On Tuesday afternoon, a panel on MSNBC complained that National Guard troops in D.C. allegedly "harangue" residents and pick up garbage rather than doing anything to cut crime, which was dismissed as a "boogeyman." It was also claimed that Kansas City is a "red city" with a higher crime rate than other cities even in spite of its heavily Democrat tilt.

The panel ignored recent statistics showing D.C. crime has plummeted since the crackdown.

As host Katy Tur presided over a discussion of the possibility of President Donald Trump sending the National Guard to Chicago against the wishes of Governor J.B. Pritzker (D-IL), MSNBC reporter Ken Dilanian was dismissive of how Guard troops have been used so far in D.C.:

And even in D.C. where their mission is broader than that, we've seen in recent days a lot of reporting and photographs on social media that really shows clearly that the National Guard is mainly deploying to low-crime tourist areas. They're not going into the dangerous neighborhoods of D.C., and we've even seen some of them picking up trash. And, whatever it's costing, it's a lot more expensive to have National Guard troops picking up trash than have folks that you would pay to do that on a normal basis, so -- they're not making arrests. So clearly this is performative -- this is political theater.

A bit later, he concluded: "...as we've discussed before, crime is actually going down as it is in Chicago. Not to say it doesn't exist, but the idea that the National Guard is going to make these safer, a lot of people find very questionable."

The number of homicides in Chicago stood at 573 in 2024, compared to 407 in 2014 -- 40 percent higher -- so the city is clearly capable of doing better.

When Washington Post national reporter Carol Leonnig took her turn to trash the crime crackdown, she suggested that it was not effective and charged that troops "harangue" people:

.. you asked a question at the top of the show about, you know, is this really going to be effective? Or does it even have the intention of trying to quell crime? And Ken makes the excellent point that most of our reporting at the The Washington Post and at MSNBC and other outlets is showing that troops are being sent to essentially harangue people driving through touristy bars and restaurant areas --  at 14th and U is a hot spot.

She added:

This has made a lot of people in D.C. decide not to go out to restaurants on Friday and Saturday night. That's been its big effect, not necessarily quelling crime. You have to question the credibility of the disaster or -- forgive me -- crisis in D.C. You have to question whether or not this is really aimed at quelling crime when crime statistics maintained by the current FBI show that per capita there is a higher crime rate in Kansas City, right? A red city that has a very serious problem.

It was not mentioned that both Kansas City, Kansas; and Kansas City, Missouri, are heavily Democrat areas in spite of being within red states.

Dilanian ended up calling crime a "boogeyman" as he argued that FBI agents are having their time taken from more important matters. Like when the FBI was feeding Dilanian nasty scoops about Russian collusion. 

Transcript follows:

MSNBC's Katy Tur Reports

August 26, 2025

2:02 p.m. Eastern

KATY TUR: So what is the goal of this back and forth? Is it to actually fight crime as the President claims? Or is it to bait Democrats into protesting and fighting? Is it politics? In the words of my friend and political wonk, John Dickerson -- you know who he is -- is it the old Trump strategy of create chaos to preach order? It does make a lot of sense, and, for what it's worth, Democrats have not yet found effective pushback.

(...)

KEN DILANIAN: And even in D.C. where their mission is broader than that, we've seen in recent days a lot of reporting and photographs on social media that really shows clearly that the National Guard is mainly deploying to low-crime tourist areas. They're not going into the dangerous neighborhoods of D.C., and we've even seen some of them picking up trash. And, whatever it's costing, it's a lot more expensive to have National Guard troops picking up trash than have folks that you would pay to do that on a normal basis, so -- they're not making arrests.

So clearly this is performative -- this is political theater. But, again, as you said, Democrats haven't really come up with an answer for it -- it plays really well to the base. The majority of Guard soldiers in D.C. are coming from six Republican-led states. They're not even D.C.-based. And you can imagine why -- how well that plays in those Republican states where, as we've discussed before, crime is actually going down as it is in Chicago. Not to say it doesn't exist, but the idea that the National Guard is going to make these safer, a lot of people find very questionable.

KATY TUR: So this idea of creating chaos to preach order -- we saw a lot of that, Carol, during the first administration -- certainly around the George Floyd protests, Donald Trump wanted to be able to send in the National Guard, send in the troops in order to reclaim order. There were moments of chaos, but the broad way which they were -- they were describing it and what they were saying about these individual cities -- that they're completely lawless and everybody is out of control was a big exaggeration. Now, instead of using these National Guard troops and the military and the FBI, etc., to go in and quell a protest, they're just going in and claiming it's chaos without a -- without a pretense. It's pretextual, as they might say in legal circles.

(audio gap)

CAROL LEONNIG, THE WASHINGTON POST REPORTER/MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR --- Katy, and, you know, you asked a question at the top of the show about, you know, is this really going to be effective? Or does it even have the intention of trying to quell crime? And Ken makes the excellent point that most of our reporting at the The Washington Post and at MSNBC and other outlets is showing that troops are being sent to essentially harangue people driving through touristy bars and restaurant areas --  at 14th and U is a hot spot.

This has made a lot of people in D.C. decide not to go out to restaurants on Friday and Saturday night. That's been its big effect, not necessarily quelling crime. You have to question the credibility of the disaster or -- forgive me -- crisis in D.C. You have to question whether or not this is really aimed at quelling crime when crime statistics maintained by the current FBI show that per capita there is a higher crime rate in Kansas City, right? A red city that has a very serious problem.

(...)

DILANIAN: And, as we've talked about before, there are only a certain number of FBI agents, and, to the extent that more of them are being devoted to violent crime which is generally a state and local issue -- they're being taken off national security missions and child exploitation missions and all kinds of things that we expect the FBI to pay attention to. And I've said this before. I mean, I've talked to people all day long -- current and former FBI and Justice Department people --and they are terrified almost to a person that they're going to miss something, particularly in the counterterrorism or in the counter-espionage space, and that something really terrible is going to happen because they have their eye off of the ball institutionally right now because of this focus on the violent crime boogeyman which really is not any more significant than it was two or three years ago. In fact, crime stats are down. Not to say there isn't a problem --

TUR: Yeah, there's a crime issue certainly. If you want to, why not flood more funding for the police? Why not make sure that street lights are working in neighborhoods where maybe they're spotty? Find ways to address it in the areas that need it, but the show of force, as you guys have been laying out, especially in tourist areas in D.C., maybe not the best response.