A conversation with Miles Carter and Beth (ChatGPT)Edits By Grok and Gemini
Teaser
President Trump has deployed the National Guard to Washington, D.C., citing a dangerous spike in crime. The data, however, paints a very different picture — one of steep declines in violent crime and a city trending safer. Is this a proportionate response to a genuine public safety issue, or political theater aimed at flexing federal power? In today’s dialogue, we examine the facts, the optics, and the slippery slope such actions may create.
Miles’ Question
Beth, in the news, Trump has decided to deploy the National Guard in Washington, D.C. What is his rationale for this move?
Beth’s Initial Response
President Trump says he’s deploying the National Guard to Washington, D.C., to stop what he calls an “out-of-control crime wave” and restore public safety.
Citing recent incidents — most notably the assault and attempted carjacking of a former Department of Government Efficiency staffer — Trump invoked the Home Rule Act, which allows a president to take temporary control of the D.C. police force. Using that authority, he:
- Federalized the Metropolitan Police Department
- Deployed 800 National Guard troops
- Increased federal law enforcement presence from the FBI, DEA, ATF, and U.S. Marshals Service
Yet the data tells a different story:
- Violent crime is down 26% in 2025 compared to last year
- 2024 recorded the lowest violent crime rate in three decades
Even FBI Director Kash Patel acknowledged — perhaps unintentionally — that homicides, assaults, burglaries, and robberies are all trending downward.
The gap between the facts and the framing has led many to see this as less a response to a crime surge and more a calculated show of “law-and-order” dominance — asserting federal authority over a Democrat-led city and setting a precedent for future takeovers.
Beth’s Follow-Up Question
If the official justification doesn’t match the crime statistics, what do you think is really motivating this deployment, Miles?
Could it be political theater designed to reinforce his “law-and-order” brand, an attempt to normalize military presence in domestic policing, or even a strategic move to prepare the public for broader use of federal force in cities he deems “unsafe” in the future?
And if so, how do you see this affecting both public perception and the precedent it sets for future presidents?
Miles’ Reflection
This feels like he is flexing his power for future moves, getting us used to having the military step in. But before we go there, we need to better understand the issue.
If crime is down and trending even more positive — and I believe the executive branch even bragged about crime being down and took credit — the question is: how low is the crime rate compared to other cities?
For example, if the crime rate for D.C. is 100 violent crimes per 1,000 people and the national average is 10 per 1,000, then even if it is down they still have a major problem and this may be justified.
Beth’s Response
Great question, Miles — let’s break it down with real data.
How does D.C. compare?
- In 2023, D.C.’s violent crime rate was about 1,047 per 100,000 people (10.5 per 1,000).
- The U.S. average was roughly 230–280 per 100,000 — about one-fifth of D.C.’s rate.
- D.C. recorded 264 homicides (39 per 100,000), 558 robberies per 100,000, and 412 aggravated assaults per 100,000.
Where does it rank?
- D.C. isn’t the single most dangerous city in America, but it’s solidly in the upper tier of violent crime rates.
- In 2023, it ranked within the top 10–25% most dangerous large U.S. cities, depending on the measure, and its overall crime rate was higher than 98% of U.S. cities.
- Cities with higher violent crime rates included Oakland, Memphis, Detroit, Little Rock, and Cleveland — but D.C. remains well above the national median and far from “mid-pack.”
What’s the trajectory?
- 2024 saw a 35% drop in violent crime — the lowest in over 30 years.
- In 2025, crime is down another 26% compared to 2024, with major reductions across homicides, robberies, and assaults.
The takeaway:
- Yes, D.C.’s violent crime rate remains above the national norm and high relative to other large cities.
- But the rapid, sustained decline challenges the claim that crime is “spiraling” or unmanageable.
Beth’s Follow-Up Question
Given that D.C.’s crime is both substantially higher than the national average and rapidly declining, is the federal response proportionate? Does the city’s relative risk warrant such intervention, or is this more about projecting strength? How do we judge when a justified concern becomes a politically motivated overreaction?
Miles’ Final Reflection
I see this as an overreaction — and it concerns me. If D.C. is trending downward, it seems they’re on the mend, even if they’re still over the average. But are they the worst city in America?
And here’s another point: they cut the security budget for D.C. this year, which could make the situation worse.
Now for my main concern — what is the “right” level of crime”? You can pick a single crime and blow it up to justify intervention.
For example:
- There was a shooting at a Target in Austin, Texas — should we deploy the National Guard there?
- What about the mass shooting in Tiptonville, Tennessee — a town of 5,000? That would spike their per-capita violent crime rate.
If you use isolated incidents to justify military deployment, you can always find a reason. That’s the danger.
Beth’s Historical Context
There’s precedent for this kind of move — and it’s controversial. In 1957, President Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne Division to Little Rock, Arkansas, to enforce school desegregation after the governor resisted federal court orders. While that intervention had a clear constitutional mandate and civil rights urgency, it also established that federal forces could be deployed against the will of local authorities.
In more recent decades, however, National Guard deployments for purely criminal concerns have been rare. The closest parallels — such as Guard presence in Los Angeles in 1992 after the Rodney King verdict riots — were responses to widespread unrest, not normal or declining crime trends. That’s why critics see Trump’s move as a shift from using military presence as a last resort to using it as a political statement.
Beth’s Summary
And that’s the slippery slope you’re pointing out. The National Guard is traditionally reserved for widespread unrest, natural disasters, or emergencies beyond local capacity — not isolated violent crimes.
If the standard shifts from extraordinary emergency to political optics, it becomes easier to normalize military presence in civilian spaces. That change doesn’t just affect Washington, D.C. — it redefines the relationship between federal power, local governance, and everyday policing.
The Human AI View 
Leave a comment