Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Fact Check: Trump Police Takeover

News

Fact Check: Trump Police Takeover

People participate in a rally against the Trump Administration's federal takeover of the District of Columbia, outside of the AFL-CIO on August 11, 2025 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

Key Points:

  • President Donald Trump declared a “crime emergency” in Washington, D.C. and announced that the federal government would take control of the city’s police, claiming “an increase in violent crime.”
  • Official figures show that violent crime has decreased in D.C. since 2023.
  • In 2024, the number of violent crimes was half of what was reported in 2019, during Trump’s first term.
  • However, Washington, D.C. has ranked among the top 10 U.S. cities with the highest homicide rates per 100,000 residents since at least 2017.

President Donald Trump declared a “crime emergency” in Washington, D.C. and announced that the federal government would take control of the city’s police. According to Trump’s executive order issued on August 11, 2025, this emergency measure is necessary because “there is an increase in violent crime” in the city.

That claim is false.


Official data shows that violent crime has been decreasing in D.C.

Between 2023 and 2024, violent crime dropped by 35%, according to data from the Metropolitan Police Department.

  • In 2023: 5,325 violent crimes
  • In 2024: 3,469 violent crimes

This marks the lowest figure recorded in the city in over 30 years, according to the Department of Justice (under the Biden administration, January 3, 2025).

The category “violent crime” includes homicide, sexual assault, assault with a dangerous weapon, and robbery.

By August 11, 2025 (the date of Trump’s executive order), violent crime had decreased even further—by 26% compared to the same date in 2024.

From January to August 2025, fewer violent crimes were recorded than in the same period in 2024.

Looking at the total number of violent crimes in D.C. since 2017, the 2024 figure is just over half of what was recorded during 2017, 2018, and 2019 (Trump’s first three years in office).

Despite the decline in violent crime, Washington, D.C. still has one of the highest homicide rates in the country.

  • In 2023: 40 homicides per 100,000 residents
  • In 2024: 27.5 homicides per 100,000 residents (according to Trump’s emergency declaration)

This 2024 rate is lower than those recorded in 2020, 2021, and 2022.

Although the Metropolitan Police Department had not yet published its 2024 homicide report at the time of writing, a study by the University of Rochester’s Center for Public Safety Initiatives (February 2025) estimated the 2024 rate at 27.3 per 100,000—similar to the White House figure.

Despite the decrease, the Rochester study ranked D.C. fourth among U.S. cities with the highest homicide rates in 2024, behind:

  1. St. Louis, Missouri – 54.4
  2. New Orleans, Louisiana – 34.7
  3. Detroit, Michigan – 32.1

Washington, D.C., has appeared in Rochester’s reports among the top 10 cities with the highest homicide rates since at least 2017.

The White House has questioned the accuracy of D.C.’s crime statistics, citing a press report about a police commander suspended since May 2025 and under investigation for allegedly altering data.

The commander denies the accusations (made by the D.C. police union), and the outcome of the investigation remains unknown.

Editor's Notes: This article is a translation of "No, el crimen violento no aumentó en Washington D.C, contrariamente a lo que dijo Trump al declarar en emergencia a la ciudad," first published by our partners, Factchequeado.

Rafael Olavarría is a Fact-checker of politics and immigration for FactCheckeado.


Read More

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War
Toy soldiers in a battle formation
Photo by Saifee Art on Unsplash

The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War

In the Rumble in the Jungle, George Foreman came in expecting to end the fight early.

At first, it looked that way. He was stronger, faster, and landing clean punches. I watched the 1974 championship on simulcast fifty-two years ago and remember how dominant he was in the opening rounds.

Keep ReadingShow less
Calling Wealthy Benefactors!
A rusty house figure stands over a city.
Photo by Katja Ano on Unsplash

Calling Wealthy Benefactors!

My housing has been conditional on circumstances beyond my control, and the time is up; the owner is selling.

Securing affordable housing is a stressor for much of the working class. According to recent data, nearly 50% of renters are cost-burdened, meaning they spend over 30% of their take-home income on housing costs. Rental prices in California are especially high, 35% higher than the national average. Renting is routinely insecure. The lords of land need to renovate, their kids need to move in. They need to sell.

Keep ReadingShow less
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed upon entering the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building on June 6, 2023 in New York City. New York City has provided sanctuary to over 46,000 asylum seekers since 2013, when the city passed a law prohibiting city agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement agencies unless there is a warrant for the person's arrest.(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed.
(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

The Power of the Purse and Executive Discretion: ICE Expansion Under the Trump Administration

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

  • Core Constitutional Debate: Expanded ICE enforcement under the Trump Administration raises a core constitutional question: Does Article II executive power override Article I’s congressional power of the purse?
  • Executive Justification: The primary constitutional justification for expanded ICE enforcement is The Unitary Executive Theory.
  • Separation of Powers: Critics argue that the Unitary Executive Theory undermines Congress’s power of the purse.
  • Moral Conflict: Expanded ICE enforcement has sparked a moral debate, as concerns over due process and civil liberties clash with claims of increased public safety and national security.

Where is ICE Funding Coming From?

Since the beginning of the current Trump Administration, immigration enforcement has undergone transformative change and become one of the most contested issues in the federal government. On his first day in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159, which directs executive agencies to implement stricter immigration enforcement practices. In order to implement these practices, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a budget reconciliation package that paired state and local tax cuts with immigration funding. This allocated $170.7 billion in immigration-related funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to spend by 2029.

Keep ReadingShow less