In early 2025, Washington, D.C., became the stage for a dramatic federal intervention. President Donald Trump placed the city’s police department under federal control, deployed the National Guard, and ordered a sweeping crackdown on what he called “chaos.” For some, this meant confronting violent crime; for others, it was a broad campaign against visible disorder — tents under overpasses, graffiti-stained walls, groups loitering in public spaces.

The move split opinion instantly. Supporters cast it as overdue action to restore safety and dignity to the nation’s capital. Critics saw it as a political occupation of a predominantly Black city, part of a longer-term plan to extend federal authority into other “blue” urban centers like Chicago and Portland.

The political theater became sharper when observers compared it to an earlier high-profile cleanup: San Francisco’s facelift before the November 2023 APEC summit, when Governor Gavin Newsom openly admitted the city had been “spruced up” for visiting leaders, including China’s Xi Jinping. Sidewalks were power-washed, graffiti painted over, homeless encampments removed. Newsom even likened it to “tidying up before company comes.” That candor drew some criticism, but the coverage generally framed it as practical housekeeping for a major diplomatic event.

Trump’s operation in D.C. looks similar on paper — clearing encampments, cleaning streets, tightening enforcement — but it’s narrated differently. Newsom’s was about “showcasing” the city for foreign dignitaries; Trump’s is depicted as an authoritarian flex, unmoored from a specific event, aimed at demonstrating who truly controls America’s cities.

Part of the divide is in perceived intent. Newsom’s effort had a finite purpose and a fixed end date. Trump’s is presented as open-ended, the start of a broader campaign. And part is in language. Trump’s public rhetoric leans heavily on crime imagery — “murderers,” “rapists,” “terrorists” — even though his focus appears more on quality-of-life policing: turnstile jumping, street vending, petty theft, and public camping. This is broken windows theory made national policy, reframed as a violent crime crackdown.

This is where the bait-and-switch comes in. The official justification talks about homicides and carjackings. But the most visible changes are the removal of behaviors and individuals that make the city feel “unsafe” or “unseemly” — the kind of soft, subjective factors that drive tourism and real estate but rarely show up in crime stats. Washington, like San Francisco before Xi’s visit, becomes a kind of showroom. The difference is that the “guest” isn’t a foreign leader but the American public, watching the sweep unfold live on television.

The double standard is not entirely about partisanship. It’s also about narrative permission: who is allowed to impose order and for what reason. A liberal governor doing it for a diplomatic event is civic pride; a conservative president doing it without that context is authoritarian overreach.

Both actions involve removing visible disorder. Both are about control of urban space. The distinction lies in the stories we accept about why those streets were swept clean — and what it means when the broom is held by different hands.