Sitemap

Saying “Troops in DC Brought Crime Down” Misses the Point

Lots of things can reduce crime rates. The question is: should we accept police-state tactics? After all, there are other approaches.

6 min readOct 2, 2025

--

Press enter or click to view image in full size
Flickr, National Guard Photostream, Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International

To hear Donald Trump and his defenders tell it, the president’s decision to send troops into the nation’s capital to address the District’s crime problem has been a resounding success.

Crime in DC, the president crows, is virtually non-existent now. It’s safe again, he assures us, and all because of his decision to place the District under virtual military occupation.

Indeed, it has worked so well, or so he tells us, that now the same approach is called for in Chicago, Portland, New Orleans, Memphis, and any other large city where crime is “out of control.”

Aside from the fact that crime is actually down significantly in all of those places and has been falling considerably without his help, the truth is, even if sending in the military to cities across the country would further “bring down crime” in some appreciable and causal manner, this wouldn’t make doing so a good idea.

Just because an idea might work to reduce crime, after all, doesn’t mean it’s an acceptable public policy.

Here are some ideas…

--

--

Tim Wise
Tim Wise

Written by Tim Wise

Critical race theorist and author of nine books on racism and racial inequity in the U.S.

Responses (12)