Activism

OP-ED: Slogans Over Solutions: The Real Cost of Defunding the Police

Let’s be blunt: Defund the Police is not just a failure—it’s a farce. Consider Oakland’s much-hyped MACRO program, designed to respond to 911 calls without armed officers. In theory, it was supposed to lighten the police’s load and ensure that non-violent incidents were handled by social workers. In practice, it’s a bureaucratic disaster. Nearly all of its service recipients are homeless, and a mere 6% of calls result in meaningful help. The cost to taxpayers? Nearly $3,000 per referral.

Published

7 months ago

October 26, 2024

Oakland Post

Dr. Jennifer Tran is a Professor of Ethnic Studies at California State University.

By Dr. Jennifer Tran

It’s time to cut through the slogans and set the record straight on the “Defund the Police” movement. What started as a rallying cry, borne out of real pain and injustice, has become a case study in misguided policy, political opportunism, and unintended consequences. It is, in fact, a lesson in the tragic comedy of American politics, where grand gestures replace practical solutions, and the impulsive dreams of self-serving politicians only succeed in plunging cities into chaos. And the communities that were supposed to benefit from these reforms? They’re the ones paying the steepest price.

To understand how we got here, let’s rewind the tape to 2013, when the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement emerged in response to horrific instances of police brutality. The deaths of Black men and women at the hands of law enforcement rightly shocked the public, and for once, there was a reckoning with the systemic inequities that had long plagued the American criminal justice system. It wasn’t just theory anymore, buried in the pages of university texts. Viral videos of police brutality turned those academic arguments into raw, painful reality for millions. People were outraged, and rightly so. We demanded change.

Then came 2016, when Oakland’s Anti-Police Terror Project decided the solution to police violence was to cut the police budget by 50%. In a utopia where crime doesn’t exist, maybe that could work. But on the streets of America, where real people face real threats, the idea was nothing short of delusional. The group, bankrolled by millions from the Akonadi Foundation and its president Lateefah Simon, pushed to slash Oakland’s police budget in half and divert the funds to social services. Sounds noble in theory. A better society, they promised, lay just beyond the horizon—one where cops were obsolete and violence simply evaporated once social workers entered the scene. But there’s a reason serious policy experts dismissed this as fringe from the start—it was.

And then, the murder of George Floyd in 2020 gave this once-fringe movement a national megaphone. “Defund the Police” became the rallying cry for protests that swept across the country. City councils from Oakland to New York City fell over themselves to slash police budgets in response to activist pressure. Progressive politicians saw an opportunity to appease their activist base by passing “bold” policies, irrespective of the practical consequences.

But herein lies the rub. Defunding the police is not a policy—it’s a moral pose, an empty chant masquerading as a solution. What exactly did anyone think would happen when cities with already strained police forces began gutting their budgets? Did they think crime would simply cease? That communities terrorized by violence would find comfort in knowing that more mental health workers were on call while fewer officers patrolled their neighborhoods?

The reality struck like a hammer. When police officers, demoralized by public scorn and abandoned by their city leaders, began resigning in droves, crime spiked. Homicides, carjackings, and robberies surged in cities like Oakland, while the communities that supposedly stood to benefit from defunding were left more vulnerable than ever. In fact, it became clear that the only people who thrived in this brave new world were the criminals.

What’s worse, the political damage was catastrophic. Not only did the Defund movement fail to deliver on its promises, but it handed Republicans a golden opportunity to paint Democrats as reckless and soft on crime. In the 2020 elections, the backlash was evident as Democrats struggled to shake off the taint of these disastrous policies. What could have been a serious conversation about police reform—about how to make law enforcement both effective and accountable—was hijacked by the extremists who would rather tear it all down.

Meanwhile, Oakland’s police force remains understaffed, overburdened, and demoralized. Despite budget reversals in 2022, the damage was done. Many officers, tired of being vilified, left the force altogether. And now, the city is struggling to recruit replacements while crime rates continue to climb.

But rather than learn from failure, the Defund movement doubled down. When reducing police numbers didn’t deliver the utopia they’d promised, they shifted their focus to local district attorneys, funding campaigns for candidates who promised to stop prosecuting crimes altogether. The result? A crime wave unlike anything we’ve seen in years. Retail theft, carjackings, burglaries—if there’s a crime to commit, it’s being committed in cities where these “progressive” prosecutors are in charge.

And in Oakland, the epicenter of this failed experiment, District Attorney Pamela Price is now facing a recall. Why? Because the voters who once supported her are now living with the consequences of her policies. They know what happens when ideology collides with reality—and reality always wins.

Yet despite all of this, the architects of this movement are still trying to sell us their snake oil. Lateefah Simon, the financier and architect behind the entire movement to Defund the Police, is now running for Congress. Backed by the same billionaire funders who helped launch the Defund debacle, she’s hoping to take her failed ideas to Washington, D.C. And if we’re not careful, she just might succeed.

But there is a better way. I support a new and bold piece of legislation called the Modern Cities Act, which offers a sensible alternative. Instead of gutting the police, we need to invest in police departments to reform them. Under this plan, we can have both public safety and justice. This approach recognizes that we need mental health services, housing solutions, and job programs to address the root causes of crime, but we also know that without police, those programs won’t have a chance to succeed. Reforming police practices doesn’t mean getting rid of police—it means holding them accountable while making sure they have the resources and training to protect our communities while never endangering community members.

The truth is, we don’t need fewer cops. We need better cops. We need training, transparency, and yes, accountability. But the notion that we can simply defund the police into oblivion and expect society to flourish is not just naive—it’s dangerous. We should be questioning the judgment of any politician who ever supported this harmful experiment, and they should never be allowed in public office again.

So, the next time someone tells you that defunding the police is the path to progress, ask them this: who’s going to keep your family safe when the police are gone? And then ask them if they’ve learned anything from Oakland. Because the rest of us certainly have.

Dr. Jennifer Tran is a Professor of Ethnic Studies at California State University. She is also the President of the Oakland Vietnamese Chamber of Commerce, and Democratic Party candidate for US Congress in Oakland’s District 12. This article was sponsored by the campaign of Dr. Jennifer Tran for Congress.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

Hampton Journalism Students Create Absentee Voter Guide for Upcoming General Election

Don't Miss

Oakland Post: Week of October 23 – 29, 2024

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of May 21 – 27, 2025

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of May 21 – 27, 2025

Published

2 days ago

May 25, 2025

Oakland Post

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

OPINION: Your Voice and Vote Impact the Quality of Your Health Care

One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare.

Published

1 week ago

May 19, 2025

Oakland Post

Rhonda M. Smith.

By Rhonda M. Smith, Special to California Black Media Partners

Shortly after last year’s election, I hopped into a Lyft and struck up a conversation with the driver. As we talked, the topic inevitably turned to politics. He confidently told me that he didn’t vote — not because he supported Donald Trump, but because he didn’t like Kamala Harris’ résumé. When I asked what exactly he didn’t like, he couldn’t specifically articulate his dislike or point to anything specific. In his words, he “just didn’t like her résumé.”

That moment really hit hard for me. As a Black woman, I’ve lived through enough election cycles to recognize how often uncertainty, misinformation, or political apathy keep people from voting, especially Black voters whose voices are historically left out of the conversation and whose health, economic security, and opportunities are directly impacted by the individual elected to office, and the legislative branches and political parties that push forth their agenda.

That conversation with the Lyft driver reflects a troubling surge in fear-driven politics across our country. We’ve seen White House executive orders gut federal programs meant to help our most vulnerable populations and policies that systematically exclude or harm Black and underserved communities.

One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare.

Medicaid, called Medi-Cal in California, doesn’t just cover care. It protects individuals and families from medical debt, keeps rural hospitals open, creates jobs, and helps our communities thrive. Simply put; Medicaid is a lifeline for 1 in 5 Black Americans. For many, it’s the only thing standing between them and a medical emergency they can’t afford, especially with the skyrocketing costs of health care. The proposed cuts mean up to 7.2 million Black Americans could lose their healthcare coverage, making it harder for them to receive timely, life-saving care. Cuts to Medicaid would also result in fewer prenatal visits, delayed cancer screenings, unfilled prescriptions, and closures of community clinics. When healthcare is inaccessible or unaffordable, it doesn’t just harm individuals, it weakens entire communities and widens inequities.

The reality is Black Americans already face disproportionately higher rates of poorer health outcomes. Our life expectancy is nearly five years shorter in comparison to White Americans. Black pregnant people are 3.6 times more likely to die during pregnancy or postpartum than their white counterparts.

These policies don’t happen in a vacuum. They are determined by who holds power and who shows up to vote. Showing up amplifies our voices. Taking action and exercising our right to vote is how we express our power.

I urge you to start today. Call your representatives, on both sides of the aisle, and demand they protect Medicaid (Medi-Cal), the Affordable Care Act (Covered CA), and access to food assistance programs, maternal health resources, mental health services, and protect our basic freedoms and human rights. Stay informed, talk to your neighbors and register to vote.

About the Author

Rhonda M. Smith is the Executive Director of the California Black Health Network, a statewide nonprofit dedicated to advancing health equity for all Black Californians.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

OPINION: Supreme Court Case Highlights Clash Between Parental Rights and Progressive Indoctrination

At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes — often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity.

Published

1 week ago

May 19, 2025

Oakland Post

Craig J. DeLuz. Courtesy of Craig J. DeLuz.

By Craig J. DeLuz, Special to California Black Media Partners

In America’s schools, the tension between parental rights and learning curricula has created a contentious battlefield.

In this debate, it is essential to recognize that parents are, first and foremost, their children’s primary educators. When they send their children to school — public or private — they do not surrender their rights or responsibilities. Yet, the education establishment has been increasingly encroaching on this vital paradigm.

A case recently argued before the Supreme Court regarding Maryland parents’ rights to opt out of lessons that infringe upon their religious beliefs epitomizes this growing conflict. This case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, is not simply about retreating from progressive educational mandates. It is fundamentally a defense of First Amendment rights, a defense of parents’ rights to be parents.

At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes, often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity. The parents argue that the subject matter is age-inappropriate, and the school board does not give parents the option to withdraw their children when those lessons are taught.

This case raises profound questions about the role of public education in a democratic society. In their fervent quest for inclusivity, some educators seem to have overlooked an essential truth: that the promotion of inclusivity should never infringe upon parental rights and the deeply held convictions that guide families of different faith backgrounds.

This matter goes well beyond mere exposure. It veers into indoctrination when children are repeatedly confronted with concepts that clash with their family values.

“I don’t think anybody can read that and say: well, this is just telling children that there are occasions when men marry other men,” noted Justice Samuel Alito. “It has a clear moral message, and it may be a good message. It’s just a message that a lot of religious people disagree with.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised a crucial point, noting that it is one thing to merely expose students to diverse ideas; it is quite another to present certain viewpoints as indisputable truths. By framing an ideology with the certainty of “this is the right view of the world,” educators risk indoctrination rather than enlightenment. This distinction is not merely academic; it speaks to the very essence of cultivating a truly informed citizenry.

Even Justice Elena Kagan expressed concern regarding the exposure of young children to certain materials in Montgomery County.

“I, too, was struck by these young kids’ picture books and, on matters concerning sexuality, I suspect there are a lot of non-religious parents who weren’t all that thrilled about this,” she said.

Justice John Roberts aptly questioned the practicality of expecting young children to compartmentalize their beliefs in the classroom.

“It is unreasonable to expect five-year-olds, still forming their worldviews, to reconcile lessons that conflict fundamentally with the teachings they receive at home,” he said.

As was noted in my previous commentary, “The Hidden Truth In The Battle Over Books In American Schools”, what lies at the heart of these debates is a moral disconnect between the values held by the majority of Americans and those promoted by the educational establishment. While the majority rightly argue that material containing controversial content of a sexual nature should have no place in our children’s classrooms, the education establishment continues to tout the necessity of exposing children to such content under the guise of inclusivity. This disregards the legitimate values held by the wider community.

Highlighted in this case that is before the Supreme Court is a crucial truth: parents must resolutely maintain their right to direct their children’s education, according to their values. This struggle is not simply a skirmish; it reflects a broader movement aimed at reshaping education by privileging a state-sanctioned narrative while marginalizing dissenting voices.

It is imperative that we assert, without hesitation, that parents are — and must remain — the primary educators of their children.

When parents enroll a child in a school, it should in no way be interpreted as a relinquishment of parental authority or the moral guidance essential to their upbringing. We must stand firm in defending parental rights against the encroaching ideologies of the education establishment.

About the Author

Craig J. DeLuz has almost 30 years of experience in public policy and advocacy. He has served as a member of The Robla School District Board of Trustees for over 20 years. He also currently hosts a daily news and commentary show called “The RUNDOWN.” You can follow him on X at @CraigDeLuz.