What Americans think about Trump's handling of crime, according to a new poll

WASHINGTON (AP) — As armed National Guard troops patrol the nation's capital as part of an unprecedented federal takeover of Washington's police department, handling crime is now a relative strength for President Donald Trump, according to the latest AP-NORC poll.

Americans are generally not happy about the Republican president’s handling of issues like immigration and the economy but are more positive about his tough-on-crime approach, according to the survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

Indeed, the vast majority of Americans, 81%, see crime as a “major problem” in large cities — a concern Trump has seized on as he has deployed the National Guard to the District of Columbia and threatened to expand that model to cities across the country. Despite that perception, data shows that violent crime in D.C. is at a 30-year low. But Trump’s approach appears to be helping him, at least for the moment: His overall approval rating has increased slightly, from 40% in July to 45% now.

But the poll shows there is less public support for federal takeovers of local police departments, suggesting opinions could shift over the coming weeks or months, depending on how aggressively Trump pursues his threats.

For now, many Republicans in particular feel extreme action needs to be taken, even as statistics show violent crime is down in Washington and across the nation following a coronavirus pandemic-era spike.

"About damn time that somebody did something,” said Charles Arnold, 87, a lifelong Republican who lives in San Diego.

Arnold, a retired electronics technician and veteran who served in the Navy, said that it had been jarring to see the National Guard being used for domestic law enforcement on U.S. soil but that the action seemed to be necessary.

“That’s not what the armed forces are for. They shouldn’t be there. They shouldn’t have to be there. The police should be allowed to police," he said. “I detest the thought that it needs to be done.”

About half of U.S. adults, 53%, say they approve of Trump's handling of crime, the poll finds.

That's higher than his approval rating on the economy, immigration and the conflict between Russia and Ukraine — which are in line with his overall approval rating.

Trump’s approach on crime is similarly popular among white and Hispanic adults, with roughly half in each group saying they approve of the way he’s handling the issue. Black adults, however, are substantially less likely to say they’re on board with Trump's approach to crime, with just 27% in favor.

Trump also garners much stronger support from independents on crime than on other issues. Roughly half of independents approve of his handling of crime, compared with about 3 in 10 who approve of his handling of the economy, immigration and the Russia-Ukraine war.

There’s broad agreement among Americans that crime is a significant issue in large cities, even with incident numbers in decline.

That belief is especially pronounced among Republicans, nearly all of whom see crime as a significant problem in large cities. Roughly 7 in 10 independents and Democrats agree.

Americans who live in urban areas are also more likely to say crime is a “major problem” in their own communities.

They include Tiana Parker, 30, a liberal Democrat who lives in the suburbs of Seattle. Parker is dismayed by what Trump is doing in Washington, D.C. — and his presidency overall — but nonetheless calls crime “a major problem."

“I don’t feel safe going to Seattle, especially as a woman, at least not by myself," said Parker, who said she was sexually assaulted on the train several years ago. There was a deadly shooting at a strip mall near where she lives last year, and there have been several times she said she has been followed while walking down the street.

While she thinks crime needs to be addressed, she believes Trump's approach is misguided and dangerous.

“What he is doing is a waste of resources, and he's not really attacking the real problem. It's creating a real divide,” she said. “I think that it is a gross lack of respect and trust towards his citizens."

That sentiment is shared by Mark Hackl, 49, an information technology director who lives in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and was a lifelong conservative Republican until 2016, when he left the party because he was dismayed by Trump. He is now a registered independent.

“I think crime is always an issue that needs to be addressed," he said. “I'm always pro-law and order, so to speak." But he said there comes a point where the ends don’t justify the means.

“My raw emotion is I'm horrified by it," he said. “We’re not supposed to allow the active military to function in the borders of the United States.”

Still, there are limits to what the public may accept. The poll finds 55% of U.S. adults believe it is “completely” or “somewhat" unacceptable for the federal government to take control of local police departments, as Trump has effectively done in Washington.

Republicans are overwhelmingly in favor of the federal government using the military and the National Guard to assist local police, but even they are more hesitant about the federal government taking control of local police departments.

About half of Republicans find this to be acceptable, while about one-third say it’s not. Democrats are broadly opposed to both.

For Republican David Gehret, 62, a maintenance technician who lives in rural Narvon, Pennsylvania, what Trump is doing is spot on.

“Bring it on," he said. "Protect us.”

The AP-NORC poll of 1,182 adults was conducted Aug. 21-25, using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 3.8 percentage points.

President Donald Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, left, and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, right, listen during a cabinet meeting. Tuesday, Aug. 26, 2025, at the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)

Armed National Guard soldiers from West Virginia patrol the Mall near the Capitol in Washington, as part of President Donald Trump's order to impose federal law enforcement in the District of Columbia, Tuesday, Aug. 26, 2025. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Armed National Guard soldiers from West Virginia patrol the Mall near the Labor Department in Washington, where a poster of President Donald Trump is displayed, Tuesday, Aug. 26, 2025. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

President Donald Trump speaks during a cabinet meeting, Tuesday, Aug. 26, 2025, at the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)

A man has his car searched by multiple federal agencies including Department of Homeland Security investigations, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and the Washington Metro Police Department in Washington, Monday, Aug. 25, 2025. (AP Photo/Rod Lamkey, Jr.)

ATLANTA (AP) — Donald Trump would not be the first president to invoke the Insurrection Act, as he has threatened, so that he can send U.S. military forces to Minnesota.

But he'd be the only commander in chief to use the 19th-century law to send troops to quell protests that started because of federal officers the president already has sent to the area — one of whom shot and killed a U.S. citizen.

The law, which allows presidents to use the military domestically, has been invoked on more than two dozen occasions — but rarely since the 20th Century's Civil Rights Movement.

Federal forces typically are called to quell widespread violence that has broken out on the local level — before Washington's involvement and when local authorities ask for help. When presidents acted without local requests, it was usually to enforce the rights of individuals who were being threatened or not protected by state and local governments. A third scenario is an outright insurrection — like the Confederacy during the Civil War.

Experts in constitutional and military law say none of that clearly applies in Minneapolis.

“This would be a flagrant abuse of the Insurrection Act in a way that we've never seen,” said Joseph Nunn, an attorney at the Brennan Center for Justice's Liberty and National Security Program. “None of the criteria have been met.”

William Banks, a Syracuse University professor emeritus who has written extensively on the domestic use of the military, said the situation is “a historical outlier” because the violence Trump wants to end “is being created by the federal civilian officers” he sent there.

But he also cautioned Minnesota officials would have “a tough argument to win” in court, because the judiciary is hesitant to challenge “because the courts are typically going to defer to the president” on his military decisions.

Here is a look at the law, how it's been used and comparisons to Minneapolis.

George Washington signed the first version in 1792, authorizing him to mobilize state militias — National Guard forerunners — when “laws of the United States shall be opposed, or the execution thereof obstructed.”

He and John Adams used it to quash citizen uprisings against taxes, including liquor levies and property taxes that were deemed essential to the young republic's survival.

Congress expanded the law in 1807, restating presidential authority to counter “insurrection or obstruction” of laws. Nunn said the early statutes recognized a fundamental “Anglo-American tradition against military intervention in civilian affairs” except “as a tool of last resort.”

The president argues Minnesota officials and citizens are impeding U.S. law by protesting his agenda and the presence of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and Customs and Border Protection officers. Yet early statutes also defined circumstances for the law as unrest “too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course” of law enforcement.

There are between 2,000 and 3,000 federal authorities in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area, compared to Minneapolis, which has fewer than 600 police officers. Protesters' and bystanders' video, meanwhile, has shown violence initiated by federal officers, with the interactions growing more frequent since Renee Good was shot three times and killed.

“ICE has the legal authority to enforce federal immigration laws,” Nunn said. “But what they're doing is a sort of lawless, violent behavior” that goes beyond their legal function and “foments the situation” Trump wants to suppress.

“They can't intentionally create a crisis, then turn around to do a crackdown,” he said, adding that the Constitutional requirement for a president to “faithfully execute the laws” means Trump must wield his power, on immigration and the Insurrection Act, “in good faith.”

Courts have blocked some of Trump's efforts to deploy the National Guard, but he'd argue with the Insurrection Act that he does not need a state's permission to send troops.

That traces to President Abraham Lincoln, who held in 1861 that Southern states could not legitimately secede. So, he convinced Congress to give him express power to deploy U.S. troops, without asking, into Confederate states he contended were still in the Union. Quite literally, Lincoln used the act as a legal basis to fight the Civil War.

Nunn said situations beyond such a clear insurrection as the Confederacy still require a local request or another trigger that Congress added after the Civil War: protecting individual rights. Ulysses S. Grant used that provision to send troops to counter the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacists who ignored the 14th and 15th amendments and civil rights statutes.

During post-war industrialization, violence erupted around strikes and expanding immigration — and governors sought help.

President Rutherford B. Hayes granted state requests during the Great Railroad Strike of 1877 after striking workers, state forces and local police clashed, leading to dozens of deaths. Grover Cleveland granted a Washington state governor's request — at that time it was a U.S. territory — to help protect Chinese citizens who were being attacked by white rioters. President Woodrow Wilson sent troops to Colorado in 1914 amid a coal strike after workers were killed.

Federal troops helped diffuse each situation.

Banks stressed that the law then and now presumes that federal resources are needed only when state and local authorities are overwhelmed — and Minnesota leaders say their cities would be stable and safe if Trump's feds left.

As Grant had done, mid-20th century presidents used the act to counter white supremacists.

Franklin Roosevelt dispatched 6,000 troops to Detroit — more than double the U.S. forces in Minneapolis — after race riots that started with whites attacking Black residents. State officials asked for FDR's aid after riots escalated, in part, Nunn said, because white local law enforcement joined in violence against Black residents. Federal troops calmed the city after dozens of deaths, including 17 Black residents killed by local police.

Once the Civil Rights Movement began, presidents sent authorities to Southern states without requests or permission, because local authorities defied U.S. civil rights law and fomented violence themselves.

Dwight Eisenhower enforced integration at Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas; John F. Kennedy sent troops to the University of Mississippi after riots over James Meredith's admission and then pre-emptively to ensure no violence upon George Wallace's “Stand in the Schoolhouse Door” to protest the University of Alabama's integration.

“There could have been significant loss of life from the rioters” in Mississippi, Nunn said.

Lyndon Johnson protected the 1965 Voting Rights March from Selma to Montgomery after Wallace's troopers attacked marchers' on their first peaceful attempt.

Johnson also sent troops to multiple U.S. cities in 1967 and 1968 after clashes between residents and police escalated. The same thing happened in Los Angeles in 1992, the last time the Insurrection Act was invoked.

Riots erupted after a jury failed to convict four white police officers of excessive use of force despite video showing them beating a Rodney King, a Black man. California Gov. Pete Wilson asked President George H.W. Bush for support.

Bush authorized about 4,000 troops — but after he had publicly expressed displeasure over the trial verdict. He promised to “restore order” yet directed the Justice Department to open a civil rights investigation, and two of the L.A. officers were later convicted in federal court.

President Donald Trump answers questions after signing a bill that returns whole milk to school cafeterias across the country, in the Oval Office of the White House, Wednesday, Jan. 14, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)