Advertisement

Why Trump’s death penalty threat is dangerous to all of us

Armed members of the West Virginia National Guard positioned across from the Lincoln Memorial in Washington
Armed members of the West Virginia National Guard are positioned across from the Lincoln Memorial in Washington on Tuesday.
(Rod Lamkey / Associated Press)

President Trump declared Tuesday that federal prosecutors in Washington, D.C., should seek the death penalty for murders committed in the capital, claiming without explanation that “we have no choice.”

“That’s a very strong preventative,” he said of his decision. “I don’t know if we’re ready for it in this country, but we have it.”

Trump’s pronouncement is about much more than deterring killings, though. With speed and brazenness, Trump seems intent on creating a new federal arrest and detention system outside of existing norms, aimed at everyday citizens and controlled by his whims. The death penalty is part of it, but stomping on civil rights is at the heart of it — ruthlessly exploiting anxiety about crime to aim repression at whatever displeases him, from immigration protesters to murderers.

Advertisement

This administration “is using the words of crime and criminals to get themselves a permission structure to erode civil rights and due processes across our criminal, legal and immigration systems in ways that I think should have everyone alarmed,” Rena Karefa-Johnson told me. She’s a former public defender who now works with Fwd.us, a bipartisan criminal justice advocacy group.

Authoritarians love the death penalty, and have long used it to repress not crime, but dissent. It is, after all, both the ultimate power and the ultimate fear, that the ruler of the state holds the lives of his people in his hands.

Though we are far from such atrocities, Spain’s purge of “communists” and other dissenters under Francisco Franco, Rodrigo Duterte’s extrajudicial killings of alleged drug dealers in the Philippines (though the death penalty remains illegal there) and the routine executions, even of journalists, under the repressive rulers in Saudi Arabia are chilling examples.

What each of those regimes shares in common with this moment in America is the rhetoric of making a better society — often by purging perceived threats to order — even if that requires force, or the loss of rights.

Advertisement

Trump’s attempted firing of Fed Governor Lisa Cook is part of his attack on the central bank’s independence. Lawmakers need to resist this with all the weapons at their command.

Suddenly, violent criminals become no different than petty criminals, and petty criminals become no different than immigrants or protesters. They are all a threat to a nostalgic lost glory of the homeland that must be restored at any cost, animals that only understand force.

“We have no choice.”

The result is that the people become, if not accustomed to masked agents and the military on our streets, too scared to protest it, fearful they will become the criminal target, the hunted animal.

Already, the National Guard in D.C. is carrying live weapons. With great respect to the women and men who serve in the Guard, and who no doubt individually serve with honor, they are not trained for domestic law enforcement. Forget the legalities, the Constitution and the Posse Comitatus Act, which should prevent troops from policing American citizens, and does prevent them from making arrests.

Who do we want these soldiers to shoot? Who have they been told to shoot? A kid with a can of spray paint? A pickpocket? A drug dealer? A flag burner? A sandwich thrower?

Advertisement

We don’t even know what their orders are. What choices they will have to make.

But we do know that police do not walk around openly holding their guns, and certainly do not stroll with rifles. For civilian law enforcement, their guns are defensive weapons, and they are trained to use them as such.

Few walking by these troops, even the most law-abiding, can fail to feel the power of those weapons at the ready. It is a visceral knowledge that to provoke them could mean death. That is a powerful form of repression, meant to stop dissent through fear of repercussion.

It is a power that Trump is building on multiple fronts. After declaring his “crime emergency” in D.C., Trump mandated a serious change in the mission of the National Guard.

President Trump with members of law enforcement and National Guard troops in Washington
President Trump appears with members of law enforcement and National Guard troops in Washington on Aug. 21.
(Jacquelyn Martin / Associated Press)

He ordered every state to train soldiers on “quelling civil disturbances,” and to have soldiers ready to rapidly mobilize in case of protests. That same executive order also creates a National Guard force ready to deploy nationwide at the president’s command — presumably taking away states’ rights to decide when to utilize their troops, as happened in California.

Trump has already announced his intention to send them to Chicago, called Baltimore a “hellhole” that also may be in need and falsely claimed that, “in California, you would’ve not had the Olympics had I not sent in the troops” because “there wouldn’t be anything left” without their intervention.

Advertisement

Retired Maj. Gen. Randy Manner, a former acting vice chief of the National Guard Bureau, told ABC that “the administration is trying to desensitize the American people to get used to American armed soldiers in combat vehicles patrolling the streets of America. “

Manner called the move “extremely disturbing.”

Add to that Trump’s desire to imprison opponents. In recent days, the FBI raided the home of former national security advisor John Bolton, a Republican who has criticized Trump, especially on his policy toward Ukraine. Then Trump attempted to fire Lisa Cook, a Biden appointee to the Federal Reserve board, after accusing her of mortgage fraud in another apparent attempt to bend that independent agency to his will on the economy.

The Trump administration urged the Supreme Court to confirm that immigration agents have ‘reasonable suspicion’ to stop and question Latinos whose occupations draw many undocumented workers.

On Wednesday, Trump wrote on social media that progressive billionaire George Soros and his son Alex should be charged under federal racketeering laws for “their support of Violent Protests.”

“We’re not going to allow these lunatics to rip apart America any more, never giving it so much as a chance to “BREATHE,” and be FREE,” Trump wrote. “Soros, and his group of psychopaths, have caused great damage to our Country! That includes his Crazy, West Coast friends. Be careful, we’re watching you!”

Consider yourselves threatened, West Coast friends.

But of course, we are already living under that thunder. Dozens of average citizens are facing serious charges in places including Los Angeles for their participation in immigration protests.

Whether they are found guilty or not, their lives are upended by the anxiety and expense of facing such prosecutions. And thousands are being rounded up and deported, at times seemingly grabbed solely for the color of their skin, as Immigration and Customs Enforcement, arguably the most Trump-loyal law enforcement agency, sees its budget balloon to $45 billion, enough to keep 100,000 people detained at a time.

Advertisement

Despite Trump’s maelstrom of dread-inducing moves, resistance is alive, well and far from futile.

A new Quinnipiac University national poll found that 56% of voters disapprove of the National Guard being deployed in D.C.

This week, the U.S. attorney’s office in D.C. for a second time failed to persuade a grand jury to indict a man who threw a submarine sandwich at federal officers — proof that average citizens not only are sane, but willing to stand up for what is right.

That comes after a grand jury three times rejected the same kind of charge against a woman who was arrested after being shoved against a wall by an immigration agent.

Californians will decide in November whether to redraw their electoral maps to put more Democrats in Congress. Latino leaders in Chicago are protesting possible troops there. People are refusing to allow fear to define their actions.

Turns out, we do have a choice.

Insights

L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.

Viewpoint
This article generally aligns with a Center Left point of view. Learn more about this AI-generated analysis

Perspectives

The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.

Ideas expressed in the piece

  • The author argues that Trump’s death penalty declaration for Washington D.C. murders represents a dangerous expansion of federal power designed to create “a new, federal arrest and detention system outside of existing norms, aimed at everyday citizens and controlled by his whims.”

  • The piece contends that the administration is exploiting anxiety about crime to erode civil rights and due process protections, with the death penalty serving as a tool of repression rather than crime deterrence.

  • The author draws parallels between Trump’s actions and historical authoritarian regimes, citing examples from Spain under Franco, the Philippines under Duterte, and Saudi Arabia, arguing that such leaders use crime rhetoric to justify force and the loss of rights.

  • The column criticizes the deployment of National Guard troops carrying live weapons in D.C., arguing that soldiers are not trained for domestic law enforcement and their visible weapons create “a visceral knowledge that to provoke them could mean death.”

  • The author warns that Trump’s executive order mandating states train National Guard soldiers to “quell civil disturbances” and creating a nationwide deployable force represents an attempt to “desensitize the American people to get used to American armed soldiers in combat vehicles patrolling the streets.”

  • The piece argues that Trump’s broader pattern includes targeting political opponents, citing FBI raids on John Bolton and attempts to remove Federal Reserve board member Lisa Cook, as well as threatening prosecution of George Soros and “West Coast friends.”

Different views on the topic

The search results do not contain substantive opposing viewpoints from U.S.-based sources that argue in favor of Trump’s death penalty policy for Washington D.C. or challenge the author’s characterization of these actions. The available sources primarily provide factual reporting on Trump’s announcement and the legal complexities of implementing the death penalty in D.C., where capital punishment has been abolished since 1981[2]. Trump’s stated justification that the death penalty serves as “a very strong preventative” and his claim that “we have no choice” due to what he calls a “crime epidemic” are reported, but contrasting analytical perspectives supporting this position are not available in the provided sources[1][2].

Sign up for Essential California

The most important California stories and recommendations in your inbox every morning.

By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service and our Privacy Policy.

Advertisement