In the first paragraph it points out that the largest police union endorsed Trump even though he had a campaign platform with this position. Then it says he plans to do what he promised. The next paragraph is where the focus is lost.
“But in recent days, mayors and police chiefs in major cities across the country have pledged to stand behind their sanctuary city policies in defiance of Mr. Trump’s plans.”This is supposed to be a major conflict but is really only saying that apples don’t taste like oranges. On almost every issue the mayors and police chiefs in major cities are on the opposite side of the issue from the rank and file. So where is the news? Mayors and police chiefs in major cities are political positions. They are probably Hillary Democrats. Of course they oppose anything that Trump stands for. The rank and file are a bit more diverse.
If you read the entire article you can find the balanced statements, toward the end. Things such as,
“While some big-city police chiefs have criticized Mr. Trump’s proposed crackdown, some law enforcement organizations say it ultimately will benefit the safety of civilians and officers.”It then goes on to mention several organizations that are just fine with what Trump wants to do.
I am disappointed in the Washington Times. In theory they are more balanced that the NYT and LA Times but there are times when I question that theory.
Let us hope that President Trump will follow through on the pledges of Candidate Trump.
homo unius libri