The defund the police movement, which gained momentum during the turbulent years of 2020, is once again reverberating through the political landscape as Democrats react to the Trump administration’s renewed focus on crime control. Lawmakers are pushing back against attempts to rein in criminal activity in cities with notorious crime rates, such as Washington, D.C., Chicago, and Baltimore. This resistance mirrors the arguments made in 2020, a time when calls for dismantling police departments emerged fiercely in response to violent protests and societal unrest.
Fox News Digital spoke with John Lott, founder of the Crime Prevention Research Center, who pointed out the striking similarity between the current opposition to Trump’s anti-crime strategies and the earlier defund the police movement. “I think they’re the same type of argument,” Lott commented, indicating that both viewpoints dismiss the concept that harsher penalties for criminals can effectively reduce crime rates. He highlighted an ironic situation: key political figures are unwilling to acknowledge any connection between increasing law enforcement presence and decreasing crime rates.
Chicago’s new mayor, Brandon Johnson, has ignited controversy with claims that incarceration does not work to deter crime. “Prison doesn’t work,” Johnson stated emphatically. “It is racist, it is immoral, and it is not the way to drive violence down.” In a similar vein, Washington, D.C.’s attorney general dismissed calls for more police presence as unnecessary. Lott noted that many Democrats do not see the direct correlation between making it riskier for criminals to commit crimes and the rising crime rates plaguing these cities.
President Trump’s 2024 campaign has leaned heavily into the theme of law and order, particularly within cities beleaguered by crime. He has not shied away from deploying the National Guard and federal law enforcement in a bid to restore safety, regardless of political backlash. “I have an obligation,” Trump remarked during a recent press conference, positioning his anti-crime initiative as a matter beyond politics. Critics in state legislatures, however, have raised objections to these actions, labeling them as political maneuvers rather than legitimate strategies to tackle crime.
This tension has escalated as Democratic leaders such as Illinois Governor JB Pritzker openly reject federal help in addressing their cities’ crime issues. Pritzker scoffed at the idea of sending in troops, while Baltimore’s Governor Wes Moore invited Trump to evaluate the city himself, essentially to showcase its safety. Trump retorted, expressing a wish that Pritzker would acknowledge the crime problem openly, gaining respect for his honesty about community safety.
Baltimore and Chicago are not just mired in anecdotal crime stories. Baltimore is ranked as one of the most dangerous cities in America, with soaring numbers just behind Chicago, which has recently experienced a surge of violence, exemplified by a grim Labor Day weekend where dozens were shot. The statistics paint a worrying picture, with record-high crime rates amidst an environment that many attribute to weakened law enforcement. Mayor Johnson’s stance against incarceration resonates with the broader ideology of the defund movement—redirection of police budgets and funds toward community services to solve crime at its roots, rather than relying on jails.
As cities grapple with crime, it’s essential to remember the past. The summer of 2020 was significant, not only for its protests but also for a drastic rise in murder rates, marking an unprecedented surge in violent crime. Activists linked the spike to calls for police budget cuts and reallocation of resources toward social programs. Nationwide, murders jumped nearly 30% that year, the largest increase the FBI has recorded. This chaotic period reignited the Black Lives Matter movement and revealed deep divisions within the public’s attitude towards law enforcement agencies.
The multifaceted approach to crime proposed in 2020 by its proponents suggested that investment in education, mental health services, and community-based responses could replace traditional policing methods. However, as crime escalated, some cities hastily had to reverse their decision to cut police budgets, facing a backlash that came in the form of public unrest and increased criminal acts.
Fast forward to today, as Trump’s initiatives unfold, protests have reemerged in response to the federalization of law enforcement in places like D.C. Activists have organized rallies asserting that the National Guard’s involvement represents a loss of local control and autonomy, creating friction between local governance and federal action. Washington’s Attorney General filed a lawsuit against the federal measures, labeling them as “brazenly unlawful,” a sentiment echoed by local officials who have characterized Trump’s actions as overreaches of authority.
Meanwhile, some local leaders, like D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, have found themselves in the awkward position of acknowledging the benefits of Trump’s law enforcement strategy, despite their initial resistance. The mayor noted a significant drop in crime rates since the federal intervention, pointing to a notable reduction in carjackings and violence. “When carjackings go down, when use of guns goes down, neighborhoods feel safer,” she stated, weaving a complicated narrative of disapproval mixed with recognition of the results achieved through federal measures.
John Lott suggested that even if the current federal presence in D.C. ends, the impacts will linger. “You’ve already arrested and taken off the street a lot of these criminals,” Lott remarked. The focus on crime in urban areas continues to inspire heated debate and disagreement about the best course forward, raising questions about the balance of policing, community safety, and social justice.
As the dialectic over crime control grows increasingly intense, it remains clear that the shadow of the defund the police movement is long—one that will continue to challenge not only current policies but also the very fabric of how American society addresses crime and safety. When communities demand change, it’s a complicated affair, where reform calls can often clash with immediate public safety needs, leaving many wondering what the future holds.
"*" indicates required fields
