[ad_1]
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
The National Guard was deployed to Washington, D.C., and reportedly may be sent to other cities. But wherever Americans live, it is speaking to larger issues – ranging from crime and their safety, to rights and freedoms and their views on the powers of a president.
Those in favor of President Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to cities are largely in his Republican base and say it reduces crime, feel it makes them personally safer — even if they don’t live in cities — and that in principle they’d support deployment to other U.S. cities.
The majority of Americans are opposed, though, and those who are, tend to feel their own rights and freedoms would be less secure as a result. They do not think it would be effective at reducing crime or make them any safer.
To those in favor, it’s not a case of red-versus-blue cities. They’d support the Guard being sent to either Democratic- or Republican-led places, or coming to their own local area as well.
To those opposed, they believe the president is acting out of politics more than crime prevention.
People who live in cities generally oppose the idea of sending troops to other cities and Americans in rural areas are mostly in favor of sending the Guard to other cities. Opinion is more tied to partisanship than geography, though.
The people who think the presence of the National Guard does reduce crime, but still oppose the deployment to Washington or elsewhere, tend to see Trump acting for political reasons, not just crime prevention.
The bulk of Americans, wherever they stand on this deployment, think in principle, both the president and a local leader like a mayor or governor should have the authority to deploy the National Guard. Fewer — including a lot of those opposed — think it should be only a local leader. Very few think it should be only Donald Trump.
The policy on which one judges a president can of course affect the overall evaluation of him.
Republicans, and Trump’s supporters overall, say they’re judging him on immigration and deportation policy more than on his economy and inflation policies; that topic, plus crime, together far outpaces inflation and the economy as their most important metric.
Of late, the deployments may have the political effect of focusing on matters other than inflation, at least for the president’s political base. And that in turn has helped his overall numbers a bit.
His Republican approval now ticks back up over 90%, and his overall approval has stabilized, up two points now, after steadily declining over the weeks and months of his term.
Meanwhile, those judging him on economic and inflation policies don’t approve of him overall or on the matter of inflation, specifically.
The relatively small group of people who disapprove of him on inflation, but approve on immigration, mostly approve of him overall.
Economic matters remain tougher for Mr. Trump, as they have been. Many continue to say Trump’s policies have made them financially worse off.
Four in 10 Americans report buying fewer things because of tariffs.
Support for tariffs continues to drop incrementally, if steadily.
And as with many other items, support for tariffs is centered in the Republican and MAGA political base, but not elsewhere.
That extends to a call for some financial sacrifice, too. Seven in 10 Republicans say Americans should be willing to pay more for what they buy to support Trump’s trade policies. This is true for Republicans across income levels.
On balance, people overall are mixed about the potential impact on manufacturing jobs. Relatively more do think the tariffs will lead to manufacturing jobs more than will lead to losses, and Republicans are also the most likely to think this.
Views of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act remain underwater and its approval rating is unchanged from July, shortly after it was signed into law.
Most Americans continue to call for a Federal Reserve that operates independently of what Donald Trump wants.
Unlike matters related to immigration or the National Guard, there is a bit of difference within the GOP ranks. MAGA Republicans specifically would like the Fed more under Trump’s guidance than non-MAGA Republicans. Nor would all Republicans have Trump replace Fed members who disagree with him.
All of these matters also speak to questions of executive power and how it is applied.
In all, as a general description, people tend to like Trump’s goals relatively more than his approach.
In general, two-thirds of Americans feel Donald Trump is trying to increase the powers of a president. That’s not collectively what they’d want; most would say not to change those powers.
And while Democrats see an approach they’d describe as Trump trying to bring the federal government more under his direct control, Republicans describe him trying to make it work more efficiently.
Kabir Khanna contributed data weighting and analysis to this report.
This CBS News/YouGov survey was conducted with a nationally representative sample of 2,385 U.S. adults interviewed between September 3-5, 2025. The sample was weighted to be representative of adults nationwide according to gender, age, race, and education, based on the U.S. Census American Community Survey and Current Population Survey, as well as 2024 presidential vote. The margin of error is ±2.5 points.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
ATLANTA – Gov. Brian Kemp announced Friday that he is sending 316 members of the Georgia National Guard to Washington, D.C., to support President Donald Trump’s use of troops to crack down on crime in the nation’s capital.
The Georgia Guard contingent heading to Washington will include 300 soldiers and 16 support staff.
“Georgia is proud to stand with the Trump administration in its mission to ensure the security and beauty of our nation’s capital,” Kemp said. “We share a commitment to upholding public safety and are grateful to these brave Guardsmen and women, for the families that support them, and for their dedication to service above self.
“As they have demonstrated again and again, our Georgia Guard is well equipped to fulfill both this mission and its obligations to the people of our state.”
With Kemp’s announcement, Georgia becomes the eighth state to deploy more than 2,200 Guardsmen from around the nation to provide a visible presence in support of local law enforcement in Washington. All eight are led by Republican governors.
Trump issued an executive order last month declaring a crime emergency in the District of Columbia, which has prompted criticism from Democrats who argue violent crime rates are higher in other cities that have not drawn the president’s attention and that using the military to police U.S. civilians is illegal.
“The uniform should never be used to intimidate and divide but to protect and serve,” said state Sen. Kenya Wicks, D-Fayetteville, one of several military veterans in the General Assembly who spoke out against the deployment Friday at a news conference inside the state Capitol. “Not only is it unconstitutional. It is a violation of the oath Guard members are sworn to uphold.”
“This is not about public safety,” added state Rep. Eric Bell, D-Jonesboro. “It’s an erosion of American freedom.”
Kemp said Friday that sending Georgia National Guard troops to Washington is a separate mission from his decision late last month to deploy about 75 soldiers and airmen to help support U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations across Georgia.
The 300 Georgia Guard troops heading to Washington will relieve service members who have been stationed in the District of Columbia from the start of the mission. They are scheduled to mobilize by the middle of this month and will be on active duty in Washington shortly thereafter, barring any changes to the schedule that may arise.
The 16 support staff personnel were sent earlier this week to Joint Base Anacostia-Boiling in Washington where they will work with other military personnel providing support for the broader mission. They are not expected to have any direct interaction with civilians.
[ad_2]
Dave Williams and Capitol Beat News Service
Source link
[ad_1]
A federal judge excoriated the Justice Department over its handling of criminal cases during the Trump administration’s ongoing federal takeover of Washington, D.C., saying at a hearing Thursday that the department has brought “embarrassment and shame” on the government during its “rush” to charge individuals.
U.S. District Judge Zia Faruqui apologized to Edward Dana, a man who was charged for what the Justice Department and U.S. Secret Service said was a threat to kill President Trump last month. Dana spent a week in jail, only to have the charges against him dropped Thursday.
Faruqui said the U.S. is “past the point of constitutional crisis,” as the Trump administration “is playing cops and robbers, like children” during the federal takeover of Washington’s police department.
The judge also criticized the Justice Department over the D.C. U.S. attorney’s multiple failed indictments in recent weeks, saying he had a “grave concern” that in a “rush to get stats on Twitter or Truth Social” touting the takeover, the Justice Department has not given time to those who have been “illegally detained.”
Faruqui said there have been “too many misfires” by the Justice Department in attempting to prosecute people in D.C., and that the federal government is operating under the concept of “we’ll arrest people… then see what happens.”
Dana did not comment on the dismissal of charges when asked by CBS News for a reaction after the hearing.
Dana was arrested in August for allegedly destroying a light fixture and other property at a D.C. restaurant, but he was charged for threatening comments he made about Mr. Trump while he was being taken to a D.C. police station.
While he was seated in the back of a police car, charging documents allege Dana said he was “not going to tolerate fascism” and would “protect the Constitution by any means necessary,” before, the document alleges, he threatened to kill Mr. Trump and the officer driving him to the station.
“And that means killing you, officer, killing the President, killing anyone who stands in the way of our Constitution,” Dana said, according to a Secret Service affidavit. “You want to stand in the way of our Constitution, I will f****** kill you.”
Faruqui ordered the Justice Department to make a filing by Thursday night explaining its handling of Dana’s case, saying, “It’s Sept. 4. As of now we still have a constitutional democracy.”
At the end of Thursday’s hearing, Faruqui looked at Dana, who is a person of color, and said that “the government’s message to people who look like Mr. Dana is ‘be very afraid,’” before adding, “I’m afraid right now.”
In a post on X, U.S. Attorney in D.C. Jeanine Pirro said that Faruqui “took an oath to follow the law, yet he has allowed his politics to consistently cloud his judgment and his requirement to follow the law. America voted for safe communities, law and order, and this judge is the antithesis of that.”
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
Members of the National Guard armed with rifles patrol Constitution Avenue on August 26, 2025, in Washington, D.C.
Photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images
As the Trump administration instituted its takeover of Washington, D.C., the federal government has touted its handling of crime in city and promoted the number of arrests it has obtained in just a matter of weeks. But reports show that some of the criminal cases originating from the federal crackdown are falling apart in court as prosecutors fail to obtain indictments in highly publicized incidents.
The Justice Department recently vowed to make an example of a Washington resident and government employee who had heckled, then hurled a sandwich at, one of the federal agents patrolling the city’s streets. The man, Sean Dunn, was arrested and slapped with a felony charge.
“Let me be clear, if you lay a hand on a law enforcement officer, be certain we will come after you with the full weight of the law. Our officers have a job to do, and they should not be abused in the process,” D.C. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro said of the incident. “This alleged assault is no joke — it’s a serious crime, and those who think otherwise will learn just how gravely mistaken they are.”
However, the New York Times reported last month that federal prosecutors were unable to convince the members of the grand jury to indict Dunn, a now-former employee of the Justice Department, for felony assault stemming from the encounter earlier this month. On August 10, Dunn was arrested after he reportedly approached a group of Customs and Border Protection agents and Metro Transit officers, calling them “fascists” and telling them, “I don’t want you in my city!” Dunn then allegedly threw a sandwich at one of the CBP agents, “striking him in the chest,” per the Justice Department’s press release. He would later be charged with one count of assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers and employees of the United States.
Dunn’s case is not the only recent stumble from Pirro’s office. CNN reported in August that the U.S. Attorney’s team failed three times to secure an indictment against Sydney Lori Reid from a federal grand jury for felony assault against a federal agent. The Justice Department alleges that Reid, a D.C. resident, was recording the transfer of two prisoners into the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and tried to place herself in between one of the prisoners and the agents. As the agents sought to restrain her against a nearby wall, Reid reportedly fought against the FBI agent assisting the transfer, and the agent’s hand was “injured from striking and scraping the cement wall causing lacerations.” She was ultimately charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers or employees. But three federal grand juries opted against returning an indictment against Reid, prompting Pirro’s office to seek a misdemeanor charge instead.
Most recently, CBS News reported Tuesday that a federal grand jury declined to indict Nathalie Jones, an Indiana woman, accused of making threats against President Donald Trump online. According to the Justice Department, Jones allegedly made numerous posts criticizing Trump, calling him a “terrorist,” denouncing his administration as a “dictatorship,” and claiming she would kill the president. Jones was arrested following a demonstration in Washington, D.C.
It’s extremely rare for a federal grand jury to not indict, as jurors only need to determine if there’s probable cause, a low bar to clear. But in comments to CNN last week, Pirro attempted to downplay the striking occurrence. “We are the tip of the spear. We are the ones who take these cases into court, and the burden is on us to prove these cases. And we welcome that burden beyond a reasonable doubt,” she said. “Sometimes a jury will buy it and sometimes they won’t. So be it. That’s the way the process works.”
For weeks, Trump has trumpeted the purported successes of his federal takeover of D.C., claiming plummeting crime rates and a city full of grateful residents. But the reality appears more mixed as restaurants reported a decrease in business and reservations in the immediate aftermath and some Washingtonians noting in a poll they feel less safe with the federal officers on the street.
Nevertheless, Trump is continuing to expand his administration’s control over the city. Sean Duffy, the secretary of Transportation, announced last Wednesday that his department would be taking control of Union Station, one of the country’s largest transportation hubs, out of the hands of Amtrak. “Instead of being a point of pride, Washington’s Union Station has fallen into disrepair. By reclaiming station management, we will help make this city safe and beautiful at a fraction of the cost,” Duffy said in a statement.
And the National Guardsmen deployed by the federal government to patrol the city streets have picked up additional duties in recent days. The Washington Post reports that troops have been spotted removing trash and spreading mulch, taking on duties typically handled by the National Park Service, which underwent cuts from the Trump administration.
[ad_2]
Nia Prater
Source link
[ad_1]
Watch CBS News
[ad_1]
A federal judge has severely rebuked Donald Trump‘s attorneys for attempting to alter a litigation schedule they themselves established months ago.
The court, in an August 25 order, said the defense could not now object to a process they had proposed, rejecting their bid to alter the course of the case. U.S. District Judge Amir H. Ali made clear that Trump’s lawyers could not reverse their positions after shaping the very schedule they now opposed, stating, “It would violate basic notions of fair play to grant the relief requested.”
The ruling, issued in Washington, D.C., highlights judicial frustration with inconsistent arguments that appear aimed at delaying proceedings.
The ruling matters because it curbs one of Trump’s key legal strategies—delaying cases through shifting procedural arguments. By holding his lawyers to the very schedule they proposed, Judge Ali reinforced the principle that courts demand consistency and fairness from litigants. The decision also ensures that nonprofits challenging Trump’s foreign aid freeze are not subjected to further delays, keeping the case on track to resolve a broader constitutional fight over Congress‘s control of federal spending.
The dispute centers on the schedule of proceedings in one of Trump’s pending cases.
After initially agreeing to the framework for how filings and hearings should proceed, Trump’s attorneys returned to court asking for equitable relief to delay or alter that schedule.
The judge concluded that because the defense had not pursued a stay at the appropriate time and had, in fact, proposed the very sequence they were now contesting, they could not credibly demand a change.
The court’s reference to “basic notions of fair play” highlights a principle of equity: relief is discretionary, and it is often denied when a party’s conduct appears inconsistent. Judges rely on the expectation that litigants will maintain coherence in their legal positions. The concept of ‘judicial estoppel’ thereby prevents parties from shifting arguments to gain advantage in different phases of a case.
The case itself is one of several Trump faces with the underlying issues procedural, rather than substantive: the fight is over timing and process, not yet about the merits of the claims. Still, the court’s rebuke illustrates how Trump’s defense team is encountering obstacles in its broader effort to slow down or reshape litigation schedules.
The dispute stems from Trump’s January 20, 2025, executive order freezing most foreign aid. Nonprofit organizations sued, arguing the freeze violated Congress’s constitutional power over appropriations.
On March 10, U.S. District Judge Amir H. Ali partially granted an injunction requiring the administration to release certain funds.
Litigation has continued over how and when compliance should occur.
Trump’s lawyers initially proposed a schedule that anticipated appeals and gave the government until September 30 to obligate funds. But after losing in district court and facing further litigation, they sought to delay that same schedule.
Judge Ali refused, pointing out the contradiction. He noted that the defense had filed an appeal in March but declined to seek a stay at that time. Instead, they urged the court to adopt a timeline beginning August 15, which they said would allow for appellate review and still leave “sufficient time to obligate the balances.”
Months later, they then asked to halt obligations under the very timeline they had endorsed.
“Defendants cannot credibly claim irreparable harm from compliance they themselves proposed,” Ali wrote, rejecting claims that logistical burdens justified delay, and observed: “The reasons asserted for a stay conflict with Defendants’ own litigation decisions.”
This strategy is consistent with Trump’s broader legal approach of seeking delays, but it left them in the awkward position of fighting against their own earlier plan.
Ali emphasized that any urgency was of the defense’s own making. “To the extent there is any ’emergency’ here, it is one Defendants created through their own strategic choices,” he wrote. Having bypassed the chance to seek a stay earlier, the lawyers could not return to court claiming prejudice.
This reasoning reflects a broader judicial concern with consistency. Courts depend on parties to advance positions they can stand behind. Sudden reversals, judges warn, risk turning litigation into gamesmanship.
Judge Ali in his Order on Motion to Stay of August 25, 2025, said: “But in a circumstance like this—where a party not only declined to seek a stay pending appeal five months ago but also, in the meantime, proposed that the proceedings unfold in the very way they now object to—it would violate basic notions of fair play to grant the equitable relief requested.”
Global Health said: “The harm here goes to the very subsistence of the organizations, many of which are on the brink of shuttering entirely, and poses an existential threat to the viability of their humanitarian missions.”
Virginia Law Review says: “Judicial estoppel … prevents a party from taking a position contradictory to a position which that party adopted previously.”
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy and David Souter, U.S. Supreme Court, in the matter of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), agreed that: “The very concept of the rule of law … requires such continuity over time that a respect for precedent is … indispensable.”
The case will proceed under the timeline Trump’s lawyers originally proposed, with the government required to continue preparations to obligate funds before the September 30 deadline.
The defense may still appeal, but higher courts rarely disturb a trial judge’s discretionary denial of equitable relief. That means the litigation stays on track, and the central constitutional question—whether the president can override Congress’s control of federal spending—will move forward without further delay.

[ad_2]
[ad_1]
It’s back-to-school week in Washington, D.C., but things are different this year, with thousands of National Guard troops taking on a law enforcement role in the city. Scott MacFarlane reports that it is creating some unease among residents.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
President Donald Trump plans to clean up major U.S. cities that he says are plagued by crime.
Democrats see his plans to use military troops as a political power grab.
Trump has long decried the crime and conditions inside large U.S. cities, including Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, and Washington D.C. He has taken action to address crime with federal troops over the objection of local leaders already in Los Angeles and the nation’s capitol.
Chicago and New York could be next.
“Chicago’s a mess. You have an incompetent mayor. Grossly incompetent, and we’ll straighten that one out probably next. That will be our next one after this. And it won’t even be tough,” Trump told reporters on Friday.
Illinois officials denounced the move, but it’s unclear if they have a path to stop the president.
Trump commands U.S. forces, and the GOP controls narrow majorities in the U.S. House and Senate.
However, Democrats control the government in Chicago and Illinois, where politicians were quick to condemn Trump’s comments.
“We take President Trump’s statements seriously, but to be clear the City has not received any formal communication from the Trump administration regarding additional federal law enforcement or military deployments to Chicago,” Democrat Mayor Brandon Johnson said. “Certainly, we have grave concerns about the impact of any unlawful deployment of National Guard troops to the City of Chicago. The problem with the president’s approach is that it is uncoordinated, uncalled for, and unsound.”
Johnson said Trump’s proposal could “inflame tensions between residents and law enforcement” and said crime in the city is down.
“In the past year alone, we have reduced homicides by more than 30%, robberies by 35%, and shootings by almost 40%. We need to continue to invest in what is working,” the mayor said.
Earlier this week, Trump said D.C. officials manipulated crime statistics to “give the illusion of safety.” Trump didn’t provide specific data, but said the matter is under investigation.
Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, who hasn’t ruled out a presidential run, said Trump was trying to distract from his tariff policy, which the Democrat said was raising consumer prices. Pritzker, a billionaire heir to the Hyatt hotel fortune, called the troops a ploy for attention.
“After using Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. as his testing ground for authoritarian overreach, Trump is now openly flirting with the idea of taking over other states and cities. Trump’s goal is to incite fear in our communities and destabilize existing public safety efforts – all to create a justification to further abuse his power. He is playing a game and creating a spectacle for the press to play along with,” the governor said. “We don’t play those games in Illinois.”
Syndicated with permission from The Center Square.
[ad_2]
The Center Square
Source link
[ad_1]
Donald Trump claims Washington, D.C., needs the National Guard to get crime under control. Every time he says it, the same argument flares up: who’s to blame for crime in America’s cities?
Progressive commentator Ed Krassenstein argued online that crime is really a red state problem, pointing to higher murder rates in Republican states. Conservative commentator Carmine Sabia, a friend of mine, shot back that Democratic mayors are responsible since they run most of the big cities.
They’re both wrong. And this is exactly the problem with the way we talk about crime in America. Everyone wants to use it as a political football.
The truth is much simpler, and much harder: crime doesn’t follow party lines. It follows poverty.
The federal government’s own numbers prove it. In 2023, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that people in households making under $25,000 a year were almost three times more likely to be victims of violent crime than those in households making more than $200,000. That’s not red states versus blue states. That’s poor versus rich.
The same pattern shows up when you look at neighborhoods. The National Neighborhood Crime Study found that violent crime rises as poverty rises, regardless of whether the neighborhood is white, Black, Latino, or mixed. Once poverty is factored in, the racial gap in crime shrinks dramatically. In plain English, a poor white neighborhood and a poor Black neighborhood have more in common with each other than either does with a wealthy neighborhood.
Columbus, Ohio, proved this point. Researchers found that when neighborhood poverty climbed above 40 percent, violent crime spiked. It didn’t matter whether the residents were Black or white. Poverty was the trigger.
Cleveland shows how those conditions were created and sustained. A 2018 report from the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland found that neighborhoods redlined in the 1930s are still the poorest, most crime-affected parts of the city today. Eight decades later, the legacy of disinvestment is still visible.
And this isn’t just about cities. Rural America tells the same story. Stilwell, Oklahoma, a small Republican-majority town, has a violent crime rate about double the national average. Nearly half its children live below the poverty line. The problem isn’t who the mayor is. The problem is entrenched poverty.
That’s why the partisan finger-pointing rings hollow. Yes, some red states have higher statewide murder rates. Yes, Democratic-run cities record more murders in raw numbers. Both statements are true. Neither one explains the real issue.
Now, crime policy isn’t irrelevant. It matters. Progressive Democrats can be too lax when it comes to fighting crime, and that has to be addressed. You can’t ignore the symptoms. But if you’re only focused on policing tactics and never address poverty, you’re treating the fever without curing the disease. We have to deal with both the symptom and the cause.
And it’s worth remembering that not every big-city Democrat even fits the caricature partisans like to paint. Many mayors and city council members are moderates who spend as much time fighting progressives as they do fighting Republicans. Yet in the national debate, they get lumped in with those progressives as if they all share the same ideology. They don’t.
What would actually move the needle is cooperation. Red state governors and blue city mayors should be working together to address poverty instead of using crime as a talking point. That kind of partnership—not endless partisan bickering—actually helps people.
If we want safer streets, the only way forward is tackling poverty head-on: schools that work, jobs that pay, communities that are invested in instead of ignored. Because until we do that, crime will remain highest where poverty is deepest. And politicians will keep using it as a football instead of fixing it.
Darvio Morrow is CEO of the FCB Radio Network and co-host of The Outlaws Radio Show
The views expressed in this article are the writer’s own.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents are not expected to be at schools in the nation’s capital when classes kick off on Monday, acting director Todd Lyons recently told NBC News.
Newsweek has reached out to ICE for comment via email on Saturday.
President Donald Trump has pledged to launch the largest mass deportation operation in U.S. history. The initiative has seen an intensification of ICE raids across the country, with thousands of people having been swept up, arrested, and detained. Shortly after taking office, Trump threw out Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policies to limit where ICE arrests can take place, granting it the right to conduct raids in places of worship, schools, and hospitals.
The nation’s capital has been in the limelight over the past few weeks after Trump said on August 11 that the city had been “overtaken by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals, roving mobs of wild youth, drugged-out maniacs and homeless people.” He has deployed federal troops, officers and agents to Washington, D.C., as part of a crackdown on crime and homelessness.
As the school year is kicking off across the U.S., the first day of class for D.C. Public Schools (DCPS) is on Monday, August 25. Lyons told NBC News in an interview earlier this week that “day one, you’re not going to see us,” but noted that there might be circumstances when ICE officers may need to come to schools in the future.
Lyons said one of those circumstances might be to conduct safety and wellness checks on students, stating, “We want to use our special agents and our officers to go ahead and locate these individuals. And if [there are] some we haven’t, and the last known address was at a school, we just want to make sure that child is safe. If we have the opportunity to reunite that parent with that child, that’s what we want to do.”
Lyons noted that under “exigent” circumstances would officers arrive at school, including “something violent going on.” Nationwide, there have been several ICE arrests of parents at school property, including one at an Oregon preschool. In addition, some students, including a teenage boy in Los Angeles, have also been detained.
A Stanford University researcher reported in June that ICE “raids increased student absences from schools because parents fear being separated from their children,” finding “recent raids coincided with a 22 percent increase in daily student absences with particularly large increases among the youngest student.”
ICE has repeatedly maintained that it’s targeting people without proper documentation and criminal histories, and is working to expand its force with an addition 10,000 agents. The agency received billions in funding from the One Big Beautiful Bill.
Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel said at a press conference this week: “I think people who have that concern for themselves personally and for all of us who are concerned for them and their safety are making adjustments.”
Tricia McLaughlin, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, said in a previous statement shared with Newsweek: “Under Secretary Noem, we are delivering on President Trump’s and the American people’s mandate to arrest and deport criminal illegal aliens to make America safe. Secretary Noem unleashed ICE to target the worst of the worst and carry out the largest deportation operation of criminal aliens in American history.”
ICE is looking to significantly increase its force, offering signing bonuses up to $50,000, student loan payments, tuition reimbursement and starting salaries that can approach $90,000.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
President Donald Trump at the Park Police Anacostia Operations Facility on August 21.
Photo: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
The federal government’s takeover of Washington, D.C., is well underway with the Trump administration already touting allegedly plummeting crime rates as residents of the nation’s capital are voicing their frustration with members of the National Guard and federal law enforcement patrolling their streets.
On Friday, President Donald Trump signaled that he’s ready to take his crackdown nationwide, eyeing other cities across the country with Democratic leadership. “Chicago’s a mess. You have an incompetent mayor, grossly incompetent. And we’ll straighten that one out probably next. That’ll be our next one after this,” Trump said, speaking from the Oval Office.
The president told reporters that Chicagoans are “screaming” for the federal government to intervene in the city, saying, “They’re wearing red hats, just like this one,” pointing to his signature hat featuring a new slogan, “Trump Was Right About Everything.” Trump has alleged that Chicago’s crime rates are out of control, as he’s claimed with Washington, D.C.
“African American ladies, beautiful ladies are saying, ‘Please, President Trump, come to Chicago. Please,’” he said. “So, I think Chicago will be our next and then we’ll help with New York.”
Trump has previously threatened a federal takeover of New York City, most recently warning it could come to pass if Democratic nominee Zohran Mamdani wins the mayoral election in the fall. “We have tremendous power at the White House to run places when we have to,” the president said in July.
When asked earlier this month about the possibility of Trump potentially sending the National Guard to New York City, Mayor Eric Adams said, “We don’t need anyone to come in and take over our law-enforcement apparatus. We have the finest police department on the globe.”
It was just last week when Trump announced his intent to take over Washington, D.C., utilizing his executive power to deploy hundreds of National Guard members throughout the city and to exert control over the Metropolitan Police Department, directing local officers to cooperate with immigration enforcement. The president similarly deployed National Guard troops to Los Angeles earlier this summer in response to mass protests over federal immigration actions in the city. While federal law requires Trump to receive congressional approval to extend his control of D.C. law enforcement beyond 30 days, the president suggested the takeover could extend far beyond that.
“If I think we’re in great shape here, that’s one thing. But if I don’t, I’m gonna just say it’s a national emergency. And if I have a national emergency, I can keep the troops there as long as I want. People aren’t going to want to have the troops out in 30 days,” he said.
In addition to the 800 members of the D.C. National Guard deployed by Trump, six additional states have complied with requests from the president to provide their own National Guard troops to support the Trump administration’s takeover efforts. And on Friday, the secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, officially authorized the approximately 2,000 National Guard members in the nation’s capital to carry weapons as they conduct their patrols, per the Washington Post.
[ad_2]
Nia Prater
Source link
[ad_1]
WASHINGTON — In an expansion of tactics started in June during immigration raids in Los Angeles, President Trump on Monday announced he would take federal control of Washington’s police department and activate 800 National Guard troops in the nation’s capital to help “reestablish law and order.”
“Our capital city has been overtaken by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals, roving mobs of wild youth, drugged-out maniacs and homeless people,” Trump said at the White House.
“This is liberation day in D.C.,” he declared.
Trump, who sent roughly 5,000 Marines and National Guard troops to L.A. in June in a move that was opposed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom and L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, issued an executive order declaring a public safety emergency in D.C. The order invoked Section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act that places the Metropolitan Police Department under direct federal control.
The California governor decried Trump’s move in D.C., warning that what happened in L.A. was now taking place across the country.
“He was just getting warmed up in Los Angeles,” Newsom said on X. “He will gaslight his way into militarizing any city he wants in America. This is what dictators do.”
In his briefing, Trump painted D.C. in dark, apocalyptic terms as a grimy hellhole “of crime, bloodshed, bedlam, squalor and worse.” He said he planned to get tough, citing his administration’s stringent enforcement on the nation’s southern border.
Already, Trump said, his administration has begun to remove homeless people from encampments across the city, and he said he planned to target undocumented immigrants, too. He vowed to “restore the city back to the gleaming capital that everybody wants it to be.”
As the White House noted in a fact sheet Monday, D.C. had a 2024 homicide rate of 27 per 100,000 residents, the nation’s fourth-highest homicide rate. By comparison, Los Angeles’ homicide rate is 7.1 per 100,000 residents.
But data also show violent crime has declined significantly in D.C. in recent years.
Just a few weeks before Trump took office, the Justice Department announced that violent crime in the city was at a 30-year low. Homicides were down 32%, robberies down 39% and armed carjackings down 53% when compared with 2023 levels, according to data collected by the Metropolitan Police Department.
In a press conference Monday, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser called Trump’s deployment of troops “unsettling and unprecedented.” But she also tried to strike a conciliatory tone with the president, acknowledging he was operating within the letter of the law in her district.
“We’re not a state. We don’t control the D.C. National Guard,” she told reporters. “… Limited home rule gives the federal government the ability to intrude on our autonomy in many ways.”
Bowser suggested the president was misinformed about crime in the district, advancing the idea that his views of D.C. were largely shaped by his COVID-era experience.
“It is true that those were more challenging times,” Bowser told reporters. “It is also true that we experienced a crime spike post-COVID. But we worked quickly to put laws in place and tactics that got violent offenders off our streets and gave our police officers more tools, which is why we have seen a huge decrease in crime.”
Accountability for gun-related crimes in the district remains an issue of concern, Bowser said, again offering an olive branch to Trump. But she noted that crime in the capital is down to pre-pandemic levels and that violent crime statistics are at 30-year lows.
Brian Schwalb, the elected attorney general of the District of Columbia, said in a statement that “there is no crime emergency” in D.C. and the administration’s deployment of troops was “unprecedented, unnecessary and unlawful.”
His office refuted the claims of Jeanine Pirro, U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, who said juveniles, or as she put it, “young punks,” were too often granted probation or other lenient sentences
In D.C., the U.S. attorney’s office handles all adult felonies and the majority of adult misdemeanors, while Schwalb’s office exercises jurisdiction over crimes committed by juveniles and some adult misdemeanors.
Since Schwalb took office in January 2023, the office has prosecuted so many juveniles at higher rates that the mayor has had to issue an emergency order creating more space at juvenile detention facilities, according to his office. Last year, the office prosecuted over 90% of homicide and attempted homicide cases, 88% of violent assault cases and 87% of carjacking cases, according to the statement.
Ken Lang, a veteran of the Baltimore Police Department and an expert on law enforcement, said that Trump’s actions in D.C. could be an effort “to model a new national law enforcement strategy by having federal, state and local agencies better partner together.”
But because it is a federal district and not a state, he said, D.C. occupies a “unique legal position” under the Home Rule Act.
Oklahoma Mayor David Holt, who is also president of the United States Conference of Mayors, condemned Trump’s move as a “takeover,” and said “local control is always best.”
Holt noted that the Trump administration’s data — specifically, the FBI’s national crime rate report released last week — shows crime rates dropping in cities across the nation.
Trump said the deployment of troops in D.C. should serve as a warning to cities across the nation — including Los Angeles.
“Hopefully L.A.’s watching,” Trump said as he berated Bass and Newsom for their handling of the firestorm that swept through the region in January, destroying thousands of homes.
“The mayor’s incompetent and so is Gov. Newscum,” Trump said. “He’s got a good line of bull—, but that’s about it.”
Trump’s announcement that he was deploying troops to D.C. comes more than two months after he sparked a major legal battle with California when he sent thousands of troops to Los Angeles. He argued they were necessary to combat what he described as “violent, insurrectionist mobs” as protests broke out in the city against federal immigration raids.
But the protests calmed relatively quickly and local officials said they were primarily kept in check by police. The National Guard troops and Marines wound up sparsely deployed in Los Angeles, with some protecting federal buildings and some assisting federal agents as they conducted immigration enforcement operations. Military officials said the troops were restricted to security and crowd control and had no law enforcement authority.
Trump’s deployment of troops to D.C. immediately found its way into the pitched court battle in California over whether his administration violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which bars federalized military from civilian law enforcement.
As top U.S. military officials testified before Senior U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer in federal court in San Francisco on Monday, California lawyers quickly maneuvered to get Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s statement into evidence, hoping to bolster their argument that the government had not only knowingly violated the law, but was likely to do so again.
“That’s one of the tests for injunctive relief, right?” Breyer said. “Present conduct may be relevant on that issue.”
In June, Breyer ruled that Trump broke the law when he mobilized thousands of California National Guard members against the state’s wishes.
In a 36-page decision, Breyer wrote that Trump’s actions “were illegal — both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
But the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals paused that court order, allowing the troops to remain in Los Angeles while the case plays out in federal court. The appellate court found the president had broad, though not “unreviewable,” authority to deploy the military in American cities.
That decision is set to be reviewed by a larger “en banc” panel of the appellate court. Meanwhile, California continues to fight what it says are illegal uses of the military for civilian law enforcement in Judge Breyer’s court in San Francisco.
[ad_2]
Jenny Jarvie, Michael Wilner, Sonja Sharp
Source link

[ad_1]
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
[ad_2]

[ad_1]
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The theme of the national town hall that took place on day two of the annual Congressional Black Caucus was “Pathways to Prosperity: Advancing Democracy and Black Economic Opportunity”. The presidential debate that took place earlier this week between current United States Vice President Kamala Harris and former United States President Donald Trump on Tuesday night in Philadelphia could be seen as an example of advancing democracy at the highest level. If elected, Harris, the country’s first Black and female vice president, would be this country’s first female president, and only the second ever Black Commander-in-Chief.
The Annual Legislative Conference (ALC) in its 53rd year of existence, held the town hall with honorary co-chairs, Representative Lucy McBath (GA) and Representative Troy Carter (LA), Congressional Black Caucus Foundation Board Chair Rep. Terri Sewell (AL) hosting the event alongside other board members. The town hall was sponsored by PolicyLink, an Oakland, California-based research and action institute that is “dedicated to advancing economic and social equity,” according to its website.
First to speak on Thursday morning was ALC Honorary Co-Chair Nicole Austin-Hillery, who said this was a “historic time” in this country. “Don’t just sit here today and listen. Our job is to do something,” Hillery said.
Sewell, one of the 60 members of the Congressional Black Caucus, said this year Black Americans find themselves in a pivotal moment. “Let us use this as a charge to fight, because when we fight we win,” she said.
McBath, who took the stage alongside Carter, said that there are some people that will attempt to convince Black Americans that the progress Black Americans have made in America are at the expense of white Americans. She shared data from a recent Harvard University poll and added, “That’s the goal, lifting up all Americans,” McBath said.
Carter added that it was time to take this conversation and move it to action. “It is time to push policies that expand access to capital, create affordable job options,” he said. “We need to dismantle discrimination.”
Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, PolicyLink President Dr. Michael McAfee, NAACP CEO Derrick Johnson, Latosha Brown, co-founder of Black Voters Matter Fund, and Planned Parenthood Federation of America President & CEO Alexis McGill Johnson also contributed to the conversation.
Moore, one of the brightest stars in Democratic politics and the first Black governor in Maryland’s history, set the stage for the day by saying, “Policy matters, but we will not make progress with policy alone. We are going to need every sector of society involved in this conversation,” said Moore.
During the first panel, McAfee received multiple rounds of applause from the crowd during the times that he spoke due to how poignant and powerful his points were. Among the things he said was, “We have to stop being picked on by weak spineless people.” McAfee didn’t use any specific names when he used the phrase “spineless” but the reaction from what was a large crowd got the point nonetheless.
Project 2025 was one of the topics that was discussed. Brown, who along with Black Voters Matter, has spent time registering voters all over the country and in particular in the South, said Black Americans need to fully understand what Project 2025 is all about.
“We are facing the rollback of voter protections in this country,” Brown said. “It’s really important for us to recognize what is happening.” Brown mentioned the election certification laws in Georgia as an example.
Among the topics of discussion were Black men and trusting the election process, reproductive health, voting rights and freedoms, housing, environmental justice, and economic justice.
“When people are coming after our communities there has to be consequences,” Brown said about the power of the Black voter block.
The panel closed with Lemon asking NAACP CEO Derrick Johnson how we can continue to advance Black American people in this country. Johnson started by saying, “With work, not rhetoric. Johnson said home ownership was a way to wealth in this country and with private equity firms buying up homes and property, understanding that the system is against us will be a way to fight against it.
“We have to chart out how to get there,” Johnson said.
[ad_2]
Donnell Suggs
Source link

[ad_1]
The Bucks County man accused of killing his 82-year-old mother over the weekend arrived back in the area Thursday from Washington, D.C. — where he had been arrested on unrelated offenses.
Willam Ingram, 49, allegedly killed Dolores Ingram on Saturday inside the condo they shared in Northampton Township, police said. He then took off in his mother’s car, a white 2015 Honda Civic. Eventually Ingram arrived in D.C, and he was arrested on Sunday after he allegedly assaulted a police officer and damaged a police vehicle.
MORE: SEPTA toughens penalties for smoking, public urination and other quality-of-life offenses
According to investigators, while in the custody of the Metro D.C. police Ingram admitted to killing his mother. Metro Police then contacted authorities in Bucks County who found Dolores Ingram dead Sunday inside her home, police said.
Her body was found under a pile of debris — items that included 60 pound geodesic rock, a shattered aquarium that had been the habitat for two reptiles, a television, lamps, furniture and other items, police said. Also piled upon Dolores Ingram was a laundry bag filled with 6 pounds of marijuana, a bag of psychedelic mushrooms and $53,500 in cash plastic bags, the bills bundled and wrapped with rubber bands, authorities said.
Police also found other drugs in the Ingrams’ Northampton condo, and blood had been splattered in every room of the residence, investigators said.
Ingram is charged with homicide, aggravated assault, theft and related offenses, the Bucks County District Attorney’s Office said Thursday.
An autopsy conducted Tuesday showed Dolores Ingram had sustained blunt force trauma injuries and lacerations, authorities said.
Dolores Ingram’s Honda Civic has not been found, police said. It has the Pennsylvania license plate KTV-2098. Police said anyone with information about the car can contact Northampton Township police at (215) 322-6111 or Bucks County Detectives at (215) 348-6354. Information also can be provided using the the Bucks County District Attorney’s Office’s website and clicking “submit a tip.”
[ad_2]
Michaela Althouse
Source link

[ad_1]
Not many people get to be on the House floor during a congressional meeting, so when one little boy got the opportunity, he made sure it was memorable. As his dad, Tennessee Republican Rep. John Rose, was giving a speech on Monday, 6-year-old Guy Rose sat behind him, stared directly into the camera and made silly faces.
C-SPAN, which broadcasts from Congress, captured the boy’s funny gestures and facial expressions during his dad’s speech about former President Donald Trump’s guilty verdict — and the kid went viral.
Rose went on with his speech without noticing what his son was doing behind him and he later had an explanation for his son’s silliness. “This is what I get for telling my son Guy to smile at the camera for his little brother,” Rose wrote on social media.
Many people on social media applauded Guy for having fun, saying he stole the show. “So sorry I was slow responding to your email, I was tied up watching this over and over again,” Virginia Democrat Rep. Don Beyer’s communication’s director Aaron Fritschner wrote on social media, sharing the clip of Guy.
When they left the House chambers and entered the GOP conference meeting, applause erupted for the little comedian.
Guy, who just graduated kindergarten, is spending the week in Washington, D.C., with his dad. He returned to work with the congressman on Tuesday and spoke to reporters. “Hey Guy, you ever get tired of being on TV?” a reporter asked.
“No,” Guy responded, turning on his comedic charm.
The father-son duo did a few TV interviews on Monday — where Guy continued, of course, to make silly faces.
[ad_2]

[ad_1]
COLLEGE PARK, Ga. – The woman behind the podium answered her own question immediately after she asked it to the room full of Spelman College soon-to-be graduates.
She said, “Could the day be any more glorious and could you be anymore beautiful?’” She answered, “I think not.”
Multi-time award-winning actress and director Angela Bassett, star of stage and screen, delivered the commencement speech during the 2024 Spelman College graduation exercises on Sunday afternoon in College Park. The exercises took place inside the Georgia International Convention Center.
Upon taking the stage to immense applause following an introduction by Spelman College President Dr. Helene D. Gayle, Bassett had the crowd in the palm of her hands. Her many messages to the graduating class of 2024 ranged from recounting her youth in St. Petersburg, Florida and the empowerment and high expectations for excellence that her mother had set for her and sisters to keeping your head high out in the world after you walk across the stage as a Spelman College graduate.
“There will be times when you may feel like the unnamed Black women, this is especially true when you come across people in your work place and in your community, and your own home, who may not see your full humanity and all of your glory. But it’s in those moments that I want you to remember who you are, raise your head and embody the queen that you have been prepared to be.”
A graduate of Yale University and the school’s School of Drama, Bassett made a point of emphasizing using the education that the graduates received at Spelman College, while also following their dreams. She told a story about seeing a play while in high school on a trip to Washington D.C., being moved and knowing at that moment that she wanted to make people feel the way she felt when she watched people perform the arts.
She would go on to begin her acting career at a local theater in her hometown, go on to Yale and when she told people she would be pursuing acting she recalled a not so positive response from some of them.

“I was supposed to go to law school, or become a scientist, or a doctor,” she said. “Anything but an artist.” During the early portions of her career she told the graduates, their families, and the Spelman faculty assembled in the room that she worked “odd jobs” in between acting auditions. The message: All of those little steps got her to where she is today.
“Every single opportunity matters,” she explained.
Bassett, a wife and mother who is preparing to begin the collegiate journey with her children, called Spelman College “the Mecca of Black excellence and Black womanhood. She even took a moment to compare it to a fictional country from one of the more popular movies she starred in.
“Spelman College is the higher education equivalent of Wakanda,” Bassett said to thundering applause. “This special place has prepared you for greatness” and “When the world tells you to be quiet, speak up.”
She closed her time on stage with, “Your tomorrow starts today.”

Bassett and Supreme Court Justice Dr. Kentaji Brown Jackson were awarded honorary degrees. Bassett received a Doctor of Fine Arts degree and Brown Jackson received Doctor of Laws. WABE personality and the host of “Closer Look” Rose Scott was also honored. She was awarded the National Community Service Award which is given by the Spelman College Board of Trustees.
The invocation was delivered by The Reverend Dr. Neichelle Guidry, Dean of Chapel at Spelman College. During the prayer Guidry spoke of the graduates being in this place at this time to honor God.
“We are gathered in this place at this appointed time to say thank you,” she said. “You have been present God.”
Guidry would also deliver the benediction before the recessional ended the exercises.
[ad_2]
Donnell Suggs
Source link