
The author and NYU professor explains why America’s modern regime of policing and punishment is altogether extraordinary when measured against the practices of other developed nations.
Aug 28, 2025
The United States is a global outlier in several significant areas, not least of which is its extraordinary penal state with its penchant for extreme punitiveness.
Indeed, as Professor David Garland, one of the world’s most influential criminologists, argues in the interview that follows, for historical parallels with the penal state in the US one must look to the case of the Gulag system during Joseph Stalin’s reign as dictator of the Soviet Union. Moreover, Professor Garland contents that behind the harshness and cruelty of the US criminal legal system lies the nation’s racialized political economy, and that transforming the latter is a prerequisite for restructuring the former.
David Garland is the Arthur T. Vanderbilt professor of law and professor of sociology at New York University and an honorary professor at Edinburgh University. He is author of the newly published book Law and Order Leviathan: America’s Extraordinary Regime of Policing and Punishment.
C. J. Polychroniou: The United States has long portrayed itself as the greatest and freest country in the world, a model democracy for other countries across the globe. The reality, however, is that the US is the most economically unequal society in the developed world and one of the worst countries for racial equality. In addition, its weak and fragile liberal-democratic institutions have been exposed in recent times for all to see, while its penal system is what may easily be described as a national disgrace and an international embarrassment. Indeed, as you argue in your recently published book Law and Order Leviathan, the US is also an outlier among modern democracies in its policing and punishment practices, and this is indeed by no means a new phenomenon. How should we understand the country’s long-standing obsession with law and order?
David Garland: Yes, people think of America as Alexis de Tocqueville’s civil society when in fact it’s often closer to Thomas Hobbes’ authoritarian state. We see these repressive characteristics today in the conduct of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, but for the last 40 years the leading example has been the massive deployment of penal power by America’s criminal legal system—a deployment that has occurred at every level of government with broad bipartisan support.
The fundamental cause that has shaped America’s penal state is the nation’s racialized political economy and the material conditions created by its economic and political structures.
America’s modern regime of policing and punishment is altogether extraordinary when measured against the practices of other developed nations. American police kill civilians at a much higher rate; American courts impose longer and more frequent prison sentences; American prisons house massively more individuals, particularly Blacks and Latinos; and Americans with felony convictions are subject to many more controls and constraints after they serve their sentence. No other democracy exercises penal power to this extent. To find historical parallels, we have to look to the Soviet gulags or Mao’s political prison system.
There are many causes that converged to bring about America’s penal Leviathan—fear of crime, racism, neoliberalism, the appeal of law and order politics, a culture of cruelty and indifference—but the fundamental cause that has shaped America’s penal state is the nation’s racialized political economy and the material conditions created by its economic and political structures.
C. J. Polychroniou: The US has a weak welfare system and a distinct political economy in general compared to many European countries. Is there a direct link between weak welfare structures and the employment of aggressive policing and harsh punishment?
David Garland: Yes, and the book shows in detail what these linkages are and how they operate. Like its penal state, America’s political economy is an international outlier, with characteristics that set it apart from the economic arrangements of other high-income nations. This is especially true of its labor market—which provides fewer protections for working people, and more low-paid, precarious employment, making for a level of insecurity and instability that is unknown elsewhere in the developed world. On top of this, America’s welfare state provides less support for poor people and for those in need.
Material conditions for working people grew worse after the 1960s when the economic dislocations of deindustrialization were exacerbated by the collapse of the New Deal order, the decline of trade unions, and federal government’s abandonment of the inner cities. In the 1980s and 1990s, America exhibited social-problem levels markedly higher than other developed nations, the most striking of which was a rate of lethal violence—mostly gun homicides—that was off-the-charts high compared to other affluent countries.
The outlier status of America’s penal state will persist unless and until the nation’s political economy is transformed.
Drawing on urban studies and the sociology of violence, I show how pressures produced by America’s political economy—unemployment, disinvestment, deteriorating housing, limited social services, and so on—destabilize poor neighborhoods, undermining community life and family functioning, especially in racially segregated areas with concentrated poverty and population turnover. The result is that the vital processes of socialization, social integration, and informal social control normally carried out by families, schools, neighbors, and employers grow weak and fail, leading to social problems, social disorder, and criminal violence. These problems are deepened by the widespread availability of guns—another exceptional feature of the American landscape.
When homicides and armed robbery rates rose, and cities became disorderly and unsafe, voters demanded that something be done to improve public safety and protect their businesses and property values. But the same political economy that disorganized communities and triggered criminogenic processes also limited the governmental responses to these problems. In America’s racialized ultra-liberal political economy, redistributive policies are generally unpopular. And because responsibility for public safety is, in the US, a local function, few municipalities had the resources needed to respond to crime using the social policies and economic investments that are common in social democratic nations. Instead, they defaulted to the cheap policy instruments that were within their toolkit, namely police and punishment.
Moreover, American-style policing and punishment turns out to be remarkably aggressive. Why? Because of public indifference to the fate of those caught up in the carceral net; because the courts refuse to hold police and prisons to account; but mainly because penal state agents operate against a social background that is more disorganized, more dangerous, and more gun-laden than that of any other developed nation.
C. J. Polychroniou: As you point out in your book, public sentiments about police brutality, mass incarceration, and the penal state experienced a major shift away from punitive measures following the police murder of George Floyd on May 25, 2020. Indeed, as street protests ensued, the tenets of police and prison abolition gained currency, although alternatives still needed to be worked out. Be that as it may, the politics of law and order have since returned with a vengeance, as evidenced by the reelection of US President Donald Trump, who ran a campaign based on fear and anxiety. How do we explain this reversal?
David Garland: The plague year of 2020 was an extraordinary time, during which public anxiety and hopes for radical change often coexisted. (During the pandemic, the US created a pop-up European-style welfare state, with stimulus checks for every household; enhanced unemployment, housing, and child-allowance benefits; and massively extended healthcare coverage—only to dismantle it once the crisis had passed.) In retrospect, we can see that the massive street demonstrations that followed the police killing of George Floyd were possible because so many people were no longer at work or in school, making them available to join in the protests. Of course, many Americans were genuinely shocked by the brazen violence and racist disregard for human life that Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin displayed. But it is worth remembering, that by 2020, homicide levels and crime rates in general had been falling for more than a decade, relaxing public demands for tough-on-crime policies and enabling activists, such as the Black Lives Matter movement and local groups of abolitionists, to draw public attention to the pathologies of police violence, mass incarceration, and racialized criminal justice.
Democrats need to take the crime problem seriously and offer their own strategies and solutions—not just watered down versions of right-wing bromides.
In general, though, the American public is very conservative on matters of crime control and public safety, and demands for the “abolition” or “defunding” of police and prisons were never liable to have much traction beyond the world of activists, advocates, and academics—even when the liberal media briefly introduced these ideas into the mainstream. And while the life chances of middle-class white people are not normally affected by police violence or harsh prison sentences—in sharp contrast to poor communities of color—they are affected by crime and violence. So when, in the fall of 2020, there were reports of an uptick in shootings and homicides, public support drained away from Black Lives Matter and voters reverted to their long-standing preference for law-and-order candidates—as we saw in the election of Eric Adams to NYC Mayor, in the deselection of several progressive prosecutors, and eventually in the victory of Donald Trump. So the reversal was a political regression to the mean following an extraordinary historic moment.
However, I believe the protests of 2020, and the radical critique of the penal state that accompanied them, have changed the public discourse in important ways, introducing new ideas and radicalizing many young people who form part of the Democratic Party base. My hope is that this new level of concern about penal state repression will be joined with realistic, progressive proposals for dealing with crime and disorder. Democrats need to take the crime problem seriously and offer their own strategies and solutions—not just watered down versions of right-wing bromides. The emphasis should be on non-penal crime-control measures such as situational crime prevention; designing public spaces to make them safer; improving police training and effectiveness; relieving police of tasks for which they are not suited; enabling communities and not-for-profits to launch crime-reduction initiatives; supporting victims to reduce the likelihood of revictimization; and so on. Crime and disorder are real problems for working people; and the victims of homicide and assaults are most often poor and Black. Sustainable reform of the penal state must go hand in hand with effective crime control.
C. J. Polychroniou: What realistic possibilities are available to us for bringing about penal change if we do not first succeed in restructuring the political economy of the United States?
David Garland: To be clear, the outlier status of America’s penal state will persist unless and until the nation’s political economy is transformed. It is that peculiar political economy that makes American violence, policing, and punishment so extreme compared to other affluent nations. However, there is a range—I call it a “bandwidth”—of possible variation within which American crime, policing, and punishment can be changed: a structurally determined floor and ceiling between which lies the possibility of significant reform. That bandwidth of variation is a key part of the theoretical analysis set out in the book, and an empirical fact confirmed by recent developments.
Criminogenic processes and crime control policies are loosely coupled with political economy, not mechanically and directly determined by it. Crime-control policies can be altered, criminogenic processes interrupted, community work activated without any alternation in larger socioeconomic arrangements. For those hoping to bring about penal change, the existence of this relative autonomy is vitally important. It means that even if Nordic or Western European levels remain out of reach, there is nevertheless the real possibility of life-altering improvements in policing, punishment, and public safety.
There is a bandwidth of possibility within which variations in violence levels and penal state policies can occur even in the absence of larger structural change.
We know this because the last few decades have witnessed many instances of significant change. Over the last 20 years, the nation’s imprisonment rates declined from a high point of 765 per 100,000 to a new level closer to 600 per 100,000. Between 1995 and 2020 the nation’s annual homicide rate declined from around 10 murders for every 100,000 people to 5 per 100,000. Shootings of civilians by the New York Police Department (NYPD) dropped dramatically—from an average of 62 people shot and killed each year in the early 1970s to an average of nine per year between 2015 and 2021—after new forms of training, guidelines, and accountability were introduced. The NYPD also reduced its deployment of stop and frisk from over 680,000 per year in 2011 to 11,000 in 2018—the result of a court ruling not a social transformation. Between 1997 and 2023, 2 million formerly incarcerated people regained the right to vote, thanks to campaigns against felon disfranchisement. And since 2000, the imprisonment rate for Black men has fallen by almost half, thanks in large part to the scaling back the war on drugs.
Each of these changes was significant, even radical, affecting the lives of hundreds of thousands and sometimes millions of people. Together, they amount to an empirical demonstration of the book’s theoretical claim that there is a bandwidth of possibility within which variations in violence levels and penal state policies can occur even in the absence of larger structural change.
Nevertheless, the gravitational force exerted by structural arrangements—and the powerful interests that support them—is, in the final analysis, ineluctable. America’s political economy sets definite limits to what can be achieved and imposes upper bounds on what is possible. Until its structures are transformed, America’s penal state will continue to impose a level of punishment and control that has no equivalent in the developed world.
Keep ReadingShow Less
When Trump Rails Against DC Crime, the Call Is Coming From Inside the House
Why then is the press mesmerized by the declining street crime in DC, luridly inflated by the serial prevaricator, Trump, without so much as a mention of serial White House and K Street crimes?
Aug 23, 2025
US President Donald Trump, always looking to distract attention from his many crimes, has deployed National Guard troops and federal law enforcement officials in Washington, DC. After his usual wild exaggerations about “…violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals, roving mobs of wild youths, drugged-out maniacs and homeless people,” he moves to impose what is becoming his police state over an overwhelmingly Democratic city
As Trump’s troops fan out across more of the city, they are told to be aggressive, take credit for arrests made by the local DC police force, and arbitrarily interrogate DC residents, for example, people waiting at bus stops, minding their own business.
Trump, during his first and current terms, rarely stepped out of his limousine to see what DC is like (See James Fallows’ article “What It Actually ‘Feels Like’ in DC” August 13, 2025). He finally visited with a cluster of his police and troops yesterday, passing out “cheeseburgers prepared by the White House chef’s staff and around 100 pizzas from Wiseguy Pizza,” and quickly declared Washington a safer city after less than two weeks of his forces patrolling largely tourist and downtown business areas.
The reaction from DC residents is mostly negative. Business is already slowing for DC restaurants and will only get worse as Trump brings in more National Guard troops from Republican states, paid for by the taxpayers.
Why is the word “crime” never associated with the far greater “crime in the suites” but only with crime in the streets?
Homicides in DC are at a 30-year low. They are far lower than in many cities in the red states headed by white mayors. Trump seems to go after cities that happen to have Black mayors, further illustrating his racist bigotry, along with downplaying slavery and reinstalling Confederate statues and returning Confederate names to military bases.
To be sure, there ARE two grave and deadly ongoing crime waves in DC. One is clearly the violence surging from Trump’s White House, with big weapons and big tax dollars to fund and shield mega-terrorist Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s slaughtering genocide of civilians in Gaza, and increasingly the West Bank.
Trump has continued the “co-belligerency” that former President Joe Biden established with the Israeli regime. Every day, far more babies, children, mothers, and fathers have been killed from this brutal Trump-Netanyahu axis than are killed in a year in DC.
The deliberate cutoff of lifesaving medical, food, and water assistance to millions of the impoverished in less developed countries occurred when Trump illegally closed the US Agency for International Development (USAID). Humanitarian relief groups already count the preventable deaths in the many thousands. Cutting off food and vaccines will have devastating long-term consequences.
Domestically, convicted felon Trump openly violates many criminal statutes and constitutional provisions (See the April 30, 2025, letter to President Trump citing 22 Impeachable Offenses). For example, he daily violates the Anti-Deficiency Act by spending large sums of money NOT appropriated by Congress. He violates the Hatch Act, which prohibits the use of federal property for electoral campaign purposes. (See the June 28, 2023, letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland by me and Bruce Fein.) He glories in obstruction of justice—a felony. His former first-term national security adviser, John Bolton, wrote in his memoir that “obstruction of justice was a way of life at the White House.”
Trump is continuing this offense in his second term with vengeance. He engages in flat-out open extortion in dealing with universities and several large corporate law firms. The list goes on. Recall that Trump said in 2019 that “with Article II, I can do whatever I want as President” and has repeatedly declared that he has never done anything wrong in elective office. It is understandable that scores of psychologists have described him as a dangerous and delusional personality. The worst is yet to come from the egomaniacal Trump.
As for the K Street offices of hundreds of corporate lobbyists, where does one start? They are, along with heaping piles of campaign cash, making sure that neither Congress nor government agencies of the Executive Branch stop the corporate crime wave. The Big Business paymasters spend whatever it takes to ensure that crime in the suites is never aggressively prosecuted.
Read the weekly Corporate Crime Reporter? (Give your library a gift subscription.) For 39 years, it has been reporting documented corporate crimes of violence (toxic pollution, dangerous products, workplace casualties), and economic crimes and thefts from workers, consumers, investors, students, and pensioners.
Imagine the mainstream media reports on more corporate crimes than budget-starved law enforcement can begin to prosecute. Check out “60 Minutes,” the New York Times, Washington Post, AP, Reuters, and even the Wall Street Journal. For enjoyable, factual reading, try the books by Jim Hightower and his regular newsletter, The Hightower Lowdown.
Hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths occur annually from these violations, and the preventable injuries and illnesses are much larger in number.
Why then is the press mesmerized by the declining street crime in DC, luridly inflated by the serial prevaricator, Trump, without so much as a mention of serial White House and K Street crimes? Why is the word “crime” never associated with the far greater “crime in the suites” but only with crime in the streets? To ask is to answer. Power, money, and greed camouflage the corporate criminal deeds from journalists who do not or are not allowed to see them in plain sight.
We have a political economy steeped in self-deception, taking the federal cops off the corporate crime beat and not making the lethal corrosions on peace and justice serious campaign issues in elections. Voters, of course, can end this cowardly silence.
Who will be the first reporter to ask Trump in his many informal gatherings with the press, about these two booming crime scenes representing the Oligarchy and the Plutocracy?
When will the reporters and their editors stop wallowing in a cultural rut where common candor requires uncommon courage?
Remember, it’s all in plain sight to behold and then be told.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump’s DC Takeover Is a Dangerous Distraction
Trump’s hysterics aside, crime just hit a 30-year low in DC. So why bring it up? Because the last month or two has been jam-packed with stories Trump has been desperate to dodge.
Aug 21, 2025
Credit where it’s due: US President Donald Trump has a talent for getting the chattering classes talking about whatever he wants. Especially when he really doesn’t want them talking about other stuff.
That’s how we should view Trump’s latest drama in Washington, DC, where he mobilized the National Guard and took over the police department.
On the one hand, there’s something new and dangerous about Trump’s willingness to deploy US troops against Americans in their own cities. On the other, scaremongering about cities is a tried and true (and sad!) distraction Republicans have relied on since Richard Nixon.
Trump’s hysterics aside, crime just hit a 30-year low in DC. So why bring it up? Because the last month or two has been jam-packed with stories Trump has been desperate to dodge.
For every National Guard member dispatched to the streets, thousands of families will go to bed without the food or healthcare they need to stay alive.
First, he struggled to escape the shadow of billionaire sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. Trump was named repeatedly in the Epstein files, which he’d promised to release before denying they existed at all. The episode led to a rare rupture with his base, with Trump hurling insults at followers upset about his about-face.
Then, troubling economic news piled up.
Food prices are already rising, and news broke that the president’s tariffs could cost each American $2,400 this year alone. July’s job growth was revised downward, leading Trump to fire a professional government economist and install some guy from the Heritage Foundation—who apparently joined the January 6 mob, which Trump pointedly did not want to deploy the Guard against—in her place.
Perhaps most importantly, Americans really, really don’t like the GOP’s budget-busting “Big Beautiful Bill,” which Trump signed this summer. It’s been called “the largest redistribution from poor to rich in American history.” Over 60% of Americans say they oppose it—and the more they learn, the higher that figure climbs.
The law made historically deep cuts to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to fund tax cuts for billionaires and corporations, plus enormous subsidies for for-profit Pentagon and Immigration and Customs Enforcement contractors. As a result, 17 million Americans will lose their health coverage, killing 51,000 people every year. Millions more will go without food, including children.
Needless to say, Trump and his allies would like to keep these embarrassing facts quiet. So he’s tried a range of distractions. He flirted with filing treason charges against former President Barack Obama. He demanded the Cleveland Guardians go back to the “Indians” name. He fired off one unhinged post after another on social media.
It was only after these gambits and others failed that Trump deployed the troops in DC, delivering a fact-free, all but explicitly racist screed about “crime, bloodshed, bedlam, and squalor” in the nation’s capital.
These claims—dutifully echoed by Fox News and GOP members of Congress—sounded a lot like stuff we’ve heard before. And each time, it’s been an effort to deflect attention from the misdeeds of the powerful and onto a poor, maligned minority.
When the GOP’s poll numbers were faltering ahead of the 2018 or 2022 midterms, we got wave after wave of deceptive ads and stories about “big city crime,” which largely subsided after the vote. When it wasn’t crime, it was a “migrant caravan” or “border crisis.”
Or critical race theory, trans kids, library drag shows, or… well, just fill in the blank.
Sideshows like these aren’t just a pain for fact-checkers. They lead to real threats and violence against these communities—and assaults on all of our freedoms. And they keep us chattering about anything besides the far-right politicians picking our pockets.
For every National Guard member dispatched to the streets, thousands of families will go to bed without the food or healthcare they need to stay alive. That’s the real story of Trump’s America—don’t let him talk you out of it.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy