Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) has taken a firm stand against Washington, D.C. Council Chair Phil Mendelson, accusing him of manipulating crime statistics with a newly minted crime category designed to obscure the reality of rising theft in the city. This new classification, “Taking Property Without Right,” has soared by an astonishing 500% in recent years, prompting Jordan to question the motivation behind such terminology. To him, this euphemism fails to capture the essence of the crime—it’s stealing, plain and simple.
Jordan’s inquiry into Mendelson’s reasoning is both sharp and incisive. He challenges the Council Chair directly: “What’s Taking Property Without Right? Why not call it theft?” The implication is clear: by crafting vague classifications, city officials can obscure the truth and evade accountability for the rampant crime that afflicts the streets of Washington, D.C., a city currently under Democratic control.
Mendelson’s responses are telling, veering into bureaucratic jargon rather than addressing the core issue. “If you’re speaking to the particular charges, I can’t speak to that,” he attempts to deflect, but Jordan presses on. “You have a classification for crime called Taking Property Without Right. What does that mean?” Mendelson’s inability to provide a clear answer only deepens Jordan’s critique. Instead, he cites a drop in gunshots, tying it to his perception of crime trends without addressing the glaring rise in theft.
Jordan is not just speaking in the abstract; he references official statements and broader crime trends reported by local law enforcement. He brings into the conversation the Fraternal Order of Police, specifically remarks made by its head, Gregg Pemberton, who has hinted at administrative meddling with crime statistics. “When our members respond to the scene of a felony offense,” Pemberton has stated, “inevitably there will be a lieutenant or a captain that will show up on the scene and direct those members to take a report for a lesser offense”—a clear indication of efforts to “cook the books.”
As the discourse continues, Jordan reminds Mendelson of his own previous statements touting a perceived drop in violent crime, to which Mendelson affirms, “Correct.” Yet, Jordan follows up sharply, emphasizing the discord between Mendelson’s optimistic view and the realities faced by law enforcement officers on the ground. He asks directly, “Are you guys cooking the books?” Mendelson’s reply is evasive, asserting that he believes they are not, which raises further skepticism regarding the transparency of D.C. crime reporting.
The irony is palpable as Jordan notes the ongoing investigation by House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer into allegations against the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD). The claim is serious: MPD may be systematically altering crime reports to present a safer image. With a whistleblower reportedly indicating that such manipulations are widespread, it casts a dark shadow over Mendelson and his administration’s purported crime-fighting efforts.
Furthermore, this revelation comes amidst broader governmental scrutiny. On August 11, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order aimed at “Restoring Law and Order in the District of Columbia,” which indicates a lack of confidence in local leadership to curb escalating crime rates. With crime misreported and safety in question, the public’s trust in local governance hangs by a thread. As Chairman Comer states, “MPD has a duty under federal and local law to accurately report crime to the public.” Misleading statistics could erode that already fragile trust even further.
Jordan’s relentless questioning of Mendelson, punctuated by his insistence on plain terminology like “stealing,” underscores a larger narrative about accountability and transparency in governance. The public, he suggests, deserves straightforward answers and truthful representations of crime. The manipulation of statistics—to put a more palatable spin on the crime wave—only serves to mask underlying issues that require direct confrontation.
In closing, Jordan’s challenge to Mendelson not only highlights the manipulation of crime reporting but also reflects a broader frustration with bureaucratic obfuscation. The ongoing dialogue raises crucial questions: How much of what the public is told about crime is genuine? Are officials prioritizing appearance over action? As investigations unfold and the circumstances surrounding D.C.’s crime statistics are scrutinized, the stakes for public safety and trust in law enforcement continue to rise.
"*" indicates required fields
