Commentary
There’s no doubt that President Donald Trump’s campaign to reduce urban crime is fundamentally popular. The overwhelming majority of Americans oppose crime, particularly violent crime that threatens them in their homes or while engaging in daily activities on city streets and sidewalks.Some Democrats continue to align themselves with individuals and groups broadly disapproved of by the public, including violent criminals who entered the country illegally and whose civil rights are defended on technical grounds prior to deportation. The same is true for disruptive university activists who block respected speakers and threaten Jewish students.
There is broad public support for Trump’s efforts to seal the southern border and reduce the number of illegal immigrants entering the country—from approximately 3 million annually under President Joe Biden to near zero today. Understandably, urban crime and illegal immigration are closely linked in the public’s mind. While the public supports the administration’s primary goals—to sharply reduce crime and completely end unlawful entry—the president is sometimes perceived as heavy-handed. A more refined approach could help secure the support these policies warrant.
The deployment of National Guard troops in Washington has been notably effective. Even the strongly partisan Democratic mayor, Muriel Bowser, thanked the president for their presence. Violent crime has declined by more than 50 percent, and petty crimes have dropped 40 to 50 percent. At the same time, the administration has begun restoring Union Station—a historic structure long plagued by vagrancy and drug use—revamping the Kennedy Center, and adding a grand ballroom to the White House, all reportedly without taxpayer cost. The president’s commitment to restoring Washington as a city of grandeur and civic pride is widely supported, both by Washingtonians and the public at large.
Meanwhile, some Democratic leaders in cities such as Chicago have accused the federal government of an “occupation,” suggesting it has no jurisdiction, despite Chicago being part of the United States. Such objections come as Metropolitan Chicago’s gun-related crime rate is reportedly 10 times that of similarly sized Toronto. Greater law-enforcement presence is clearly needed. However, the National Guard is a costly option, especially when guardsmen are deployed from out of state. For instance, guardsmen in Washington are from West Virginia, as Democratic governors of neighboring states declined to assist. Their deployment over four months has cost more than $200 million.
The National Guard has also been deployed to Los Angeles and other cities to contain riots opposing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Border Czar Tom Homan has stated that 74 percent of deportees have violent histories and pose a threat to public safety. President Trump has emphasized that ICE targets “the worst of the worst.” While these claims may be accurate, they’re not universally accepted and would benefit from clear substantiation.
Critics—including many in the national political media—allege that the administration is targeting law-abiding, family-oriented individuals who entered illegally years ago and have since become productive residents, while some dangerous individuals escape detection. Even if the administration’s numbers are correct, that still suggests that 24 percent of deportees, according to Homan, aren’t dangerous. These individuals often become the focus of sympathetic features in outlets such as The New York Times. As with tariffs and other complex policies, the administration would benefit from refining its enforcement strategy to transform it into a broadly accepted success.
Given the sharp increase in attacks on ICE agents, it’s reasonable for agents to wear masks and body armour and to move discreetly when detaining suspects. The president’s strong defence of ICE appears justified, provided enforcement efforts truly focus on serious offenders rather than longtime residents who have otherwise complied with the law.
The administration might consider a version of President Bill Clinton’s initiative to fund 100,000 additional police officers—provided they’re deployed to high-crime areas rather than low-risk districts or desk roles. A balanced combination of National Guard support and increased local policing might be effective if Democratic mayors, often resistant, can be persuaded to cooperate. If not, federal authorities may need to persist with guard deployments, but should require local governments to share the financial burden.
Less than a year into his presidency, President Trump is fulfilling his campaign promises and has broad public backing. It would be a political setback if minor adjustments in policy execution prevent his administration from securing unambiguous public support. He should take steps to prevent inflammatory comparisons—such as those likening of his administration’s approach to that of Nazi Germany’s—from gaining traction. Politicians making such remarks should be held accountable not only for the deterioration of major cities but also for perpetuating inflammatory rhetoric.
