NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label crime stats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label crime stats. Show all posts

16 August 2025

( VIDEO & TRANSCRIPTS )“The Fort Bragg Cartel”: Book Exposes U.S. Special Forces’ Involvement in Drug Trafficking & Murder 14AUG25



IF NOT MY pres drumpf / trump is actually concerned about crime in America he should be sending federalized police and National Guard to Fort Bragg (Fort Liberty) to end the drug dealing, money laundering and murder that is  rampant on that base and from there throughout Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia and probably D.C. too. Yes, this is the same base drumpf / trump and Sec of Defense fascist fotze petie lola hegseth spoke at before the DC Army anniversary parade praising the "service" and "patriotism" of the service personnel stationed there. Sadly, this is just another chapter in the history of our intelligence services as well as the US Military involvement in drug dealing, money laundering, political, law enforcement and military corruption, theft and murder. this from Democracy Now! and Rolling Stone..... 

( My apology, I had to trim this video to be able to add it to this post, was not aware the musical interlude was included. It just goes on for a minute or so or you can fast forward to the interview )

“The Fort Bragg Cartel”: Book Exposes U.S. Special Forces’ Involvement in Drug Trafficking & Murder


Guests
  • Seth Harp
    investigative reporter, foreign correspondent and an Iraq War veteran.

As President Trump threatens to use U.S. special forces against drug cartels abroad, a new book, The Fort Bragg Cartel: Drug Trafficking and Murder in the Special Forces, reveals some of the most secretive and elite special forces in the Army are heavily involved in narcotrafficking themselves. “There’s at least 14 cases that I’m tracking of Fort Bragg-trained soldiers who have been either arrested, apprehended or killed in the course of trafficking drugs in the last five years or so,” says author Seth Harp. The book also looks at “how U.S. military intervention often stimulates drug production,” including in Afghanistan, which he says became the biggest narco-state in the world during the 20-year U.S. occupation. “Most of the drug trafficking and drug production was being carried out and done by warlords, police chiefs, militia commanders, who were on the U.S. payroll in a corrupt structure,” says Harp.

Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman.

As the National Guard expands its presence in Washington, D.C., President Trump says he’ll seek long-term federal takeover of the D.C. police force.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We’re going to need a crime bill that we’re going to be putting in, and it’s going to pertain initially to D.C. It’s almost — we’re going to use it as a very positive example. And we’re going to be asking for extensions on that, long-term extensions, because you can’t have 30 days. Thirty days is — that’s — by the time you do it — we’re going to have this in good shape.

AMY GOODMAN: Earlier this week, Trump declared a crime emergency in D.C., even though violent crime in the city is at a 30-year low. Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser has denounced Trump’s takeover of the police force as an “authoritarian push.” At least 800 National Guard troops are being deployed in D.C., alongside 500 federal law enforcement agents.

The Washington Post revealed Tuesday the Trump administration is also planning a so-called Domestic Civil Disturbance Quick Reaction Force composed of hundreds of National Guard troops set to rapidly deploy to other U.S. cities targeted by Trump, including Democratic strongholds of Baltimore, New York, Chicago, Oakland. The force would be comprised of two groups of 300 soldiers permanently assigned to the force, stationed at military bases in Alabama and Arizona.

This comes after Trump earlier deployed the National Guard and U.S. Marines to Los Angeles during protests against immigration raids and arrests by masked, unidentified agents who also targeted U.S. citizens when they were making their arrests.

Rolling Stone reports, quote, “One of Trump’s biggest regrets from his first term in the Oval Office, according to former and current senior Trump advisers, is that he didn’t use military forces and other federal assets to crack down harder than he ultimately did in the summer of 2020” on racial justice protests. Trump’s secretary of defense at the time did not agree with the president’s idea to shoot Black Lives Matter protesters near the White House.

Meanwhile, earlier this week, Trump secretly signed a directive approving the Pentagon’s use of military force on foreign soil to target drug cartels, especially in countries like Mexico.

All of this comes as Trump is due to meet Friday with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska to discuss a ceasefire in Ukraine, where the U.S. has also sent troops.

Today, we take a rare look at U.S. special forces deployed around the world, whether we’re talking about Mexico, Ukraine, Iraq, Afghanistan or here at home. They’re stationed at the most populous military base in the country, which was renamed Fort Liberty in 2023, until Trump’s Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth directed the Army to change the name back to Fort Bragg, saying, “Bragg is back.” Fort Bragg is home to Delta Force, the most secretive black ops unit in the military, which carries out classified assassinations and other clandestine missions and is also heavily involved in drug trafficking, as our next guest reveals in his new book.

Rolling Stone investigative reporter Seth Harp is a foreign correspondent who’s reported from Iraq, Mexico, Syria and Ukraine, also an Iraq War veteran. His new book, out this week, is titled The Fort Bragg Cartel: Drug Trafficking and Murder in the Special Forces.

I don’t think people usually expect to see, when talking about a cartel, the largest U.S. military base, Fort Bragg. So, if you can talk about drug trafficking and murder in the Special Forces? Begin with what Fort Bragg is, who the Special Forces are, especially Delta Forces, and who these dead bodies are that are turning up all over Fort Bragg and the surrounding area.

SETH HARP: Well, Trump says he wants to deploy military forces to countries like Mexico to crack down on drug cartels there, but I think he should look closer to home, because there’s at least 14 cases that I’m tracking of Fort Bragg-trained soldiers who have been either arrested, apprehended or killed in the course of trafficking drugs in the last five years or so, often in conjunction with those very same Mexican drug cartels.

This is especially concerning because of what Fort Bragg is. It’s not only the largest U.S. military base, but it’s central to U.S. operations and special operations. It’s the home of the 82nd Airborne Division, which is the United States’ main contingency force. It’s also the headquarters of the Green Berets, the Special Forces, as well as the Joint Special Operations Command, which includes Delta Force, which is the most —

AMY GOODMAN: That’s JSOC?

SETH HARP: That’s JSOC. That’s the most secretive and elite component of the U.S. military. And as you said, there have been some members of Delta Force who have been involved in trafficking drugs recently.

AMY GOODMAN: So, you begin this book with the discovery of two bodies. Tell us when they were discovered and who those men were.

SETH HARP: In December of 2020, two dead bodies were found in a remote training range of Fort Bragg. One of them was a member of Delta Force. They had both been shot to death. And the limited information from police at that time was that it was believed to be a double homicide from a drug deal gone wrong. The other person who was killed at that time was Timothy Dumas, who was a support officer, a logistics officer, for JSOC. The other one, the Delta Force operator, his name was Billy Lavigne. And my book mostly is, or at the core of it, it’s an investigation into who committed these murders.

AMY GOODMAN: So, Billy Lavigne, Delta Force. Talk about the Delta Force operations. And you just mentioned that people are being killed in Fort Bragg, and part of the killing responsibility is the Mexican drug cartels, but those cartels, you talk about being trained at Fort Bragg?

SETH HARP: Mm-hmm. Well, it’s unclear who committed the murders of Billy Lavigne and Timothy Dumas, I’ve got to say. Certainly, we might suspect that it could have been some of their associates in the drug trafficking industry. I did learn in the course of researching the book and reporting it that Lavigne and Dumas were buying cocaine through the Los Zetas cartel in Mexico, which, in fact, was trained in the United States. It began as a project, a joint project, between the U.S. Special Forces and the Mexican government to create an elite paratrooper unit of the Mexican Army, and later went rogue and became one of the most feared cartels in Mexico, Los Zetas.

AMY GOODMAN: So, you’re talking about a kind of Mexico Delta Force.

SETH HARP: You could say that. You could say that, or Mexican Green Berets.

AMY GOODMAN: The numbers that you’re talking about of soldiers who have died at Fort Bragg, in a couple years over 100?

SETH HARP: A hundred and nine from 2020 to 2021. And only four of those deaths took place in foreign combat zones, in Afghanistan and Syria. All the rest took place stateside, either on Fort Bragg itself or in Fayetteville, which is the town right by Fort Bragg.

AMY GOODMAN: So, can you talk about, with this number of deaths, how does it compare, for example, to Fort Hood? And talk about what happens when you have this massive number of deaths. Who is held responsible? And how are they dying?

SETH HARP: Well, so far, nobody has been held responsible. Fort Bragg is the largest military base; however, the number of deaths there, on a per capita and absolute basis, outstrips any other that you might compare it to. For example, we’re well aware that in Fort Hood in 2020, 38 soldiers died. That led to extensive news coverage, as well as two congressional investigations, which ultimately concluded with the entire chain of command at Fort Hood being fired. Even though the situation at Fort Bragg is objectively worse, and has been for years, so far, to my knowledge, nothing has been done about it.

AMY GOODMAN: You say that “Fort Bragg has a lot of secrets. A lot of underground narcotics secrets. It’s its own little cartel.” That was Freddie Huff, who is the ex-DEA agent, talking about Fort Bragg. What exactly does that mean?

SETH HARP: So, Freddie Huff was a corrupt North Carolina state trooper and DEA task force agent who became a high-level drug trafficker in North Carolina. He was the connection between Los Zetas in Mexico and this group of Special Forces soldiers on Fort Bragg who were trafficking and distributing drugs in the area. And that quote was from Mr. Huff. And, you know, he was alleging that he sold, you know, hundreds of kilograms of cocaine to this group.

AMY GOODMAN: How many people die of suicide, and how is that dealt with, in the military at Fort Bragg?

SETH HARP: A shocking and depressing number. You know, the Army is well aware that it has a suicide problem. It has for a long time. But the numbers at Fort Bragg are really extreme, and it’s the number one cause of death at Fort Bragg by far. And many of those deaths are also drug-related, regrettably.

AMY GOODMAN: So, why isn’t there investigation going on? As President Trump tariffs Mexico and increases tariffs on Canada, talking about fentanyl, talk about what’s happening at Bragg.

SETH HARP: Well, on the contrary, there haven’t been. Not only has there not been any sort of reforms or any crackdown on this, but Trump and Hegseth, they make a big show of their support for Fort Bragg, changing the name back to Fort Bragg from Fort Liberty, giving speeches there, touting the Special Forces and the Airborne Corps, without really taking seriously some of these underlying and systemic issues, which are quite troubling.

AMY GOODMAN: One of the ways you use these murders to talk about U.S. presence in the military around the world is when you talk about Timothy Dumas — you say he was a quartermaster with the Special Forces — and how he used his position — was it in Afghanistan? — to bring drugs into the United States. Now, this is the guy who was murdered.

SETH HARP: Yes, that’s the allegation. Not only did — not only was he involved in that, actually, Timothy Dumas, before he died, wrote a letter, a blackmail letter. It was with the intention of blackmailing the Special Forces, because he had been kicked out of the Army for his misbehavior and his crimes and had been deprived of his pension as a result of that. In order to — in a stratagem to exert leverage on the Special Forces and get his pension reinstated, he composed this document, which purported to name the members of what Mr. Huff called the “Fort Bragg cartel.” But before he was ever able to release that letter, he himself was murdered.

AMY GOODMAN: So, let’s talk about Afghanistan for a moment. Talk about the U.S. presence there, the forever war, and talk about heroin, drugs and how they became so critical to the Afghan economy. And did the Taliban have anything to do with that?

SETH HARP: It’s really shocking, the degree to which the war in Afghanistan had to do with drugs and drug production. It’s an aspect of the war that was never covered to the degree that it ought to have been. Afghanistan under U.S. occupation became by far the biggest narco-state in the world, producing more heroin than the entire planet could absorb. Most of the drug trafficking and drug production was being carried out and done by warlords, police chiefs, militia commanders, who were on the U.S. payroll in a corrupt structure, which you could plausibly describe as a cartel, that went all the way up to the president of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, and his brother, as well as Ashraf Ghani. During the entire time that the U.S. occupied the country, it was turning out staggering quantities of very high-potency heroin, which flooded the entire planet and caused terrible heroin crises all over the world, including in the United States.

AMY GOODMAN: You write, “No person in any position of influence dared to suggest that the scourge of opiate addiction then afflicting the poor and working class across the United States might have resulted from the wartime narcotics bonanza.”

SETH HARP: Right. And part of that has to do with the DEA’s assertion that only 1% of heroin in the United States comes from Afghanistan. This is something that we were told by the DEA during the course of the war, and which was duly repeated by many media outlets. But I go into some detail in my book about why I believe that that number was fictitious. And in fact, just as in Canada, just as in Australia, Russia, wherever you look in the world, by far the majority of heroin in the United States, I believe, came from Afghanistan.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to move over to Ukraine. You have the summit that President Trump is holding with Vladimir Putin in Alaska tomorrow. You spent a good amount of time in Ukraine. Talk about where you were, when you were there, and what the U.S. Special Forces were doing there.

SETH HARP: I was in Ukraine at the start of the war. I was in Kyiv during the Battle of Kyiv. And at that time, we had been told that there were no U.S. military forces in Ukraine, that they had all been withdrawn on orders of President Biden before the Russian invasion. However, I was the first to report that, in fact, there were members of the Joint Special Operations Command active in Ukraine from day one, including members of the Delta Force, as well SEAL Team Six. And that reporting was subsequently confirmed by other media outlets. They may not have specified what units they came from, but certainly the presence of U.S. special operators in Ukraine has been confirmed.

AMY GOODMAN: So, talk more about the significance of this, where they came from in the United States, what they were doing.

SETH HARP: Well, they all come from Fort Bragg. And the conventional troops that were there in Poland to back up the Ukrainian army also came from Fort Bragg, the 82nd Airborne Division. That’s an illustration of the centrality of Fort Bragg to all U.S. military operations. Now, where are they in the country of Ukraine right now? That’s not — I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know that anybody knows that. But certainly, it is concerning that we have our U.S. military personnel there in a conflict with another nuclear-armed power.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to go to President Trump’s relationship with the military. There’s the op-ed in The New York Times today talking about how it was thought it would ultimately, interestingly, be the military that would stop Trump from using it on the ground in the United States. The headline is “We Used to Think the Military Would Stand Up to Trump. We Were Wrong.”

And I wanted to go back to — well, we’ve talked about The New York Times revealing a trove of confidential military interviews with the Navy SEALs who accused Chief Edward Gallagher of war crimes. He met with President Trump at Trump’s private resort in Mar-a-Lago weeks after Trump overruled his own military leaders and blocked them from disciplining Gallagher, despite him being — despite him being convicted of posing with a teenage corpse in a high-profile war crimes case. He was also accused of fatally stabbing the captive teenager in the neck and shooting two Iraqi civilians, but he was acquitted of premeditated murder. In the never-before-released videos, the soldiers tell Navy investigators Gallagher was “toxic” and “freaking evil.” So, he was a Navy SEAL. You served in Iraq. You also report on Iraq. Talk about the significance of this pardoning, ultimately, that Trump did of Gallagher, and who exactly he was, and where he was found guilty of committing these crimes in Iraq.

SETH HARP: Trump’s cozying up to war criminals like Eddie Gallagher is the one — one of the most deplorable features of his administration and is an illustration of the incredibly deleterious effect that Trump’s malignant command influence has had on the entire special operations community, because Eddie Gallagher is somebody who was turned in by his own teammates, who were far from bleeding-heart liberals. These are active-duty Navy SEALs fighting in Mosul, in Iraq, who see their chief murdering people right and left, men, women, children, unarmed people. He was caught on video about to stab that teenage ISIS fighter in the neck. His teammates wanted him gone. The Navy SEAL command wanted him gone.

But Trump saw an opportunity to make guys like Eddie Gallagher part of his personal political brand. And that is — he also pardoned people like Mathew Golsteyn, who was the Green Beret officer who admitted to committing murder on live television. Other people that Trump has made part of his retinue, some of the craziest people in the special operations community.

All of this has had the effect of — you know, there are people in this community who do go by a sense of ethics and who are not so criminally inclined, and the more Trump is in office and doing things like this, the fewer you have of those people, and the more you have of the sort of piratical types like Eddie Gallagher staying in and rising higher in the ranks. And you see that in the kind of fallout of the domestic crime that I describe in my book.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to Seth Harp. He is the author of The Fort Bragg Cartel. It’s out this week. The subtitle, Drug Trafficking and Murder in the Special Forces. What did you discover, Seth, about the intelligence role of Delta Force and its covert actions in countries where the U.S. is not at war?

SETH HARP: It’s really incredible how little we know about the Delta Force. I believe my book is the only sort of serious investigative look at the unit, despite the fact that it is the most elite unit in the U.S. military and has been at the forefront of all U.S. wars since at least 2001. So, Delta Force, I’d be happy to tell you anything about the unit. What was your — what should I say?

AMY GOODMAN: You tell us. You did the — you wrote the book.

SETH HARP: The intelligence gathering, you said.

AMY GOODMAN: Yes.

SETH HARP: So, it’s interesting, because a lot of people are not aware the extent to which these type of units, Delta and JSOC, which Delta is a part of JSOC, are — besides their paramilitary capacities, besides their operations doing assassinations and abductions in war zones, they also have strong intelligence-gathering capabilities and are — they have troops that are overseas, that are active-duty U.S. military members who are not wearing uniforms, who are not carrying IDs, who are operating under cover identities, sometimes pretending to be American businessmen, other times pretending to be State Department employees, but, in fact, are carrying out military operations in countries with which the United States is not at war, including things like bugging missions, other things that we don’t know about.

And I think what’s most crucial to emphasize in this context is that, unlike the CIA, unlike other civilian intelligence agencies that are subject to congressional oversight and must report their covert actions to Congress, the military is largely exempt from that type of oversight. And so, I think that’s one reason why you have seen a lot of the authority over covert action shift from civilian agencies to JSOC over the last 20 years.

AMY GOODMAN: Before we wrap up, I wanted to go to these latest moves by Trump, I mean, that special secret directive. We’re using it today to talk about what’s happening at home when it comes to drug cartels. But what about — and you’ve reported from Mexico. What about what Trump is saying, that the Pentagon can deploy in countries like Mexico? The Mexican president said — you know, had a very fierce reaction against this, going after drug cartels there. You started talking about Fort Bragg being a place where some of the most dangerous of these cartels were actually trained.

SETH HARP: Mm-hmm, that’s right. Los Zetas were trained at Fort Bragg, at Fort Benning, and they also received training from Israeli instructors, before they went rogue — another indication or another illustration of how U.S. military intervention often stimulates drug production. What was the second part of your question? Or what was the —

AMY GOODMAN: Well, talking about Mexico, and the U.S. deploying troops there.

SETH HARP: I mean, it’s complete — to the extent — in these days, with the genocide in Gaza and so many other things going on, we almost have lost sight, and it seems like nobody cares about international law. But I just want to point out kind of the obvious, that using military force against drug traffickers, however bad you think drug traffickers are, that’s a total violation of the laws of war. They’re not combatants in war; they’re criminals. So, that’s one thing.

Another aspect of it is, you know, the sort of typical Trump showmanship. It’s not clear to me, having worked in Mexico as a reporter for years, that the sort of cartels that the DEA creates organization charts to illustrate and tout and purport — I don’t know that those really are such coherent organizations as they might imagine, and I question whether they have the intelligence on these purported organizations where they could actually carry out military strikes on them. I don’t know that they actually have the targeting intelligence for that to become a reality. But in any event, they ought to look more closely at the drug crime that’s taking place in the United States and even on our own military bases.

AMY GOODMAN: And can you talk about the long U.S. history, military and clandestine operations and drug trafficking in Southeast Asia, for people who are not aware of what happened, as well as in Latin America, for example, the illegal funding and support of the Contras in Nicaragua, and the thousands of Nicaraguans who were killed?

SETH HARP: Sure. There is a long pedigree of this kind of thing, covert alliances between U.S. Special Forces and paramilitaries and intelligence agencies and foreign forces that are implicated in the international drug trade. As you indicate, one of the first examples of that was in Laos and in Cambodia and Vietnam during that era, as well as in Central America, the case of the Nicaraguan Contras.

However, I must say, all of it pales in comparison with the complicity of the — practically the whole of the U.S. government with heroin cartels in Afghanistan during the war there. The amount of drugs that were produced, the openness of the alliance between the United States and known drug traffickers in that country surpass anything that we had previously seen in American history.

AMY GOODMAN: What most surprised you, Seth, in your research for this book? You, as a member of the military, but then stepping outside, you became a lawyer. You were an assistant attorney general in Texas, but a longtime investigative journalist around the world.

SETH HARP: The stuff about Afghanistan, I think, was the most shocking to me, because it was one country where I had not worked, and I really wasn’t aware of the degree to which the U.S. client state was the entity responsible for producing most of the drugs in Afghanistan. I have been kind of snowed, like everybody else, with this narrative that it was the Taliban that was doing it. But in the course of writing the book, the U.S. withdrew from Afghanistan, and the Taliban in 2023 had completely eradicated all drug production from Afghanistan. So, seeing the Taliban come into power and totally eliminate that massive drug-producing industry that the U.S. had not only tolerated, but supported for 20 years, really showed — I guess, really belied the claim, until then, that it was either the Taliban or it was both sides, when, in fact, it was really our guys that were doing it the entire time.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you think with this special directive, a secret directive that Trump has signed, that special forces operations in Latin America will increase under the guise of fighting cartels?

SETH HARP: It’s possible. I find that to be a very complicated prospect. So many of the drug traffickers in Latin America are military or police forces that are allied with the United States. Things are changing in Mexico and in Colombia, but, historically, the biggest drug traffickers in the Americas have been, let’s say, the Colombian Army and right-wing paramilitaries affiliated with the Colombian military, as well as, you know, you see the same type of phenomenon in Honduras and El Salvador and also in Mexico. So, when they talk about targeting these people, who exactly are they talking about?

AMY GOODMAN: Well, you’ve set us up well for our next segment. I want to thank you so much, Seth, for joining us. Seth Harp, Rolling Stone investigative reporter, his new book is just out. It’s called The Fort Bragg Cartel: Drug Trafficking and Murder in the Special Forces.

08 August 2025

Trump is threatening to take over D.C. Here’s what he can and can’t do. 6AUG25



 IN NOT MY pres drumpf's / trump's world an attack by teens on one fellow fascist fotze known as "big balls" (if they actually were he wouldn't have been bloodied) little eddie coristine warrants taking over D.C. BUT if you attack the U.S. Capital Building, assault the Capital Police and call for the lynching of the Vice President he won't do a damn thing (but then why would he try to stop the insurrection he started?). Actually the neo-nazi, fascist drumpf / trump-vance administration and the fascist gop / greed over people-republican party are correct in describing the city as unsafe.Consider the friends and "party" participants of epstein and maxwell living in the bigly white house on Pennsylvania Avenue, tourist with young children, especially young girls, need to be warned to stay away from that part of the city until all the criminals there are rounded up and jailed.This from the Washington Post.....



Although Congress has ultimate authority over D.C., any attempt by federal lawmakers to repeal or alter the 1973 Home Rule Act would not be straightforward.

Updated August 6, 2025

The attempted carjacking of a former U.S. DOGE Service staffer in D.C. prompted President Donald Trump to this week call once again for a federal takeover of the nation’s capital.

Trump, who has long derided the Democratically-controlled city as “filthy and crime-ridden,” has made more threats to D.C.’s right to self-govern than any other president in modern history — looking at taking control of the D.C. police force during a bout of protests during his first term and making a campaign promise to “take over the horribly run capital of our nation.” Trump posted on Truth Social on Tuesday that he now may have “no choice” but to take over the city, following the incident with the former DOGE staffer, whom police identified as Edward Coristine. He doubled down on Wednesday, telling reporters that he was considering taking over the D.C. police department and calling the National Guard in to the city.

The president cannot federalize the District by executive edict — the move would have to go through Congress, and Democrats could block it — but he does have direct authority in some areas, including over the D.C. police force and National Guard. 

Here’s what to know.

Why is Trump threatening a federal takeover of D.C. now?
Return to menu
Coristine, known as “Big Balls,” was injured in an attempted carjacking Sunday in which about 10 juveniles approached him and another person as they were standing next to their vehicle around 3 a.m., according to a police report.

The report said the juveniles “demanded the vehicle and assaulted one of the victims.” During the assault, a D.C. police cruiser “pulled into the block causing the suspects to flee,” police said. Officers stopped two suspects, police said in a news release, and arrested a boy and a girl, both 15, from Maryland, charging them with unarmed carjacking.

Overall, violent crime is down 26 percent in the District compared with 2024, according to D.C. police data. But when Trump referenced the attempted carjacking in a Truth Social post Tuesday, he described crime in D.C. as “out of control.” The post was accompanied by an image of a young person smeared in blood, sitting shirtless on the ground.

“If D.C. doesn’t get its act together, and quickly, we will have no choice but to take Federal control of the City, and run this City how it should be run, and put criminals on notice that they’re not going to get away with it anymore,” Trump wrote.

On Wednesday, Trump was asked during a news conference whether he would take over D.C.’s police department. Trump said he was “considering” it.

“That includes bringing in the National Guard — maybe very quickly, too,” Trump said. The reporter then asked whether Trump wanted Congress to overturn home rule — D.C.’s right to limited self-governance. “The lawyers are already studying it,” the president replied.

What has Trump previously said about federalizing D.C.?
Return to menu
While on the campaign trail, Trump promised to “take over the horribly run capital of our nation in Washington, D.C., and clean it up, renovate it and rebuild our capital city so there is no longer a nightmare of murder and crime.”

He reaffirmed that promise in February, when he said in response to a reporter’s question aboard Air Force One: “We should govern D.C.”

In March, Trump signed an executive order establishing the “D.C. Safe and Beautiful Task Force,” a vehicle for his long-held focus on quality-of-life issues in the city, including homeless encampments and graffiti, in addition to his broader mission to ramp up deportations and arrests nationwide.

How could the federal government take over D.C.?
Return to menu
The most straightforward way for Trump to federalize D.C. would be through an act of Congress — which has ultimate oversight of the District, according to the Constitution.

But it would require overturning the 1973 Home Rule Act, which puts much of D.C.’s governing authority in the hands of its residents, who have the power to elect a mayor and council members.

Politically, repealing the law would be challenging. Republicans do not have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, meaning Democrats — despite being in the minority — would probably be able to block any legislation seeking to revoke or alter Home Rule. In February, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Rep. Andrew Ogles (R-Tennessee) introduced legislation to repeal Home Rule entirely.

Beyond revoking Home Rule, federal lawmakers have other ways of interfering in D.C. affairs. They include budget riders, provisions that are attached to must-pass spending bills. Two long-standing examples are riders that prevent the District from regulating the recreational marijuana market and using local funds to subsidize abortion care. In addition, Congress can overturn laws passed by the D.C. Council, a power it invoked in 2023 when the Senate voted to block a major overhaul of the city’s criminal code.

Beyond Congress, the president wields direct authority over the District in certain limited areas — offering ways to exert influence that fall short of a full federal takeover.

Trump has the power to call up the D.C. National Guard and deploy it without local consent, for example. That sets the District apart from the states, where that power falls to the governor.

The Home Rule Act also gives the president the authority to temporarily take over the District’s police department. Trump can order the mayor to provide the federal government with D.C. police services in “special conditions of an emergency … as the President may deem necessary and appropriate.”

Commandeering the D.C. police force would mark an unprecedented exercise of federal power over a major American city.

Trump threatened to invoke the emergency authority in 2020, when nationwide protests erupted against police violence after the killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis officers, but D.C. leaders persuaded White House officials to reconsider.

What is the history of ‘home rule’ in D.C.?
Return to menu
D.C. residents first got a voice in their local government in 1820, when Congress amended the D.C. charter to allow White male landowners, and later all White men, to vote for mayor. In 1867, Radical Republicans in Congress granted the local vote to Black men, too, provoking a backlash, and in 1874, Congress revoked home rule for everyone in the District.

Until the passage of the Home Rule Act in 1973, the District was ruled by unelected leaders appointed by the president.

After World War II, various proposals were floated for Home Rule. In 1948, Democratic President Harry S. Truman included it in a 10-point civil rights proposal, a position shared by his Republican successor Dwight D. Eisenhower. (In 1961, the ratification of the 23rd Amendment gave D.C. residents the right to vote in presidential elections.)

Home rule picked up momentum in the early ’70s after the electoral defeat of House District Committee Chairman John McMillan, a South Carolina Democrat whom many Black community leaders accused of racism. McMillan blamed his 1972 primary loss on Black opposition. “The colored people were bought out,” he said.

After the Senate passed multiple home rule bills, the House approved legislation in October 1973. “The District of Columbia is a unique combination of federal and local concerns, each of which must be satisfied,” President Richard M. Nixon (R) said as he signed the bill into law two months later. “All in all, I believe this legislation skillfully balances the local interest and the national interest in the way the District of Columbia is governed.”

Vivian is a breaking-news reporter in The Washington Post’s London hub, covering news as it unfolds in the United States and around the globe during overnight and early-morning hours in Washington. She previously worked for the Guardian US and the San Francisco Chronicle and is the author of “Those Who Wander: America’s Lost Street Kids.”

Leo Sands is a breaking-news reporter and editor in The Washington Post’s London Hub, covering news as it unfolds around the world.

Jenny Gathright covers the D.C. government and city politics on The Post's Metro desk. Before coming to The Post in 2024, she reported on the District for WAMU 88.5 and DCist.com, mostly about criminal justice and public safety.


04 March 2017

Trump misleads in claim about terrorism convictions since 9/11 2MAR17

Image result for anti immigration meme
THIS administration's Orwellian xenophobic, anti-immigrant propaganda campaign, repeating lies over and over until they become the "truth" continues. It is a sad fact that so many continue to be voluntarily ignorant of the real threat to our country, the alt right, home grown white supremacist terrorism against Latino, Muslim and Black immigrants, American Blacks and Jews, and American progressives no matter their ethnic and religious affiliation. The American people are being played as fools by the drumpf/trump-pence White House with their consistent drumbeat of terrorism and violent crime by Islamic and Latino immigrants while ignoring the rise in white hate groups and domestic terrorism and crime in the U.S. as documented by The Southern Poverty Law Center / SPLC. This from +PolitiFact 

Trump misleads in claim about terrorism convictions since 9/11

By Miriam Valverde 
Donald Trump
President of the United States

"According to data provided by the Department of Justice, the vast majority of individuals convicted of terrorism and terrorism-related offenses since 9/11 came here from outside of our country."

President Donald Trump, in his first speech before a joint session of Congress, continued to call for improved vetting of people coming to the United States, raising concerns about foreigners convicted on terror charges.
"Our obligation is to serve, protect, and defend the citizens of the United States. We are also taking strong measures to protect our nation from radical Islamic terrorism," Trump said Feb. 28.
"According to data provided by the Department of Justice, the vast majority of individuals convicted of terrorism and terrorism-related offenses since 9/11 came here from outside of our country. … It is not compassionate, but reckless to allow uncontrolled entry from places where proper vetting cannot occur."
Trump’s speech came as his administration said it’s preparing a new executive order on immigration. Courts have halted the implementation of a previous order signed by the president.
We wondered about Trump’s claim attributed to the Justice Department. Have the majority of individuals convicted of terrorism and terrorism-related offenses since 9/11 been foreign born?
Trump’s statement relies on an analysis put together by a congressional subcommittee then chaired by his now attorney general, Jeff Sessions. The analysis used Justice Department data, but was not issued by the department itself. That data had some limitations. Also, experts told us that most of the people convicted faced charges for threats that were not planned or carried out on U.S. soil. Many of the charges also include nonviolent offenses, such as fraud or immigration violations.
Justice Department data
A White House spokesperson referred us to a June 2016 Fox News report saying that of 580 individuals convicted for terrorism and terror-related cases, at least 380 were foreign-born. That accounted for convictions from 9/11 to the end of 2014.
Trump attributes the Justice Department for providing information on the origin of people convicted on terrorism charges. The information came from research done by the Senate subcommittee on immigration and national interest, led by Sessions, then a U.S. senator representing Alabama.
A June 2016 press release said the subcommittee received a list from the Justice Department of 580 individuals convicted of terrorism and terrorism-related offenses between 9/11 and Dec. 31, 2014.
But neither the Justice Department nor immigration officials gave the subcommittee information on where the people were born or their immigration status.
"Because the Department of Homeland Security failed to provide us with immigration information on the 580 individuals on the Department of Justice's list, we have attempted to obtain information about the immigration history for each individual using publicly available sources," said a June 2016 letter signed by Sessions and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, also a member of the subcommittee.
The subcommittee determined that at least 380 of the 580 individuals in the Justice Department list were foreign-born.
The list provided by the Justice Department is for convictions based on investigations on international terrorism: It includes acts planned or committed outside U.S. territory but over which federal criminal jurisdiction exists, and those within the United States involving international terrorists and terrorist groups.
Domestic terrorism cases with no international links are not included.
"Convictions listed … involve the use of a variety of federal criminal statutes available to prevent, disrupt, and punish international terrorism and related criminal activity," the Justice Department letter said.
Some may get the impression that the convictions were for terrorist attacks planned or executed in the United States, but that’s the case for only 40 of the 580 convictions, or less than 7 percent, said Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration expert with the libertarian Cato Institute.
Furthermore, 241 of those 580 convictions were not for terrorism, but for identity fraud, immigration violations, or other non-terrorism offenses, he said.
"Many of the investigations started based on a terrorism tip like, for instance, the suspect wanting to buy a rocket-propelled grenade launcher," Nowrasteh wrote in apost for Cato Institute. "However, the tip turned out to be groundless and the legal saga ended with only a mundane conviction of receiving stolen cereal. According to Sessions’ list, that cereal thief is a terrorist."
The letter sent by the Justice Department to Sessions’ subcommittee said it included individuals whose conviction emerged from a terrorism investigation, "regardless of whether investigators developed or identified evidence that they had any connection to international terrorism."
Homegrown terrorism on the rise
Security experts said the bigger terrorist threat since 9/11 has come from within the United States.
"Far from being foreign infiltrators, the large majority of jihadist terrorists in the United States have been American citizens or legal residents … every jihadist who conducted a lethal attack inside the United States since 9/11 was a citizen or legal resident," a New America study says. "In addition about a quarter of the extremists are converts, further confirming that the challenge cannot be reduced to one of immigration."
If terrorism includes any act of violence motivated by politics, then you would include both the ideologies of al-Qaida and ISIS, as well as the ideologies of white supremacism, said David Schanzer, director of the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security at Duke University.
"If you look at the phenomenon of terrorism as a whole, then there are a lot of citizens committing terrorism, whether connected with foreign organizations or ideologies or domestic ones," Schanzer said.
One high-profile example is Dylann Roof, who was not charged for domestic terrorism.
Roof, described by authorities as a self-radicalized white supremacist, in 2015 killed nine black parishioners in Charleston, S.C. He was found guilty on 33 federal counts, including hate crimes, but not with terrorism. He has been sentenced to death.
Authorities said Roof’s actions were "consistent with the concept of leaderless resistance and martyrdom advocated by white supremacy extremist groups and self-radicalization leading to violence," AP reported.
Our ruling
Trump said, "According to data provided by the Department of Justice, the vast majority of individuals convicted of terrorism and terrorism-related offenses since 9/11 came here from outside of our country."
Saying the data came from the Justice Department is misleading. It actually came from a congressional subcommittee chaired by then-senator Sessions.
Moreover, the data had some limitations. Federal agencies did not provide information on people’s places of origin. Convictions listed also included offenses committed outside the United States and nonviolent acts, such as fraud, experts told us. Finally, the data doesn't account for incidents that some might consider domestic terrorism, such as the case of Dylann Roof. 
Trump’s statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.

About this statement:

Published: Thursday, March 2nd, 2017 at 1:41 p.m.
Edited by: Angie Drobnic Holan

Sources:

Email exchange, David Schanzer, director of the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security at Duke University, March 1, 2017
Email exchange, David Sterman, policy analyst at New America, March 1, 2017
Email exchange, Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration expert with the libertarian Cato Institute, March 1, 2017
Email exchange, Peter Carr, Justice Department spokesperson, March 1, 2017
Jeff Sessions senator website, press release on individuals convicted of terror, June 22, 2016
The Intercept, Why Wasn’t Dylann Roof Charged With Terrorism?, July 22, 2015
Christian Science Monitor, Why is Dylann Roof not facing charges of terrorism?, July 24, 2015
New York Times, Many Ask, Why Not Call Church Shooting Terrorism?, June 18, 2015
Email exchange, Charles Kurzman, University of North Carolina, March 1, 2017