Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less