San Francisco’s Top Cop Says Blue Cities Must Draw A Line With Trump After Killings

SAN FRANCISCO —  Before federal agents killed two people in Minnesota, San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins was the first prosecutor in the country to warn the Trump administration that federal immigration authorities or troops would not be immune from charges if they broke the law.

Now, Jenkins said her warning not only feels foreboding in the wake of those deaths, but serves as a call to action for more Democratic officials around the country to draw the same line as they prepare for large-scale deployments of immigration agents in their communities.

Jenkins doesn’t fit the stereotype of a lefty San Francisco politician. The tough-on-crime Democrat has presided over a dramatic drop in thefts and other offenses since becoming San Francisco’s top cop over three years ago. She took office after helping lead the recall of Chesa Boudin, her ultra-progressive former boss who refused to charge many lower-level crimes.

Her experience, she said, might offer a roadmap for Democrats to navigate this challenging moment — pushing back on Donald Trump’s tactics while staying focused on the concerns of voters who remain deeply frustrated over crime.

Playbook sat down with Jenkins recently to talk about her response to Trump’s targeting of blue cities, how San Francisco got aggressive in prosecuting property and drug crimes and her own political aspirations.

This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Last fall, you made a big move when you said you would consider bringing charges against federal immigration agents or troops if they violated the law. How are you feeling about that warning in light of the killings in Minnesota?

I could foreshadow that we were going to get to this point, and we had to, as local officials, come out and get in front of this to say where we stood. The moment is calling for every DA around this country to take a similar stance.

Do you feel like you’ve seen enough elected prosecutors and Democratic officeholders around the country speak out in that way?

I'm certainly seeing it from the jurisdictions where these incidents are occurring. But again, I would not say we necessarily have unified around this message enough. We have now watched two Americans die in our streets at the hands of federal agents. There should be a collective action at this point to demand accountability, a willingness to hold them accountable. But also to address the issue at hand, which is the prevention of local and state law enforcement agencies having the ability to investigate these matters because they're systematically being excluded from crime scenes and from collecting evidence.

What’s the right message for Democrats as they seek to call out the Trump administration’s actions but distinguish that response from the party’s approach to crime more broadly?

It’s very similar to President Obama's stance: We have a job to do, which is to enforce our laws. There's no question we have to do that in cities across America in this country. We have to keep our community safe. But what we are seeing is something very different happen at the hands of ICE, and Border Patrol, and DHS. What we are seeing is not efforts towards safety. We are seeing antagonism and provocation within communities to create civil unrest. So that is the difference. If we were truly working towards public safety, there would be a strategic plan to only focus on people who are committing crime. Or, as the administration would say, people who have committed crime and are dangerous to our communities. But that is not what we are seeing, so that's the difference here.

Since taking control of the district attorney’s office, you have often partnered with federal agencies to crack down on drug dealers amid the city’s fentanyl overdose crisis. Is it getting harder to maintain those working relationships with the feds on fronts other than immigration enforcement?

It doesn't necessarily make it more difficult on the ground level, meaning the staff that needs to work together on a ground level to combat drug trafficking and other issues. But it does create an issue more optically at the top, when you have constituents who are questioning why we are working collaboratively with an agency that is responsible for doing the things that we are seeing — or participating in, condoning or covering up the things that we are seeing happen in Minneapolis and in other cities across America. So from that standpoint, it does make it more difficult for us at the top to explain how we can partner on certain things, but yet ignore the others. Sadly, you know, that's the position that we are in and how we have to operate. I have to separate the two. We have a job to do here in San Francisco that must be done. It doesn't mean I can't be very transparent about the things that I've seen.

Crime, especially theft and other property offenses that spiked during the pandemic, is down significantly in San Francisco over the last three or so years. What are some of the biggest changes that explain that turnaround in the statistics?

Seeking detention of people who have committed even certain non-violent offenses. The mindset before me was that you had to commit something very serious, you had to require the use of a firearm, a vicious assault, a murder. I came in saying, ‘Look, we've got a problem with chronic and repeat offenders who are dangerous to the public for various reasons, whether they're committing drug dealing, auto burglary, smash-and-grabs in the stores.’ Those people are dangerous to the public. So, I took a position that we’re going to seek to detain those people pre-trial. You’re sitting until this case pans out, no bail, which is new for San Francisco, especially with the fentanyl dealers. That has gone a long way to people understanding there has to be an immediate consequence.

During the effort to recall Boudin, your progressive predecessor, you often talked about wanting to change the culture within the Democratic Party with respect to crime and the notion that not prosecuting some offenders was a hip social-justice cause. How much do you feel like that attitude has changed?

I feel like almost a 180, certainly in San Francisco. After our recall and really the beginning of the turnaround, we've been seeing it obviously in Alameda County and LA (where former district attorneys Pamela Price and George Gascón were ousted by voters, respectively). So it's really taken off. Sadly, it meant that other cities had to feel the significant decline. But I would say now, the temperament here, it's very much, ‘Do your job. We have to be held accountable. We cannot have what's going on continue to happen.' Politicians are having to listen, which is the complete opposite of 2020/2021, when the louder voices were saying, ‘Don’t.'

By Bay Area standards, you’re often called a tough-on-crime or moderate Democrat. How would you describe your political lane?

Here in San Francisco, I am, in many ways, considered moderate. And I disagree with that. I have a very common-sense governance to the way that I do things. But there are also parts of me that are progressive and that do strongly believe in the reforms that need to happen in supporting immigrant communities and how we do that. I actually occupy a space that is very California centrist. So not necessarily a nationwide centrist at this point. My base of support here spans from the most moderate all the way to the sort of fringe progressives.

You were raised by your mother, a Black woman, in the East Bay. But your father was an immigrant from El Salvador here on a student visa, and you didn’t meet him until you were an adult. How has your family background influenced your thinking about Trump’s immigration policies?

My dad's status did play a role in him not staying here, and me not knowing him for 21 years of my life. So, when I think about what that means for families, if someone comes in and takes your parent away but you’re a citizen here, you have a choice to make. You get to stay. But what that means for their lives … I know what it’s like and the financial struggle that we went through. (And) just what it means as a human being to wonder, ‘Where is my dad? Who is he? Why is he not in my life?'

You were among the contenders eyeing a run for California attorney general when it looked like AG Rob Bonta might instead go for governor. But a lot of statewide and national political stars have come out of San Francisco: Gavin Newsom, Nancy Pelosi, Kamala Harris. In fact, the first elected office that Harris held is your job today. How are you thinking about your political future? Is there another office on the horizon?

The fact that that race (for attorney general) is kind of now been determined, means that my focus is on continuing the work that I've been doing here in San Francisco right now and continuing to produce results in San Francisco that we can be proud of as a city. In this position, you never know what the future holds and what doors may open.