Sacks’ prediction was that if Democrats continued to oppose Trump’s federal takeover and crackdown in Washington, D.C., it would prove a political “trap” that harms Democrats and benefits Trump/Republicans in later national debates and elections.

What actually happened so far

1. Democrats did publicly oppose the move. Trump invoked emergency powers on August 11, 2025 to take control of the D.C. police and deploy federal law enforcement and the National Guard, over the objections of Mayor Muriel Bowser and other Democrats, who described it as exaggerated, authoritarian, and an attack on home rule. (en.wikipedia.org)

2. Local opinion in D.C. favors opposition to Trump’s move. A Washington Post–Schar School poll of D.C. residents in mid‑August found about 8 in 10 oppose Trump’s federalization of law enforcement, and roughly two‑thirds say his actions will not help combat violent crime. A majority approve of Bowser’s performance, and nearly half say she should do more to oppose Trump; only a small minority want her to support him. (reddit.com) This undercuts the idea that, at least in D.C. itself, Democrats are on the “wrong” side of a public‑safety issue.

3. National opinion is mixed and issue‑specific:

   • On Trump’s handling of crime overall, polls show this is one of his relatively stronger issues: an AP‑NORC survey found about 53% of U.S. adults approve of his handling of crime, making it his best‑rated policy area. (ap.org) That does support the idea that a tough‑on‑crime frame helps him generally.
   • But when pollsters ask specifically about the D.C. takeover and troop deployment, support is much weaker. A Reuters/Ipsos poll in late August found only 38% support using the National Guard to police D.C. and 36% support taking over the local police, with a plurality opposed. (reuters.com) AP‑NORC similarly reports that a majority of Americans say it is unacceptable for the federal government to take control of local police departments, even while many approve of Trump’s crime stance overall. (reason.com) Some polls (e.g., Harvard CAPS/Harris) show slim majorities saying the D.C. crackdown is “justified and necessary,” but also majorities opposing formal federal control and viewing the move as a distraction. (harvardharrispoll.com) The net picture is no clear national consensus that the D.C. move itself is popular, even if Trump’s broader crime rhetoric resonates.
   • There is also no stable, growing Trump advantage on crime clearly tied to this episode. Coverage of subsequent polling notes that while crime remains a top concern and Trump often polls slightly better than Democrats on the issue, some surveys show the gap narrowing or even Harris edging Trump on “trust to handle crime” by late September, and others show them effectively tied. (newsweek.com) That’s the opposite of a clear, durable gain for Trump from Democrats’ opposition.

4. Electoral results so far don’t show Democrats paying a visible price:

   • The major post‑crackdown elections were the November 4, 2025 gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey, both carried comfortably by Democrats (Abigail Spanberger in VA with about 58% of the vote; Mikie Sherrill in NJ with about 57%). (en.wikipedia.org) Analyses of these races emphasize voter anger at Trump’s economic policies and federal layoffs, not Democratic weakness on crime. In Virginia, exit polls pegged Trump’s approval at just 39% and highlighted discontent with his economic and federal‑workforce decisions; the D.C. policing issue was not identified as a GOP advantage. (en.wikipedia.org) These results don’t look like immediate punishment for Democrats over their stance on the D.C. intervention.

5. Timing relative to the prediction. Sacks tied the “trap” to “subsequent national political debates and elections,” implicitly looking toward the 2026 midterms and 2028 presidential race. As of November 30, 2025, those contests have not happened yet, and we have only a few months of polling and some off‑year state elections to go on.

Why this is rated inconclusive, not right or wrong

• There is evidence that Trump’s law‑and‑order message, including the D.C. crackdown, has strengthened his standing on crime relative to other issues, which is directionally in line with Sacks’ argument that Republicans gain from framing Democrats as weaker on public safety. (ap.org)
• There is not clear evidence that Democratic opposition to the D.C. takeover is itself politically toxic: the policy is unpopular in D.C., nationally many oppose federal control of local police, and early high‑salience elections since the move (VA and NJ 2025) have broken strongly in Democrats’ favor for reasons mostly unrelated to crime. (reddit.com)
• Crucially, the key tests Sacks pointed to — national elections where this specific episode might be litigated at scale — have not yet occurred. Without 2026 midterm or 2028 presidential results, we cannot say whether Democrats ultimately paid a political price for how they handled the D.C. intervention.

Given the mixed polling on the D.C. move itself, the lack of evident electoral penalty to Democrats so far, and the fact that the main elections Sacks had in mind are still in the future, the prediction is too early to definitively score as either right or wrong.