Some 800 National Guard troops have been deployed

Donald Trump is once again mobilising troops to deal with a phoney "emergency", said W.J. Hennigan in The New York Times. In June, he deployed nearly 5,000 soldiers to Los Angeles after protests broke out over his immigration policies. Last week it was the turn of Washington DC, to which Trump sent 800 National Guard troops and 500 federal agents. The US capital, he declared, had been "overtaken by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals, roving mobs of wild youth, drugged-out maniacs and homeless people". He vowed to rescue it from "bedlam and squalor" and to let the police "do whatever the hell they want". Never mind that recent data shows that violent crime in the city is at a 30-year low. It's a classic piece of "fearmongering", laced with bigotry, said Melissa Gira Grant in The New Republic. Trump is now threatening to send troops into other "very bad" cities, such as Chicago, New York, Baltimore and Oakland. Is it just a coincidence that these are all Democrat-run cities with Black mayors?

There are good reasons to be suspicious of federal overreach, said Robby Soave in The Hill, "so I understand a certain level of reflexive distrust at what Trump is doing here". But there's no denying that Washington has a problem with crime, from gangland shootings to "flash mobs of teenagers stealing cars and vandalising convenience stores". It's telling that DC's mayor, Muriel Bowser, while critical of Trump's rhetoric, seems keen to work with him. DC's police union outright welcomed his intervention. Critics may paint it as an authoritarian power grab, said Charles C.W. Cooke in National Review, but it's entirely within the bounds of the constitution. While DC was granted home rule in 1973, making it akin in some ways to a state, it's officially a federal enclave where the president has every right to assert his authority.

Crime has decreased in DC over the past couple of years, said Heather Mac Donald in The Boston Globe, but it's still at an unacceptable level. The city's homicide rate last year was 27.3 deaths per 100,000 residents. By comparison, New York City's equivalent figure was 4.1; London's in 2023 was 1.2. "Anywhere else in the industrialised world, the DC crime situation would constitute a national emergency." The problem is concentrated among certain poorer areas and demographics, said Charles Fain Lehman in The Atlantic. In 2023, the last year for which full data is available, 3.4 out of every 1,000 young Black men between the ages of 15 and 24 in Washington died by homicide. That's on a par with the mortality rate of US combatants in Iraq.

There's a problem all right, said Marc Fisher in The Washington Post. But it's hard to see how anything will be much improved by having a few hundred National Guard troops standing around on street corners. If the president really wants to make a difference, he should take more practical steps such as addressing the city's "breathtaking truancy rate": almost a third of DC schoolchildren routinely skip school. More federal funding for counsellors, truancy officers and vocational training would pay dividends. Instead, this funding has been cut. Trump has an "uncanny knack for identifying the problems that really bother voters", but he rarely follows up with helpful solutions, not least because he hasn't the patience to push tricky reforms through. Washington would benefit from a concerted campaign to address the root causes of its crime and disorder. Sadly, it's getting just another of Trump's "made-for-TV stunts".

Hundreds of thousands of nervous teenagers received their A-level results last week, said Shuab Gamote in The Observer. For nearly 40% of 18-year-olds, the next step will be university, which is "still sold as the surest route to success". But is a degree really such an advantage today? Many are beginning to doubt it, said Zoë Beaty in The Independent. The average total debt built up by students in England is now £53,000, yet the days when a degree was a ticket to a job are long gone. Graduate job openings are at their lowest level in seven years, according to recent reports. It's partly down to the rise of AI, which is reducing entry-level roles in consultancies, law firms and other businesses.

Ministers insist that the "graduate premium" still applies, said Fraser Nelson in The Times, but that's only true on average. The top graduates do indeed earn a lot more: study economics at Bath, computing at Southampton or law at Oxford and you'll likely see a very nice return on your £9,535-a-year tuition fee. But a sizeable minority of students end up worse off as a result of going to university. The answer is to publish salary figures for every course, so that students can make an informed decision. This data exists but ministers are declining to make it publicly available for fear of exposing the fact that some courses in our massively expanded university sector are terrible value for money.

Let's face it, said Simon Jenkins in The Guardian, England's university system is "a mess". Student debt has reached £267 billion, much of which will never be repaid. Because domestic fees aren't high enough, universities have become dangerously reliant on fees from international students, the numbers of whom are now falling. Meanwhile, employers are becoming increasingly cynical about the value of degrees. "The solution is glaring: cut back." Let's have fewer universities and more vocational colleges. Let's have shorter degree courses: they don't need to be stretched out over three years, with endless holidays. Let's make higher education free at the point of use, recouping the costs of tuition through a modestly higher rate of tax on graduates that lasts throughout their working lives. "The evidence is accumulating that we send far too many young people to university," said Roger Bootle in The Telegraph. For most students, it's a worthwhile and fun experience, and the country boasts some brilliant universities. But the reality is that for many, a degree is a waste of time and money. We'd all be better off if such people instead went straight into the workforce.

Sharon Stone is a huge star, but she reckons she has never received the credit she deserves as an actress. She believes her performance in 1992's "Basic Instinct" was virtuoso – but overshadowed by the furore about that shot up her skirt. And even when she was nominated for an Oscar, for her role in Martin Scorsese's "Casino", Hollywood's "powers that be" were upset, she says – because they thought that if anyone should have got the nod, it should have been her co-star, Robert De Niro. Still, it didn't trouble her too much when she missed out on the gong, as she'd been warned that she wasn't going to win, she told Simon Hattenstone in The Guardian.

Before the Oscars, at a glitzy Hollywood party, Francis Ford Coppola had come up to her and "put a hand on my shoulder. He said: 'I need to tell you something and it's really hard… You're not going to win the Oscar, Sharon.'" Why, she asked. "I didn't win it for 'The Godfather' and Marty didn't win it for 'Raging Bull', and you're not going to win it for 'Casino'. They can't hear opera." Not everyone will understand your talent, he added, but your performance will "stand the test of time"; and at least when you lose, "you will lose with Marty and you will lose with me… You will always be in our losers' circle." She allows herself a smile. "So that is what I have carried through my life – that I am a big fat loser like Marty and Francis Ford Coppola."