Trump attacks the movement to 'Defund the Police'

The argument

The call to defund police has become one of the leading arguments of the Black Lives Matter Movement. Democratic states like New York and Washington have already taken steps to reduce police funding. Since President Trump believes that the United States' police force is an essential institution, he has made it clear that he intends to hold states accountable for cutting police funding. The police exist to uphold law and order, making sure that communities across America are safe. Defunding the police would then only serve to promote violence and anarchy. Missouri Senator Josh Hawley also agrees that the police are needed now more than ever, especially during this time of unrest. Law enforcement officers are crucial responders to the violence and the rioting that is taking place across the country. To see them out or defund the police would allow for more rioting and disorder to take place. President Trump has made it a point to highlight that a rise in violent crime has occurred in states that have decided to begin defunding police. It is for these reasons that the President has adamantly critiqued the movement to defund the police.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Contrary to what the President proposes now, he has argued for reduced police funding in the past. Just this February of 2020, the Trump administration proposed a 58% cut in the federal government’s COPS Hiring Program. The COPS hiring program is a program designed to support police department staffing. The program was inaugurated during the Clinton administration and since seen a decline in police staffing, mostly because it has had a trend of enduring budget cuts over the years. A trend President Trump was contributing towards as of February. In other words, even before the movement to defund the police began, the President has himself been defunding the police.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] "Defund" covers a range of proposals, from reallocating part of a budget to other services through to abolition, and the premise treats them as one thing without saying which the states named actually adopted. [Rejecting P2] The link between budget changes and crime is asserted rather than shown. The timings overlap with a period of broad national disruption, and the premise offers no figures separating one from the other. [Rejecting P3] A statement of agreement from another politician reports a position rather than supplying a reason for it. And the conclusion needs more than opposition to one proposal: the counter-argument notes that the administration had itself proposed a large cut to the federal police-hiring programme, which bears on whether the stated approach is the one being followed.