Okay, now do cities. DC is not a state.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. There are a handful of other American cities with worse crime, so we should give DC a pass?
Constitutionally it belongs to the federal government, which devolved some level of home rule to the local government starting about 50 years ago. The evidence seems clear that local authorities aren't doing the job well.
DC spent over $26k per resident, well above the overall US federal budget of roughly $20k per person. And the DC budget doesn't even have to account for a globe-spanning military!
What autonomy is it lacking that it can't put repeat violent offenders behind bars?
> When you take a look at the trend of the data over time it doesn't tell a story of crime that isn't being managed. It may not be as quick or as thorough, but it has been downward trending.
Outside of six whole years, the homicide rate in DC hasn't been under 20/100k in 50 years. "Downward trending" from 80 in 1990 to 20s now is great in isolation, but terrible when you realize that places like Paris and London are in the low single digits.
You keep citing the homicide rate but do not consider the geography and constraints of the capital region, i.e., some of the crime and violent offenders are from non-residents. You can't simply compare it to a city like London or Paris for many reasons.
Baltimore and Philly are worse, yes. That's little reprieve for the average Joe living in DC surrounded by disorder. DC, being exclusively federal territory, has the unique legal situation where the president could deploy the National Guard for policing.
> You keep citing the homicide rate but do not consider the geography and constraints of the capital region, i.e., some of the crime and violent offenders are from non-residents. You can't simply compare it to a city like London or Paris for many reasons.
I don't understand your line of reasoning. Do you care to clarify? Neither London, nor Paris, nor any other city in this country are islands where entry and exit are controlled. Some American cities with really bad crime, like St. Louis or Philly, abut state lines and likely get a lot of cross-state criminal traffic as well.
Fact is there are other "worthy" candidate cities to deploy NG to, to counter crime. Additionally, trump is unreliable and generally unfit as a POTUS. Given these two, the concern about trumps tendency to abuse of power, which he demonstrated already, is a very valid response to him mobilizing NG in the most sensitive political region.
You cant calm these concerns with comparably similar crime rates.
Ontop, isnt it an assumption, that NG can actually help with rampand crime? I imagine they project hard force on the streets but do not react to 911 calls.
Also, your budget justification was vague too. The total spending per capita does not allow any clues on relative spending on law enforcement. There must be a reason why its significantly higher and maybe thats why LE falls short too.
DC is unique among those cities because it is federal territory where the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction, according to the constitution. It's harder to deploy the National Guard to St. Louis, for example, because you also have to deal with the government of Missouri (and probably that of Illinois, too, since the metro area spans both states).
In fact, a senator famously called for troops to be deployed to those cities in the height of the unrest in 2020[0]. He was excoriated for it by his political opponents, and the editor in charge of the NYT opinion pages resigned over allowing that piece to be published. So there are people who would like to see dramatically stronger law enforcement everywhere, not just DC.
[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opinion/tom-cotton-protes...
I am avoiding the argument regarding stronger law enforcement because there is a very little vague basis for it in this case. But legally speaking, it is within the letter of the law because there isn’t another option without triggering the Posse Comitius act.
And then last time anyone wanted him to deploy them in DC he apparently couldn’t because the mayor didn’t allow him to…
It’s got near zero to do with that.
Here is the list of the top-20 murder-rated cities in the US:
St. Louis, MO – Mayor Cara Spencer (DNC), DNC rule 76 years.
Baltimore, MD – Mayor Brandon Scott (DNC), DNC rule 56 years.
New Orleans, LA – Mayor LaToya Cantrell (DNC), DNC rule 153 years.
Detroit, MI – Mayor Mike Duggan (ex DNC), DNC rule 63 years
Cleveland, OH – Mayor Justin Bibb (DNC), DNC rule 35 years
Las Vegas, NV – Mayor Carolyn Goodman (Husband of ex-DNC mayor), DNC rule 82 years
Kansas City, MO – Mayor Quinton Lucas (DNC), DNC rule 34 years
Memphis, TN – Mayor Paul Young (DNC), DNC rule 53 years.
Newark, NJ – Mayor Ras Baraka (DNC), DNC rule 72 years.
Chicago, IL – Mayor Brandon Johnson (DNC), DNC rule 94 years.
Cincinnati, OH – Mayor Aftab Pureval (DNC), DNC rule 41 years
Philadelphia, PA – Mayor Cherelle Parker (DNC), DNC rule 74 years
Milwaukee, WI – Mayor Cavalier Johnson (DNC), DNC rule 65 years
Tulsa, OK – Mayor Monroe Nichols (DNC), only outlier in this list with significant non-DNC mayors
Pittsburgh, PA – Mayor Ed Gainey (DNC), DNC rule 91 years
Indianapolis, IN – Mayor Joe Hogsett (DNC), DNC rule 9 years.
Louisville, KY – Mayor Craig Greenberg (DNC), DNC rule 56 years
Oakland, CA – Mayor Sheng Thao (DNC), DNC rule 48 years
Washington, D.C. – Mayor Muriel Bowser (DNC), DNC rule 64 years
Atlanta, GA – Mayor Andre Dickens (DNC), DNC rule 164 years
It is: https://freedomforallamericans.org/highest-murders-in-us-by-...
Edit: To be fair though, it is A list. I'm sure there are others as well, as the authors note, its hard to gather most recent data
So yes, your list is applying some sort of population threshold, which means you are then also just selecting for big cities.
Maybe occasionally a Republican will slip in as mayor of San Diego or Miami, but 90% of the time even those cities are run by democrats.
So those people count less because they vote for the wrong guy?
Some apparently believe that because "cities are run by _democrats_" 164 years in charge is not a problem in itself. 164 years of continious ruling over a city, but of course the other side is the currupt threat to democracy. The mental gymnastics involved are olympic.
There simply aren’t many examples of what America’s economically vibrant cities would be like if the other side was in charge, but maybe vibrancy is just not compatible with conservative ideology, and the stick to the suburbs, small towns, and rural areas because they are more…conservative (places elect leaders that mesh with their values).
St. Louis, MO (DNC rule 76 years): 29%
Baltimore, MD (DNC rule 56 years): 58%
New Orleans, LA (DNC rule 153 years): 29%
Detroit, MI (DNC rule 63 years): 17%
Cleveland, OH (DNC rule 35 years): 29%
Las Vegas, NV (DNC rule 82 years): ?? %
Kansas City, MO (DNC rule 34 years): 19%
Memphis, TN (DNC rule 53 years.): 23%
Newark, NJ (DNC rule 72 years.): 12%
Chicago, IL (DNC rule 94 years.): 35%
Cincinnati, OH ( DNC rule 41 years): 19%
Philadelphia, PA ( DNC rule 74 years): 18%
Milwaukee, WI ( DNC rule 65 years): 31%
Tulsa, OK (outlier): 26%
Pittsburgh, PA (DNC rule 91 years): 30%
Indianapolis, IN ( DNC rule 9 years.): 27%
Louisville, KY (DNC rule 56 years): ??%
Oakland, CA (DNC rule 48 years): 36%
Washington, D.C. ( DNC rule 64 years): ??%
Atlanta, GA (DNC rule 164 years): 25%
(for mayoral elections)
Multi-generational city rule and less than a third of voters showing up are not even abysmal data points – it's a gotham-style dystopia.
You can read a million different things from a list of items with similar attributes. Especially one compiled without sources or any context of the regions of the US.
From there, it's not a great leap to think that places with a soft-on-crime attitude at the local level might engender more criminal activity than places with the opposite attitude. Similar to why there are so many homeless people in California: the weather is lovely and local attitudes are permissive to it compared to other places, so it sucks less to be homeless there than, say, North Dakota. I think it passes the smell test to suggest that it sucks less to be a violent criminal in Baltimore than, say, Carmel, Indiana.
> are cities with Democrat mayors much larger and diverse than Republic mayor cities
What are you implying about diversity?
That's hilarious. It is interesting that these memes are so persistent even in light of the present. No, Republicans are not 'hard on crime', they are hard on anybody that isn't a white, preferably wealthy, evangelical republican.
In reality, Trump gained in all minority populations between 2020 and 2024. He actually lost white Protestants, and white voters in general, in the same time period[0]. In income, too, poorer voters shifted more towards the Republican candidate, while the more well-off shifted more towards the Democratic candidate.
This has been a fascinating realignment in traditional partisan composition. You're probably right that historically the Republican Party has been hard on those who aren't white, rich, and religious; but over the past 10 years or so, it's actually the Democratic Party that is the party of the white, rich, and religious[1].
[0]: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/06/26/demographic-...
[1]: The new left-liberal dogma that comes in many names, but has a lot of overlap with traditional religion.
…To the point that they elected a convicted felon to the presidency.
I suspect big cities tend to have a larger underclass population and a larger wealthy class. Predictable results ensue: Democrat administrations, and higher crime rates.
This is not true at all. There are plenty of violent, hard on crime moderate Democrats that run these cities. Your bias and romanticization of politics is showing. Again in your comment the description is disingenuous and lacking sources and evidence.
You might want to research the US moderate political beliefs. Many are RINOs and DINOs which pokes a lot of holes in the current culture war. Especially if you spew bs such as, Rs are hard on crime and Ds are soft on crime.
> What are you implying about diversity?
What are you implying about it? I am implying that any time people of diverse cultures and beliefs are packed together in an area like a city, you probably end up with a higher murder rate situation than if those people weren’t packed together into a city. Yes?