Washington DC

Subterms

    More stories

    • 225 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump claims Chicago is ‘world’s most dangerous city’. The four most violent ones are all in red states

      by

      As Donald Trump threatens to deploy national guard units to Chicago and Baltimore, ostensibly to quell violence, a pattern has emerged as he describes which cities he talks about.Chicago, Philadelphia, Washington DC and Baltimore.But not Jackson, Birmingham, St Louis or Memphis.An analysis of crime trends over the last four years shows two things. First, violent crime rates in America’s big cities have been falling over the last two years, and at an even greater rate over the last six months. The decrease in violence in America is unprecedented.Second, crime in large cities in the aggregate is lower in states with Democratic leadership. But the president focuses his ire almost exclusively on large blue cities in blue states, sidestepping political conflict with red Republican governors.The four cities of populations larger than 100,000 with the highest murder rates in 2024 are in Republican states: Jackson, Mississippi (78.7 per 100,000 residents), Birmingham, Alabama (58.8), St Louis, Missouri (54.1) and Memphis, Tennessee (40.6).On Tuesday, Trump called Chicago “the most dangerous city in the world”, and pledged to send military troops there, as well as to Baltimore. “I have an obligation. This isn’t a political thing,” he said at a press conference. “I have an obligation when 20 people are killed over the last two and a half weeks and 75 are shot with bullets.”When talking about crime in Chicago, Trump regularly refers to the number of people who may have been shot and killed there. But Chicago has a population of about 2.7 million, which is larger than each of the least-populous 15 states. It is roughly the same population as Mississippi. Chicago’s homicide rate for 2024 was 17.5 murders for every 100,000 residents, only a few points higher than that of the state of Louisiana, which was 14.5 per 100,000 in 2024.As has become tradition, news outlets reported how many people were killed in Chicago over the Labor Day weekend. At Louisiana’s rates, one would predict almost twice as many people to have been murdered there over the long weekend.But those numbers are harder to count. Chicago police report a single figure. One has to scour a hundred local news sites around Louisiana to aggregate the count for comparison.Notably, Trump discussed sending troops to New Orleans this week. “We’re making a determination now,” Trump said in the Oval Office. “Do we go to Chicago or do we go to a place like New Orleans, where we have a great governor, Jeff Landry, who wants us to straighten out a very nice section of this country that’s become quite, you know, quite tough, quite bad?”And Landry signaled his willingness to accede. “We will take President Trump’s help from New Orleans to Shreveport!” he wrote on X, posting a clip of the exchange.Still, Chicago is bracing to be the next city targeted by the Trump administration. To date this year, 278 people have been killed in Chicago, 118 fewer people killed when compared with 2024. It is at pace for 412 deaths for the year, which would be a rate of about 15 per 100,000 residents. The rate is likely to be lower still than that, because homicide rates increase during summer months.The Windy City ranked 37th in homicide rate in 2024 for cities larger than 50,000 residents in the United States. For cities with more than 100,000 residents, it placed 14th. This year, it is likely to slide farther down the list, even as violence falls to 60-year lows.As reported by the FBI’s crime data unit in August, the United States had a homicide rate of about 4.6 per 100,000 residents in 2024. It is the lowest figure since 2014, and very close to the generational lows of 4 to 4.5 per 100,000 last experienced in the early 1960s. The pandemic wave of increased violence has largely receded.“We know that across the nation [violence is] going down,” said Dr Thaddeus Johnson, a former Tennessee police officer and senior fellow at the Council on Criminal Justice, a policy thinktank.The 2024 homicide rate in the US decreased by about 15%, one of the largest drops in American history. Most of that decrease can be attributed to declines in the largest cities, Johnson said.Criminal justice researchers tend to place higher value on murder rates than other indicators of violent crime, because murder statistics are harder to manipulate. “It’s the most trustworthy data point,” Johnson said. But it’s not the only data point. “When you start talking about aggravated assaults and robberies, generally, we’ve seen that going down across the nation as well.”Both Chicago and Baltimore implemented or expanded antiviolence programs in 2022 using American Rescue Plan funding – much of which has been cut under Trump. Baltimore’s homicide rate has fallen about 40% since 2020, and in 2025 is pacing a 50-year low to date.Violent crime had also been falling in Washington DC by substantial margins before Trump took over the city’s policing. His announcement last month referenced DC’s 2023 crime rates, which spiked during the pandemic, while saying nothing about the precipitous fall since.In January, the Metropolitan police department and US attorney’s office reported that total violent crime in DC in 2024 was down 35% from the prior year, marking the lowest rate in over 30 years.The Guardian analyzed the murder rates for the largest 50 cities in the US and found that cities in blue states had the lowest, with just 7.8 murders per 100,000 people. The cities in red states have a much higher murder rate, of 12.9. Cities in swing states sit in the middle, with a murder rate of 10.2.Baltimore ranks fifth on a list of cities over 50,000 population by murder rate in 2024, as reported to the FBI statisticians. Washington DC is 15th. Between them are Wilmington, Delaware; Detroit; Cleveland; Dayton, Ohio; North Little Rock, Arkansas; Kansas City, Missouri; Shreveport, Louisiana; Camden, New Jersey, and Albany, Georgia.Compliance with federal rules on crime reporting is incomplete, and some agencies report incomplete data. One notable example of this is Jackson, Mississippi, which has consistently gathered crime data but only started submitting it to the FBI’s system this year. Jackson recorded 111 homicides in 2024, in a population of about 141,000: a rate of 78.7, the highest in America for any city with a population over 50,000.Though St Louis posted the second-highest homicide rate in 2024, violence there has been falling since 2023, and is on pace today for a 10% annual drop. Its rate will fall less sharply, however, because St Louis is losing population.Memphis led the country’s homicide rate in 2023. To date in 2025, murders and non-negligent homicides are down about 25%, after a 22% decrease in 2024. Like Baltimore, Memphis leaders attribute the decrease in part to an aggressive gun violence reduction initiative, Memphis Allies.Notably, small changes in smaller cities can have a big statistical effect.Birmingham, with a population of about 200,000, has cut its murder rate by more than half since the start of the year. Local officials attribute this, in part, to the arrest of a handful of people accused of violence, including Damien McDaniel, who has been charged in the murders of 18 people as a hired hitman. His arrest in October – and that of four other people who are linked to him – coincides with a 55% drop in Birmingham’s homicide rate since. More

    • 200 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Not addressing the issues’: DC residents wary of Trump’s national guard deployment even amid youth crime

      by

      With a small group of school-age children around him, Dylan Whitehorn is the center of attention with his clippers, trimmers and brushes. He’s known as “Mr D the Barber”, and on this summer afternoon in mid-August, Whitehorn had a steady line of kids waiting for a free back-to-school haircut at a neighborhood carnival.Several Metropolitan police department (MPD) officers patrolled the event, but their presence wasn’t overwhelming. It was a distinct difference from other parts of Washington DC, where upwards of 2,000 national guard troops were on the ground as part of Donald Trump’s temporary takeover of the city’s police department with federal troops.“It’s really been heartbreaking to see it,” said Whitehorn. “And to hear Donald Trump tell [federal officers] do what you want. You know, that kind of gasses them up, because they pretty much know or feel like they can gun you down, and there won’t be any accountability for that. And when you’re sending your kids to school in that climate, especially when this country has a history of killing young Black males, it’s a terrifying thought.”Amid a sweeping crackdown that has included immigration raids and checkpoints, Trump has called for teens as young as 14 years old to be charged as adults when accused of certain crimes in DC, citing the recent case of a 19-year-old former “department of government efficiency” (Doge) staffer who was allegedly assaulted by a group of teens.In late August on Fox & Friends, the US attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeanine Pirro, also doubled down, and said she would push to prosecute teens even younger than what Trump suggested. “We have got to lower the age of criminal responsibility in Washington DC. The gangs and the crews are 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 years old, I can’t touch them,” said Pirro in the clip. “If someone shoots someone with a gun and they’re 17 years old and that person does not die, I can’t prosecute them. I can’t get involved with them.”Minors aren’t part of Pirro’s jurisdiction because the US attorney for the District of Columbia is responsible for prosecuting adult felonies, while the local DC attorney general handles youth criminal cases. But the focus on young people committing crimes has become one of the central issues in the capital city’s friction with the Trump administration.Juvenile justice advocates say that DC’s current legal system ensures accountability and responsibility for minors involved in harmful behavior, without incarcerating them in a system built for adults. But DC natives and parents said they had mixed thoughts about how to effectively respond to youth crime. Frustration with community gun violence, even as violent crime has gone down after the pandemic surge, has made many residents in the Democratic city warily consider federal assistance.“It honestly depends on the crime because I’ve seen some of the younger kids out here carrying guns, like I can’t even sugarcoat it. If you out here killing then, yeah, you can serve adult time,” said Will Scales, a DC parent of three. “The punishment should be appropriate.”Research from the DC Policy Center shows the juvenile arrest rate in Washington DC is nearly double the national rate. There were more than 1,120 juvenile arrests from 1 January to 29 June this year, making up roughly 7% of all arrests in the city, according to data from the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, an independent DC agency that tracks public safety statistics. These trends have remained consistent since 2023, when youth crime spiked after the pandemic.The MPD has not publicly released any information about juvenile arrests during this federal operation, as it only publishes reports on juvenile arrests twice a year.Whenever a minor is arrested, an MPD spokesperson said, they are taken to the juvenile processing center. Depending on the severity of the criminal charge, the teen may be held overnight before they can see a judge the next day, or if they are eligible to participate in a diversion program, the teen is released to their guardian the same day as the arrest.Last year, the local DC attorney general’s office prosecuted over 84% of violent juvenile offenses, including homicide and attempted homicide, gun possession, carjacking and robbery cases.Still, city officials and advocates stress that the city has done more than prosecution alone.When crime spiked in 2023, DC’s mayor, Muriel Bowser, issued a public emergency declaration on juvenile crime, which expanded city resources and programs. This spring, the city launched the juvenile investigative response unit, a new initiative within the police department that expands outreach to teens in the criminal justice system and investigates violent crime involving youth.More recently, the DC city council approved tougher juvenile curfews after a series of incidents involving large groups of teens engaging in harmful and criminal behavior throughout the city.“There’s no question they still need to work on public safety,” said the DC city council member Robert White in an interview. “If we could actually get support from the federal government to keep doing the things that are working, we could continue to drive down crime. If the president spent just what he is spending from the defense budget, deploying the guards to DC on homelessness and crime, we could end both of them this week, but that’s not his goal.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionWhitehorn, meanwhile, acknowledges that youth crime has been an issue in DC, but he believes the answer isn’t as simple as locking teens up in jail. He knows this from his own experience: Whitehorn went to prison twice, spending nearly 15 years behind bars.“I get it that [if] they kill somebody, and I hate [for it] to be me or someone I love, but 14 years old, that’s just too young. I think it’s too young to get life … and that’s normally what you get for murder,” said Whitehorn. “I don’t think they have to be tried as an adult.”DC resident and parent Benetra Hudson believes there should be more parental involvement. She said this included more community policing efforts from neighbors, not police.“I’m 40 – when I was growing up, I had a whole community,” Hudson said. “I couldn’t do things because the lady at the corner knew my mom, and she would tell my mom or my grandmother before I could even get home from doing whatever it was I was not supposed to do.”When it comes to punishment, Hudson believes that teens aged 13 and 14 are too young to grasp the reality of their mistakes fully.“I feel like it gives them less of an opportunity if they’re charged as an adult, because they’re not going into a real adult situation in jail, and they’re not rehabilitated to look forward to the future,” said Hudson. “It’s a different thing when you’re actually incarcerated and you’re going to a juvenile facility to rehabilitate you to be better than you were as a juvenile, so when you are an adult, you don’t have those same mishaps.”Michael Umpierre, director of the Center for Youth Justice at the McCourt School of Public Policy at Georgetown University, agreed that police surveillance was not the most effective way to prevent youth crime.“If we truly want safer communities, we should be investing in schools, family supports and community-based youth programming. That is how we create pathways for young people – and all community members – to thrive,” he said in a statement.Others in the community echo that sentiment, arguing that the national guard’s presence won’t address the root causes of crime in the city.“People are not coming out because you’re out there, but they’re still going to kill, they’re still going to do all they’re doing as soon as you’re gone,” said Whitehorn. “It’s not fixing, it’s just blanketing the situation, but it’s not addressing the issues.” More

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Two teenagers arrested for murder of US congressional intern hit by stray bullets

      by

      Two teenagers were arrested Friday on murder charges in the killing of a congressional intern who was struck by stray bullets during a shooting in Washington DC – a crime that Donald Trump cited in deploying national guard troops in the US capital during the presidential administration’s law enforcement intervention there.Eric Tarpinian-Jachym, 21, of Granby, Massachusetts, was fatally shot on the night of 30 June near Washington’s Mount Vernon Square. Both suspects in his killing – Kelvin Thomas Jr and Jailen Lucas – are 17 years old, but are being charged as adults with first-degree murder while armed, according to US attorney Jeanine Pirro.Police were searching for a third suspect whose name and age weren’t immediately released.Tarpinian-Jachym was an “innocent bystander” who wasn’t an intended target of the gunfire, Pirro said at a news conference where she was flanked by the Washington DC mayor Muriel Bowser and the city’s police chief.“Eric didn’t deserve to be gunned down and the system failed him – the system that felt that juveniles needed to be coddled,” Pirro said. “This killing underscores why we need the authority to prosecute these younger kids, because they’re not kids. They’re criminals.”Tarpinian-Jachym was a rising senior at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. He was in Washington to work as a summer intern in the office of Republican congressman Ron Estes of Kansas.In July, the House observed a moment of silence after Estes paid tribute to Tarpinian-Jachym, calling him “a dedicated, and thoughtful and kind person who loved our country”.“We will never forget his presence and kindness in my office,” Estes said. “Those he met in his short term in my office will not forget him, either.”Trump mentioned Tarpinian-Jachym’s killing – but not his name – during an 11 August news conference where he announced the federal intervention in the District of Columbia.“Any level of gun violence in our city is unacceptable,” Bowser said.The suspects, both DC residents, exited a vehicle at an intersection and shot at two people riding bikes, including a 16-year-old male who was wounded, according to Kevin Kentish, a Washington DC metropolitan police department (MPD) commander.Tarpinian-Jachym was struck by four shots. A woman who wasn’t a target was also shot, but survived, according to Kentish. Surveillance video helped investigators identify the three suspects, he said.Online court records didn’t immediately identify attorneys for the suspects.Pamela Smith, the MPD chief, said she and Pirro spoke to Tarpinian-Jachym’s mother on Friday.“Eric came to our city with a bright future ahead of him,” Smith said. “He deserved an opportunity to return home safely to his family, but was senselessly taken from his loved ones.” More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      DC mayor Bowser signs order aligning city with Trump’s federal police takeover

      by

      Washington DC’s mayor, Muriel Bowser, appeared to bow to Donald Trump’s military occupation of the nation’s capital on Tuesday, signing an executive order that formalizes cooperation with federal forces even as residents push back against the city’s takeover.The Tuesday order establishes the “Safe and Beautiful Emergency Operations Center” – borrowing from Trump’s own branding – to institutionalize collaboration between city officials and various federal agencies including the FBI.On Wednesday, Bowser pushed back against accusations that she’s willing to continue Trump’s federal takeover.“I want the message to be clear to the Congress, we have a framework to request or use federal resources in our city,” Bowser told reporters during a press conference. “We don’t need a presidential emergency.”The comments come as Trump’s 30-day takeover is set to expire on 10 September.“Let me tell you, without equivocation, that the mayor’s order does not extend the Trump emergency,” she added. “In fact, it does the exact opposite. What it does is lays out a framework for how we will exit the emergency. The emergency ends on September 10.”The Pentagon previously said the national guard troops deployed to Washington will remain “until law and order is restored”. The more than 2,000 troops could stay through December to continue service member benefits, according to a senior official who spoke to CNN on condition of anonymity, although the mission may not last until then.Bowser’s executive order mandates that federal officers adhere to transparent policing practices, requiring them to avoid wearing masks, display clear agency identification, and provide proper identification during arrests and public encounters.But DC residents have criticized Bowser for opting for collaboration with the federal government over resistance. Polling from late August shows only 17-20% of residents support the federalized policing or armed national guard presence. Troops have been visibly patrolling tourist areas, metro stations and transit hubs rather than high-crime neighborhoods, and some unarmed troops have been assigned beautification tasks such as trash collection rather than crime-fighting duties.In a statement on Wednesday, Todd A Cox, the Legal Defense Fund associate director counsel, called Bowser’s decision “alarming, misguided, and profoundly disappointing”.“An increased presence of armed federal law enforcement officers in the District will not make our communities safer,” he said. “Safety for DC residents must include protection from police violence, yet the mayor’s decision subjects DC residents to an increased risk of it. Evidence has shown that this tactic is not only ineffective but actively harmful, disproportionately targeting Black communities, escalating tensions and undermining public safety.”Washington residents have organized a resistance to fill the void left by the muted local government response. Free DC, a grassroots coalition that has campaigned for home rule since the 1990s, has soared as a central organizing force – staging nightly “noise protests” with pots and pans at curfew and launching an “Adopt a Curfew Zone” program to protect the most heavily patrolled neighborhoods from what they describe as federal occupation meant to strip the district of its autonomy. The organization gained tens of thousands of new followers on Instagram over the last few weeks.Grand juries – composed of DC residents – have also refused to indict defendants in at least six cases, nullifying federal prosecutions through community defiance, including the case of the infamous “sandwich guy” who threw his Subway snack at an officer and was later tracked down and arrested. Residents in neglected neighborhoods such as Congress Heights have also condemned the military deployment’s focus on protecting tourists while ignoring their communities, instead pushing for local investment.A federal judge this week ruled that Trump’s similar national guard deployment to Los Angeles violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts military involvement in civilian law enforcement, potentially undermining the legal foundation for the DC operation.Trump has so far claimed substantial results from the operation, posting on Truth Social that “Carjacking in DC is down 87%” and that “ALL other categories of crime are likewise down massively” along with 1,599 arrests and 165 illegal weapons seized as of 1 September, according to the attorney general, Pam Bondi. On Tuesday he called DC a model for other states and in an Oval Office meeting said he would be “honored” to take a call from the Illinois governor, JB Pritzker, to send national guard troops to his state.“I would love to have Governor Pritzker call me,” Trump said. “I’d gain respect for him and say we do have a problem, and we’d love to send in the troops because, you know what, the people they have to be protected.” More

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Before and after: Trump’s extreme goldening of the Oval Office

      by

      In just seven extraordinary months, Donald Trump’s administration has left an unprecedented mark on the United States. From rewriting the rules of free trade to upending the norms of due process and challenging scientific orthodoxy, no corner of the country has remained untouched, including the president’s own centre of power: the Oval Office.Leaning into his former career as a real estate developer and hotelier, the president has, in his own words, applied some “Trump touches” to the room’s decor. The results have split opinions, with some calling the revamped office a symbol of America’s new golden age, while others have compared it to a professional wrestler’s dressing room.On a tour of the Oval Office in March, Trump was asked about some of the new gold details by a Fox News host. Describing the room as needing “a little life”, he went on to explain how difficult it is to get gold paint to look like gold.That apparent impediment did not hold the president back from continuing his refurbishments. Over the following months, the “goldening” ratcheted up, with gold trimming across the ceiling, door frames and fireplace. Even the sculpted cherubim inside door frames were painted gold.View image in fullscreenOver the months of his administration, the number of of gold trophies and vases littered across the mantlepiece have multiplied and there are now even gold coasters with Trump’s name on them.A White House spokesperson told Fox News that the gold – “of the highest quality” – was all paid for by Trump personally.The president has also multiplied the number of paintings on display, with almost 20 images of presidential predecessors adorning the walls. His predecessor, Joe Biden, had just six paintings on the walls. Barack Obama had pictures of just two former presidents.View image in fullscreenView image in fullscreenThe office is rounded out with pictures of the Trump family, a copy of the declaration of independence and gifts from visitors and well-wishers – including the Fifa Club World Cup trophy, which was given to Trump by the organisation’s president.The White House was approached for comment, but aides have previously told US media that every addition has come at the president’s direction. To help in this venture, Trump has reportedly called in the help of his personal “gold guy”.John Icart, a 70-year-old cabinet maker from Florida, was reportedly flown to Washington on Air Force One to provide the White House with the flourishes he brought to Trump’s Palm Beach mansion, Mar-a-Lago. The gilded carvings Icart added to the room prompted White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt to describe it as a “golden office for the golden age”.Others have been more critical. It was musician Jack White who compared the room to a wrestler’s dressing room, calling it “vulgar” and “gaudy”.View image in fullscreenView image in fullscreenReporter Jon Keegan pointed out that decorative medallions that festoon the walls of the room also bore more than a passing resemblance to “Foam Veneer Accessories” available from Chinese e-commerce site Ali Baba for just $1 a piece.The gold artefacts that have multiplied across the mantle piece are known to have a more auspicious pedigree. Coming from the White House’s own collection, they include a 19th-century French compotier, gilded urns given to president James Monroe and silver dating to the Eisenhower administration.Trump’s style is said to have been inspired by the Versailles hall of mirrors, and he has in the past bragged that the ballroom of his Florida home was itself modelled on the French palace.But in making these changes to the Oval Office, Trump has placed himself in a long tradition that sees every resident of the White House adjust the decor to their liking, including new furniture, wallpaper and rugs. But perhaps no president has gone further to transport the aesthetics of their pre-presidential home to Washington.View image in fullscreenIn the final year of his presidency, Obama was asked what art or object in the Oval Office was most significant to him. He pointed to the carpet beneath his feet. Handmade for him in a Michigan studio, the almost 10-metre-wide rug featured quotes around the perimeter from US leaders including Abraham Lincoln, John F Kennedy and Theodore Roosevelt.It was a line from Martin Luther King that Obama was said to be most fond of: “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.”A few months later, as Trump began moving into the White House and America’s winding story took another unexpected turn, Obama’s prized carpet was jettisoned, replaced by a floor covering with a golden tinge. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      America survived a coup attempt. Can it endure dictatorial creep? | Lawrence Douglas

      by

      January 6 demonstrated that longstanding democracies can readily resist a disorganized effort at a coup. They are less equipped to withstand the normalization of exceptional measures: the use of federal agents to quell domestic protest, the staging of police raids on the homes of leaders’ political opponents, the pretextual invocations of emergency powers. Each of these steps may seem temporary and targeted; they may even enjoy a thin patina of legality. But over time, a democratic order turns into what Ernst Fraenkel, a German-Jewish lawyer whose book The Dual State stands as one of the first and most perceptive examinations of Hitler’s regime, called a “prerogative state” – a government in which the executive “is released from all legal restraints and depends solely on the discretion of the persons wielding political power”.So let us be clear: Trump’s commandeering of control of the Washington DC police department was simply an opening salvo. While Americans were greeted with images of soldiers in combat gear, toting rifles and establishing roadblocks and checkpoints near the National Mall, Trump was already tasking his defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, with creating “specialized units” of the national guard to be “specifically trained and equipped to deal with public order issues”.What are the politics behind this militarization of domestic policing? Trump says he alone has the will and resources to pacify the “killing field” of Chicago, but clearly his “crime fighting” justification is no more than a ruse. Statistics – that is, reality – tell us that the crime rate in Washington DC was at a 30-year low when Trump sent in the troops. Which is not to deny the rhetorical power of ruses. Installing soldiers in Democratic strongholds allows Trump to present himself as the protector of law and order, especially to Maga supporters who have been trained by rightwing news outlets to view the nation’s largest and most multiethnic metropolitan areas as dens of iniquity and vice. Never mind that this is the president who pardoned members of the lawless mob that stormed the Capitol, fired career justice department prosecutors who worked to hold insurrectionists to account, and has installed in the department the likes of Jared Lane Wise, an insurgent who was charged with urging his fellow rioters to kill members of the police.Militarizing the police also serves Trump’s politics of intimidation. Here we can connect the deployment of troops on the National Mall to the FBI’s raid on John Bolton’s residences. Both are disturbing displays of the kind of force more familiar to a police state than to a constitutional democracy. The fact that both acts were formally legal – two federal magistrates signed off on the Bolton warrants, while several statutes specific to the District of Columbia authorized the president’s use of the national guard – makes them textbook examples of the kind of dictatorial creep that Fraenkel diagnosed.Deploying troops to police Chicago would, of course, represent a far more alarming and legally dubious exercise of executive power. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, a post-Reconstruction law, essentially bars presidents from using troops as domestic police. But we would be naive to conclude that federal law provides an adequate safeguard against the consolidation of the prerogative state. The Insurrection Act carves out disturbing exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act, allowing the president, in cases of “rebellion”, to deploy the military to enforce federal law. Would a supreme court that has held that a president enjoys broad immunity from future prosecution for all “official acts”, no matter how nefarious, question a president’s determination of what constitutes a “rebellion”?While the appearance of troops on the streets of Chicago or New York may frighten marginalized communities from exercising their basic rights of free movement, it may also trigger an equally dangerous and predictable response. The specter of city streets patrolled by soldiers trained to fight enemy combatants, not US citizens, may well serve not to quell violence but to invite it. The prospect of protests turning ugly and violent is all too real. The deployment of troops, under the pretext of responding to an emergency, then works to create the very emergency that justifies an ever-greater deployment. The danger is this is precisely what the president wants.Why? Trump has already aggressively inserted himself in the battle over the 2026 midterms, pushing Texas to further gerrymander its already gerrymandered districts; jesting that war may supply a justification for delaying elections; and pledging to issue an executive order ending mail-in ballots – while clearly lacking the authority to do so. What if he were to deploy troops to polling places on election day?In principle, a strong edifice of law explicitly bars such a deployment on election day, but imagine if the president, in the wake of a series of violent protests, invokes the Insurrection Act to “safeguard” polling stations from domestic unrest. Now we have armed soldiers at polling stations, handling ballots and “monitoring” the chain of custody – all done in the name of protecting democracy. Legally, such a deployment would stretch the Insurrection Act beyond recognition, but courts deliberate slowly; elections are decided in days.As Fraenkel noted, authoritarianism does not operate outside law; it manipulates law until legality and illegality are indistinguishable.

      Lawrence Douglas is a professor of law at Amherst College in Massachusetts More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Grand jury declines to indict alleged Washington DC sandwich thrower

      by

      Grand jurors have rebuffed federal prosecutors by refusing to approve a criminal indictment against a man who allegedly threw a sandwich at a law enforcement agent in protest against Donald Trump’s deployment of armed troops on the streets of Washington DC.It is the second time in recent days that a grand jury had declined to vote to indict a person accused of assaulting a federal officer and signaled strong public objection to Trump’s decision to send national guard troops and federal agents onto the streets of the US capital, purportedly to crack down on violent crime.The case of Sean Charles Dunn, who was accused of hurling the sub-style sandwich, became a cause celebre after video of the episode went viral on social media.Dunn, 37, a former justice department paralegal, was initially charged on 13 August after being accused of throwing a sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection officer who was patrolling an area of Washington’s north-west district known for its bars and restaurants with other agents.Footage shows a man, presumed to be Dunn, confronting an officer as he stood on the kerbside. He then threw a soft object at point-blank range, hitting the agent in the chest, before running off with the officer and several of his colleagues in pursuit.The complaint against Dunn states that he stood close to the officer and called him and his colleagues “fascists” and shouted: “I don’t want you in my city.”After the incident, the Trump administration posted footage of a large group of heavily armed officers going to Dunn’s apartment, heightening the attention the case attracted. Posters depicting Dunn lofting a sandwich have since appeared around the nation’s capital.It is rare for federal prosecutors to fail to secure charges at a grand jury hearing, given that they control the information that jurors hear and defendants’ lawyers are prohibited from being in the courtroom.It is unclear if prosecutors will continue to seek to press charges against Dunn, which they could do by withdrawing the felony charge and refiling it as a misdemeanor, which does not need an indictment.But even that would amount to a symbolic climbdown for the Trump administration, which has demanded that offenses by prosecuted under the most serious federal charges, which carry heavier sentences.Dunn is due to appear before a magistrate judge on 4 September in a hearing intended to determine whether a crime was committed.The spurning of the indictment against him mirrors the case of Sidney Lori Reid, against whom federal prosecutors failed three times in 30 days to secure an indictment of a felony assault against an FBI officer, after she was arrested during an immigration protest last month.Prosecutors on Monday reduced the charges to a low-level misdemeanor, suggesting that they had inflated the accusations against her.On the same day, a judge dismissed all charges against a man who was arrested last week at a Trader Joe’s store after police alleged he had two handguns in his bag.Judge Zia M Faruqui said prosecutors had violated Torez Riley’s constitutional rights in charging him, declaring: “Lawlessness cannot come from the government.”A flurry of defendants have been charged with federal crimes over relatively minor infractions that would normally be handled by local courts, if they resulted in criminal charges at all, since Trump’s highly controversial troop deployment. Critics have condemned the deployment as an attempted military takeover of a city run by the president’s Democratic opponents and motivated by a desire to intimidate rather than to stamp out crime. More

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Why Trump’s attack on the Smithsonian matters | Kimberlé Crenshaw and Jason Stanley

      by

      In a letter sent to Smithsonian secretary, Lonnie G Bunch III, on 12 August, the Trump administration announced its plan to replace all Smithsonian exhibits deemed as “divisive” or “ideological” with descriptions deemed as “historical” and “constructive”. On 21 August, just nine days later, the White House published a list of said offending fixtures – the majority of which include exhibits, programming and artwork that highlight the Black, Latino and LGBTQ+ perspectives on the American project. Included in his bill of particulars was an exhibit that rightly depicts Benjamin Franklin as an enslaver, an art installation that acknowledges race as a social construct and a display that highlights racist voter suppression measures, among others.The assault on the Smithsonian comes wrapped, as it were, as part of a broader attack on democracy, scenes of which we see playing out every day. The federal occupation of Washington DC, the crackdown on free speech on campus, the targeting of Trump’s political opponents, the gerrymandering of democracy – these are interwoven elements of the same structural assault. So with many fires burning across the nation, concerned citizens who are answering the call to fight the destruction of democracy may regard his attack on history and memory as a mere skirmish, a distraction from the herculean struggle against fascism unfolding in the US. But this is a mistake. Trump’s attack on American museums, education and memory, along with his weaponization of racialized resentment to package his authoritarian sympathies as mere patriotism, is a critical dimension of his fascist aims. The fight for democracy cannot avoid it, nor its racial conditions of possibility.Fascism always has a central cultural component, because it relies on the construction of a mythic past. The mythic past is central to fascism because it enables and empowers a sense of grievance by a dominant racial or ethnic group whose consent is crucial to the sustainability of the project. In Maga world, the mythic past was pure, innocent and unsullied by women or Black leaders. In this kind of politics, the nation was once great, a byproduct of the great achievements of the men in the dominant racial group. In short, the assault on the Smithsonian and, more broadly, against truthful history and critical reflection is part of the broader fascist attack on democracy.From this vantage point, racial equality is a threat to the story of the nation’s greatness because only the men of the dominant group can be great. To represent the nation’s founding figures as flawed, as any accurate history would do, is perceived, in this politics, as a kind of treason.The success of the fascist dismantling of democracy is predicated on the widespread systematic failure to see the larger picture. The anti-woke assault that is a key pillar of Trumpism is part of that failure, partly due to the racial blinders and enduring ambivalence of too many in positions of leadership in the media and elsewhere. Those who sign on to the attack on “wokeness” but regard themselves as opponents of the other elements of the fascist assault are under the mistaken assumption that these projects can be disaggregated. In fact, the dismantling of democracy and of racial justice are symbiotically entangled. To support one is to give cover for the others.It is clear that the Trump administration understands this relationship and fully weaponizes racist appeals as a foundational piece of its fascist agenda. And if this was once the quiet part, it is now pronounced out loud in official government documents. In an executive order issued on 27 March 2025 titled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History”, Trump reveals that his mandate to ban “improper ideologies” targets core commitments repudiating a scientific racism that historically naturalized racial hierarchy thereby neutralizing resistance. According to Trump, the problem with the Smithsonian American Art Museum’s exhibit The Shape of Power: Stories of Race and American Sculpture was that it promoted the idea that “race is a human invention”.The understanding that race is a social construct as opposed to a biological fact is perhaps the most fundamental advance in repudiating enslavement, genocide and segregation. Rejecting the idea that racial inequality is natural or pre-ordained – a claim that grounded enslavement and dispossession in America – forms the cornerstone of the modern commitment to a fully inclusive democracy. Trump’s declaration that this cornerstone is “improper” is an effort to turn the clock back, upending the entire American postwar project. It is no coincidence that this “proper” ideology Trump exposes is constitutive of a more well-known strand of fascism – nazism. How else can we understand why Maya Angelou was purged from the Naval Academy library while Adolf Hitler remains?The fight against fascism in the US must be as robust in its embrace of racial equality as Trump’s embrace of outdated ideas about race and racism. The defense of memory, of truthful history, of telling the whole American story rather than ascribing agency in history to the deeds of “great men” is vital to the American democratic project. A pro-democratic education fosters the agency of its citizens by teaching about social movements that overturned entrenched hierarchies which blocked democratic equality and imposed racial tyranny. The story of how ordinary Americans lived and struggled and remade America is essential knowledge in developing and sustaining a multiracial democracy. The Smithsonian has been a vital institution in making this knowledge accessible to the masses. The National Museum of the American Latino and the National Museum of the American Indian, for example, provide artifacts and perspectives about the nation’s westward expansion that challenge the myth of unoccupied territory and manifest destiny. The National Museum of African American History and Culture brings forward the global scale of enslavement as well as its infusion across national institutions, culture and politics.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionMuseums allow us to reckon with the brutality of the American legacy as well as expose our citizens to the people, institutions and strategies that charted a different course towards becoming a “more perfect” union. Fascist erasures like Trump’s hide behind the claim that truthful encounters with the past inflame and divide. This instinct is the opposite of the truth. A functioning democracy does not restrict perspectives to those of the dominant group, much less make it illegal to teach alternative ones.A people who cannot remember their past are a people who cannot resist a fascist future. Knowing our history can give us the weapons and wherewithal to battle Trump’s efforts to catapult us back to a time when the majority of Americans lacked both the civic and economic power that we have now. The fight for our museums and for our memory is a critical bulwark against the unraveling of American democracy. It is vital that we fight to protect our repositories before it’s too late.

      Kimberlé Crenshaw is an American civil rights advocate and a scholar of critical race theory. She is a professor at the UCLA School of Law and Columbia Law School, where she specializes in race and gender issues

      Jason Stanley is the Bissell-Heyd Chair in American Studies in the Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy at the University of Toronto and the author of Erasing History: How Fascists Rewrite the Past to Control the Future More