Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner joined local faith leaders at the Church of Christian Compassion in West Philadelphia to denounce President Donald Trump’s recent decision to deploy the National Guard in Washington, D.C.
Krasner expressed grave concerns about the implications of such federal interventions in American cities, emphasizing that the deployment could lead to chaos rather than improved safety.
“I just never really thought that the preservation of the government of the United States would be an issue that I would have to face,” Krasner said.
He characterized the president’s actions as part of a fear-based, racially charged agenda aimed at facilitating a military takeover of urban America.
His remarks came a day after Trump announced the deployment of 800 National Guard troops to the nation’s capital and indicated that this strategy could extend to other major cities like Baltimore, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City, and Oakland.
Trump claimed that rising crime rates warranted federal intervention, stating, “It’s becoming a situation of complete and total lawlessness.”
However, Krasner dismissed these claims, arguing that many cities, including Philadelphia, are experiencing historic lows in crime.
“This is a city that right now, much like Washington, D.C., and other major American cities, is enjoying historic lows in crime,” he noted, referencing statistics from the Philadelphia Police Department.
Current data indicated a 17.4% drop in homicides as of August 11, with a total of 138 killings compared to 167 in the same period the previous year.
Overall violent crime had decreased nearly 7.7%, while property crimes saw a reduction of about 7.2%.
If trends continue, Philadelphia could be on track for its lowest homicide rate since the early 2010s, a striking contrast to the pandemic-era peak of 562 homicides in 2021.
In 2024, the city recorded its largest annual homicide drop in decades, with 268 homicides representing a 35% reduction from the previous year, alongside fewer than 1,090 shootings—the lowest in a decade.
The national trend shows a similar decline in violent crime, with one analysis attributing part of this reduction to minimized pandemic disruptions, the reinstatement of community programs, and targeted policing efforts.
Nationally, homicide rates fell by 12% in 2023, 14% in 2024, and are projected to drop another 20% in 2025.
Peter Andrews, a prosecutor from the District Attorney’s Office who previously worked on Jan. 6 cases, articulated that Trump’s actions are not genuinely motivated by crime reduction.
He stated, “The fact that the president would on the one hand pardon those defendants and then turn around and say that committing an offense against a law enforcement officer will be met with the strongest possible response—it’s not just hypocritical; it reveals that the president does not understand the rule of law.”
The White House did not respond to a request for comment, but local Republican committee member Mark Umansky argued that even with the recent drops in violent crime, Philadelphia’s numbers remain unacceptably high.
Umansky pointed out that with a population of 1.5 million, the city’s 138 homicides this year are almost on par with New York City, which has a significantly larger population.
He contended, “While every large city has had a decrease in crime this year, Philadelphia lags behind nearly all of them percentage-wise. The numbers speak for themselves, and they don’t even account for other violent crimes, property crimes, and unreported incidents.”
As for the legal authority of the president to make such a move, the situation is complex.
While the president can assume temporary control of Washington’s Metropolitan Police Department, he does not have comparable powers in Philadelphia, according to Claire Finkelstein, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.
She noted that the Constitution prohibits such federal control under the 10th Amendment, which assigns police powers to state and local governments.
Finkelstein explained that it remains more ambiguous regarding the federal control of a state’s National Guard or sending federal troops against a state’s wishes.
She elucidated, “The president can take control of the National Guard if he is legitimately concerned about the danger of a rebellion, and he can invoke the Insurrection Act, which has a lower bar for activation.”
However, Andrews insisted that the conditions necessary for invoking the Insurrection Act in Philadelphia are not satisfied.
“There is no insurrection on the streets,” he stated, affirming that federal intervention would be unconstitutional without the governor’s consent.
Currently, the question of presidential powers over the National Guard is under scrutiny by a federal court following a lawsuit from California regarding the federalization of the National Guard there.
Finkelstein mentioned that the Posse Comitatus Act—dating back to the 19th century—prohibits the military from acting as a domestic police force, although this legality remains untested in court.
“This issue has never been litigated, and it’s important to note that the Supreme Court has never issued an opinion on what the parameters of the Posse Comitatus Act are,” she explained.
She further indicated that if federal intervention were to occur in Pennsylvania, the outcomes of the ongoing case in California could provide some insight.
Also, Umansky affirmed the importance of federalism in local policing.
“Barring major instability, disaster, or tragedy, the federal government has no business interfering in local policing,” he said, adding, “The men and women of the Philadelphia Police Department are more than capable of tackling crime, if given the full support of our city’s leadership.”
Despite this, he criticized Krasner’s administration for the remaining crime rates.
During the faith leaders’ event, a diverse group of clergy voiced their opposition to the president’s potential military intrusions, framing them as moral violations against the community, particularly communities of color.
Kenneth Nuriddin, resident imam of Philadelphia Masjid, emphasized the need to uphold democratic values and constitutional norms.
He urged, “This is our moral agenda, and in order to have a more perfect union, we have to get rid of things that are divisive.”
A veteran of the Vietnam War, Nuriddin recalled experiences that serve as a warning against such “invasion.”
Carolyn Cavaness, the senior pastor at Mother Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church, echoed these sentiments, noting the collective responsibility to resist oppression as people of faith.
“We come to show that this is not and will not be allowed here,” she stated, arguing that vigilance is crucial against potential overreach.
Rabbi Mordechai Liebling articulated that the president’s rhetoric fosters division rather than unity.
He declared, “Anything that divides us, that sets us up against each other, is what I call sin. That man is a sinner. That man is dividing us. That man is seeding hatred.”
The clergy’s shared message was clear—they would actively resist any federal intrusion that threatens the rights of community members.
image source from：whyy
