It doesn’t matter if the overall crime rate is comparable to that of other cities if it threatens government officials and staffers.

W hen President Trump invoked Section 740 of the D.C. Home Rule Act, giving the federal government temporary control over the police force in Washington, D.C., I was ecstatic. Anyone who has lived in or near D.C. over the past decade, as I have, knows that the city has become far more dangerous. But mainstream media outlets and Democratic politicians have invented all sorts of reasons to criticize the president’s move.

Some critics point to D.C.’s overall crime rate, which appears to have dropped for the past two years. D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, for example, claims that Trump’s move is excessive because D.C. crime has (supposedly) dropped to a 30-year low. Other critics claim that various outlandish motives prompted Trump’s decision. Representative Glenn Ivey (D., Md.) believes that Trump is just overreacting to the recent attack on a popular DOGE staffer. Alternatively, The Bulwark’s Sarah Longwell argues that Trump is trying to move on from the Jeffrey Epstein news cycle. The Washington Post’s Josh Rogin, meanwhile, is hyperventilating at the possibility of Trump’s using the police to “rehearse” some nefarious plan. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, too, dismisses the Trump administration’s stated reasons for intervening and says that he feels “perfectly safe” in the city, without mentioning that he has a large, armed security detail.

In response, conservatives point out that the Metropolitan Police Department recently suspended one of its commanders for underreporting crime data and that this makes the District’s crime data unreliable. Moreover, they argue, even if the data are reliable, the current level of crime is still unacceptable. Democrats have long pushed for D.C. statehood. But if D.C. became a state tomorrow, it would have the highest per capita homicide rate in the country. And it would not be particularly close.

All of that aside, anyone focused on D.C.’s overall crime rate is missing the point: Regardless of whether you think that the city is generally unsafe, the city is clearly unsafe for government officials. It doesn’t matter if D.C.’s overall crime rate is comparable to those of other cities if that crime rate threatens or disrupts government work.

Pricey neighborhoods such as Navy Yard, for example, are home to congressional members and staffers alike. Many lawmakers and Hill staffers choose the location because it’s within walking distance of Capitol Hill. But Navy Yard residents have watched the neighborhood turn into a “war zone” in recent years as its violent crime rate has spiked. Now, many residents drive or use rideshare apps because they’re scared to walk to and from work. These fears are hardly unfounded:

The lesson here is not that government workers’ lives are more valuable than others’, but a lot of government work is critical. And D.C.’s crime rate threatens that work. Representative Henry Cueller, for example, was serving on subcommittees for defense and homeland security when carjackers stole his iPhone and iPad. We need a seat of government where routine crimes don’t threaten national security. We also need a capital city that attracts bright and ambitious young people. Many Capitol Hill jobs have long hours and relatively low salaries. These jobs become even less attractive when staffers must worry about whether the homeless man on the street will stab them in the head or lunge at them with a razor blade as they walk to work.

If we want our federal government to be effective, Washington, D.C., needs to be a safe and appealing place to work. It’s that simple.