Restoring Law and Order in High-Crime U.S. Cities

House Subcommittee on Responsiveness and Accountability to Oversight

2025-11-19

Loading video...

Summary

The subcommittee convened a hearing to discuss the restoration of law and order in high-crime cities across America, debating the causes of rising crime, the effectiveness of various policies, and the role of federal intervention. Speakers presented contrasting views on crime trends and the accountability of political leadership, often leading to sharp partisan exchanges, alongside a poignant testimony from a victim's mother .

State of Crime and Contributing Factors

Members of the subcommittee and witnesses debated the current state of crime in U.S. cities and the policies influencing it. Some argued that crime has risen in Democratic-run cities due to "soft-on-crime" policies, such as the elimination of cash bail and reduced penalties for repeat offenders, leading to increased criminal activity and chaos [ 00:32:43-00:34:31 ]

. Specific examples from Charlotte, Memphis, Los Angeles, and Chicago were cited to illustrate these concerns, highlighting instances where repeat offenders were released and subsequently committed violent crimes . Mr. Mangual noted that even with overall crime declines, "micro geographic pockets" in cities continue to experience unacceptable levels of violence, often perpetuated by repeat offenders who demonstrate a disregard for the law . He detailed that in cities like Chicago, Oakland, Baltimore, and Washington D.C., homicide suspects often have numerous prior arrests . Conversely, Dr. La Vigne asserted that violent crime has generally decreased to pre-pandemic levels in most U.S. cities, with a 50% nationwide reduction since 1991 . She pointed out that Republican-led states tend to have higher murder rates due to factors like poverty, lax gun laws, and insufficient public services . Mr. Mauro described New York City's recovery from high crime in the 90s, followed by a recent decline attributed to reforms like no-cash bail, which he linked to visible disorder and rampant shoplifting by a small group of repeat offenders .

Federal Intervention and Law Enforcement Support

The discussion also focused on the appropriate role of federal intervention and support for law enforcement in addressing urban crime. Speaker Drew commended President Trump's administration for deploying the National Guard and federal agents to cities like Washington D.C., where it led to a significant drop in crime and an increase in arrests . Ms. McKinney, whose son was a Memphis police officer killed in the line of duty by repeat offenders, expressed strong support for the presence of the National Guard and federal agencies in Memphis, stating that their presence has already made a positive difference in public safety . In contrast, Dr. La Vigne criticized the deployment of armed guards to cities without local invitation, arguing that it can erode community trust, negatively impact local economies, and that military personnel lack the specific training for civilian policing, such as de-escalation . She advocated for proven federal partnerships like Project Safe Neighborhoods but noted that the current administration has diverted resources from such programs to immigration prosecutions . Mr. Raskin strongly condemned President Trump's actions, accusing him of weaponizing federal agencies and undermining law and order through pardons for January 6th insurrectionists, some of whom have re-offended . He also highlighted significant budget cuts to federal law enforcement, victim services, and crime prevention programs under the previous administration, which he characterized as "defunding the police" .

Accountability and Policy Choices

A recurring theme was the critical importance of accountability for both criminals and political leaders in ensuring public safety. Speaker Drew emphasized that removing consequences for criminal behavior inevitably leads to chaos and more crime [ 00:34:12-00:34:31 ]

. Ms. McKinney's emotional testimony underscored this point, attributing her son's death to a "failure of leadership and a failure of accountability" in Memphis's justice system . She called for a "hard stance on crime" and a policy of "three strikes and you're out" to deter repeat offenders, advocating for consequences rather than leniency . Dr. La Vigne concurred with the principle that "when you take away consequences, you get chaos" [ 01:47:04 ] . Mr. Mangual suggested that Congress could encourage accountability by conditioning federal funds for cities on the implementation of best practices in law enforcement and prosecution [ 01:40:24 ] . Mr. Mauro proposed a "surgical, data-driven, and intelligent" approach to law enforcement, focusing on incapacitating a small number of repeat offenders responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime, rather than broad incarceration for low-level offenses .

Tone of the Meeting

The meeting maintained a contentious and highly partisan tone throughout much of the discussion, particularly evident in the opening statements and sharp exchanges between the chair and ranking members . A deeply emotional and somber atmosphere was created during Ms. McKinney's testimony, where she shared the tragic loss of her son . While some speakers attempted to steer the conversation towards policy solutions and evidence-based approaches to crime reduction , significant disagreement persisted regarding the effectiveness and appropriateness of federal intervention, especially concerning the deployment of the National Guard in civilian contexts .