WASHINGTON, D.C. — A sweeping executive order issued last month by former President Donald Trump is drawing sharp criticism from public safety experts and advocates, who warn that the directive could undermine recent progress in crime reduction across the District and beyond.
The March 28 executive order, titled Making the District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful, calls for an expansion of law enforcement activity in the nation’s capital, including the aggressive enforcement of so-called “quality of life” offenses, increased deportation efforts, and the clearance of homeless encampments. It also relaxes gun restrictions for D.C. residents and raises the use of pretrial incarceration—measures that researchers say could reverse hard-won community safety gains.
The order comes at a time of rising socioeconomic pressure on the city. Federal employment in the District is projected to decline by 21% over the next six months—a loss of 40,000 jobs—threatening household incomes and tax revenues. Meanwhile, Congress’ failure to pass the District of Columbia Local Funds Act could slash up to $1 billion from public services, including education, youth programs, and emergency response, according to local officials.
Public safety experts argue the order’s punitive focus is out of step with current crime trends. In 2024, Washington, D.C. saw a 35% drop in violent crime, with similar declines in carjackings, robberies, and youth arrests. Those improvements mirror national statistics, with murder rates in major cities returning to or dropping below pre-pandemic levels.
Analysts attribute these gains not to stricter policing, but to increased access to employment, education, and social supports following the COVID-19 pandemic. “The evidence is clear: punitive measures make communities less safe, not more,” said a senior researcher at the Brookings Institution. “Investments in housing, jobs, health, and education are the key drivers of lasting safety.”
Despite this, the new order urges a doubling down on policies that research shows can increase recidivism and destabilize communities. Studies have long found that short-term incarceration for low-level offenses is linked to higher rates of future crime, diminished labor force participation, and broader economic harm—particularly among youth and marginalized populations.
The plan’s directive to clear homeless encampments without providing alternative housing is another flashpoint. Public health data shows that criminalizing homelessness raises long-term public costs and increases the likelihood of repeat arrests, with experts estimating that the current cycle of incarceration and sheltering costs taxpayers up to $83,000 per person annually.
At the same time, major federal investments in safety-supporting infrastructure are under threat. Proposed cuts would affect everything from Medicaid and mental health services to housing subsidies and food assistance programs such as SNAP. In D.C. alone, as many as 140,000 residents could lose access to food aid under one House Republican proposal.
“This is a fundamental choice about what public safety means,” said a D.C.-based housing advocate. “Are we building safe communities, or just policing symptoms of systemic failure?”
Efforts to assert federal and state control over local policing—especially in majority-Black and Latino cities—have also drawn scrutiny. Legal challenges have been filed in several states, including Mississippi and Florida, over similar moves to strip local leaders of authority and deputize police for immigration enforcement. Civil rights groups warn that such efforts echo a broader erosion of Home Rule and democratic accountability.
With the Local Funds Act still pending and vital services at risk, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser’s office says failure to pass the bill would force $350 million in cuts to public and charter schools, $67 million from police, $42 million from fire and EMS, and $28 million from the Department of Human Services.
Advocates say the current federal direction risks turning back the clock on proven public safety strategies. “We can’t arrest our way to a safe city,” said one community leader. “What we need are budgets and policies that support people—not just police them.”
