Federal Intervention in Washington D.C. and Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Action and Rationale

A recent executive action has placed law enforcement in Washington D.C. under federal control, accompanied by the deployment of National Guard troops. The stated justification for this intervention is to address a public safety crisis, described by the administration as “crime, bloodshed, bedlam and squalor.” This action, framed as a “liberation” of the capital, has been contested by local district officials who question the validity of the emergency declaration.

Challenges to Sustainable Cities and Strong Institutions (SDGs 11 & 16)

Erosion of Local Governance and Institutional Integrity

The federal takeover of municipal police functions raises significant concerns regarding Sustainable Development Goal 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions. This goal emphasizes the need for effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels. The unilateral action is viewed by local leaders, including D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, as an “unsettling” move that undermines local agency and the principle of democratic self-governance, a core tenet of SDG 16. The deployment of troops based on a contested emergency claim challenges the transparency and accountability of governmental institutions.

Public Safety Approaches vs. Sustainable Urban Development

The administration’s strategy focuses on a highly visible law enforcement presence to deter crime. However, this approach is seen by critics as misaligned with the objectives of Sustainable Development Goal 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities, which aims to make cities inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable. The focus on enforcement over community-based solutions and social support systems is particularly relevant to the issue of homelessness, which was cited as part of the justification for the intervention. Residents expressed skepticism that this strategy would provide a lasting solution, with one describing it as “a band-aid to a gunshot wound,” indicating a failure to address the root causes of urban poverty and exclusion, a key target of SDG 1: No Poverty.

Impact on Social Equity and Human Rights (SDGs 10 & 16)

Concerns Over Reduced Inequalities and Racial Justice

The rhetoric accompanying the federal action has been linked to a historical pattern of denigrating cities with majority non-white populations. This directly implicates Sustainable Development Goal 10: Reduced Inequalities, which calls for the empowerment and inclusion of all, irrespective of race or origin. Civil rights advocates and residents noted that the language used echoes past “law and order” campaigns that justified aggressive policing in predominantly Black communities. Concerns were raised about a potential increase in racial profiling, which would exacerbate existing inequalities and undermine the goal of creating equitable urban environments.

Protection of Fundamental Freedoms

The deployment has triggered alarms among civil rights organizations and residents regarding the potential for civil liberties violations, a direct challenge to the targets within SDG 16 that focus on protecting fundamental freedoms. Key concerns include:

• The vague definition of the military’s role in creating a “safe environment” for arrests.
• Memories of federal troops being used against peaceful racial justice protesters in 2020.
• Fears that the increased law enforcement presence could lead to the brutalization and violation of residents’ rights.

Stakeholder Reactions and the Breakdown of Partnerships (SDG 17)

A Failure of Collaborative Governance

The action has been widely condemned by local and state leaders, highlighting a breakdown in the collaborative spirit essential for Sustainable Development Goal 17: Partnerships for the Goals. This SDG relies on cooperation between different levels of government to achieve sustainable outcomes. Instead of partnership, the federal intervention is seen as an antagonistic move.

Summary of Reactions

1. Local D.C. Government: Mayor Bowser decried the “so-called emergency” and emphasized that residents’ access to democracy is tenuous.
2. Civil Rights Organizations: The ACLU and NAACP have denounced the move, with the NAACP President calling it an unjustified “federal coup” and a distraction.
3. Other City and State Leaders: The Governor of Maryland called the plan “deeply dangerous,” while the Mayor of Oakland labeled the characterization of her city as “fearmongering.”
4. Residents: Reactions are mixed, with some acknowledging crime concerns but many fearing for their civil liberties and questioning the efficacy and equity of the federal strategy.

This lack of consultation and cooperation undermines the multi-stakeholder partnerships necessary to address complex urban challenges like crime and homelessness in a sustainable and equitable manner.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article discusses several interconnected issues such as public safety, federal versus local governance, civil rights, racial inequality, and homelessness. Based on these themes, the following Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are addressed:

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: This is the most prominent SDG, as the article’s core focus is on law enforcement, the rule of law, institutional power (federal vs. local), and the potential for civil rights violations. The deployment of the National Guard, the takeover of D.C. police, and concerns about “unchecked conduct of federal officers” all fall under this goal.
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities: The entire context of the article is urban, focusing on Washington D.C. and referencing other major cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, and Baltimore. Issues of urban safety, management of homelessness, and the right of cities to self-govern (“D.C. has the right to govern itself”) are central themes, directly connecting to the goal of making cities inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The article repeatedly highlights the racial dimensions of the conflict. It mentions the use of “racist narratives,” concerns about “racial profiling,” and the historical context of “law and order” rhetoric being used to target “majority non-white populations.” This directly relates to the goal of reducing inequality within and among countries.
• SDG 1: No Poverty: The issue of homelessness is explicitly mentioned as a concern for residents and a target of the federal action (“to rid the city of unhoused people”). Homelessness is an extreme form of poverty, linking the article’s content to the primary goal of ending poverty in all its forms.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Several specific targets can be identified based on the issues discussed:

1. Under SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions):
   • Target 16.1: “Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere.” The stated justification for the federal action is to curb a “public safety crisis” and rescue the capital from “crime, bloodshed, bedlam and squalor.”
   • Target 16.3: “Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.” This target is relevant due to the concerns raised by the ACLU and residents about potential “civil rights violations,” “abuse, intimidation,” and “racial profiling,” which challenge the principle of equal access to justice.
   • Target 16.6: “Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.” The conflict between the federal administration and the D.C. mayor over control of law enforcement, and the description of federal officers as being “shielded from full accountability,” directly pertain to the effectiveness and accountability of governing institutions.
   • Target 16.7: “Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.” The federal takeover is described as a “violation of local agency” and a “federal coup,” directly opposing the principle of inclusive and participatory decision-making by overriding local governance.
2. Under SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities):
   • Target 11.1: “By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services…” The article mentions that “Crime and homelessness has been a top concern for residents” and that a goal of the action is to “rid the city of unhoused people,” directly referencing the challenge of providing adequate housing.
   • Target 11.3: “By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management…” The federal intervention, which D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser called “unsettling,” undermines the city’s capacity for self-governance and integrated planning.
   • Target 11.7: “By 2030, provide universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible, green and public spaces…” The deployment of troops and the focus on crime relate to the safety and accessibility of public spaces within the city, which affects residents’ ability to “go about their day-to-day lives.”
3. Under SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities):
   • Target 10.3: “Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices…” The article discusses how “heavy-handed tactics” might be rolled out to “other majority-Black and Brown cities” and how residents are concerned about an “increase of racial profiling,” pointing to discriminatory practices that create unequal outcomes.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article mentions or implies several indicators that could measure progress:

• Crime Rates: For Target 16.1, the article directly references crime rates. Trump’s rhetoric cites a “nightmare of murder and crime.” In contrast, Maryland’s governor points to a “30-year-low crime rate in Baltimore” to counter the narrative. This implies that homicide rates and violent crime statistics are key indicators.
• Prevalence of Homelessness: For Target 11.1, the mention of efforts to “get (the) homeless out of this city” implies that the number of unhoused people is a direct indicator of the scale of the housing problem.
• Public Perception of Discrimination: For Target 10.3, the concerns voiced by residents and advocates about “racial profiling” and rights being “violated” imply an indicator related to the proportion of the population reporting experiences of discrimination or harassment by authorities. Melissa Velasquez’s comment about being “worried about how they might be perceived” points directly to this.
• Reports of Civil Rights Violations: For Target 16.3, the ACLU’s warning about “abuse, intimidation and civil rights violations” suggests that the number of official complaints or documented cases of civil rights violations by law enforcement would be a relevant indicator.
• Degree of Local Autonomy: For Targets 16.7 and 11.3, while not a quantitative metric, the narrative of a “federal takeover,” a “violation of local agency,” and a “federal coup” serves as a qualitative indicator of the level of local government control over its own affairs, particularly law enforcement and city management.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: apnews.com