The shutdown was not a policy victory; it was a political calamity for Democrats. For weeks, the standoff dominated the headlines, delayed pay for federal workers and produced fractures within the Democratic Senate bench that forced a handful of senators to break with their party to move toward a resolution. Those defections and the public melee around funding negotiations exposed a failure of leadership at the top.

Compounding the damage was Schumer’s own confused posture during the fight — a sequence that left rank-and-file Democrats wondering whether he had a plan or had been carried along by events. In a leadership role, appearing to be responding rather than directing is fatal; senators need a leader who knows the caucus, can anticipate pressure points and keeps the team coordinated.

That lack of firm leadership during the shutdown is why Schumer has taken fire from all ideological corners of his party. Schumer may not have been one of the eight Democratic senators who broke ranks on Sunday to advance a deal to end the government shutdown, but the party’s firebrands placed the blame at his feet for failing to effectively rally his caucus to force a deal with the Republican majority to secure concessions on health care policy. The capitulation spurred calls for Schumer’s resignation from progressive Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and centrist Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.).

This isn’t a one-off stumble. Voices across the party — frustrated by recent missteps — have openly questioned Schumer’s effectiveness and urged new leadership. When your own side expresses that level of dissatisfaction, it’s not mere displeasure; it’s evidence that confidence has eroded. Consider that the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, Dick Durbin, joined Republicans to end the shutdown, laying bare Schumer’s lack of control over not just his caucus but his own deputies. It’s clear why Schumer initially backed away from a shutdown fight with the GOP in March — he surely knew he’d face challenges in keeping his Democratic colleagues in line.

Age and stamina matter in a role that demands relentlessness. Schumer, now in his mid-70s, represents an era when long tenure alone was a qualification; today’s Democratic coalition is increasingly impatient with octogenarian and septuagenarian leaders who seem out of touch with the tactical agility modern politics requires. The party’s appetite for generational change is real, and leadership should reflect that appetite. Last week’s retirement announcement by Rep. Nancy Pelosi is another proof point.

Stepping down would not be an admission of failure so much as recognition of what the party needs now: a reset, clearer strategy and a leader who can unify rather than preside over fractious moments. Schumer’s success in avoiding a left-wing primary may have guided earlier choices, but avoiding challenge isn’t the same as demonstrating strategic competence. We don’t pretend to understand the progressives’ agenda for the Senate, but it appears that for the sake of Democratic prospects — and for the Senate to operate with effective opposition and discipline — Chuck Schumer should consider making way for the next generation of leaders. The country, and his party, will be better served for it.

Baltimore Sun editorial writers offer opinions and analysis on news and issues relevant to readers. They operate separately from the newsroom.

That’s why it stings all the more when the actions of our elected leaders drag Baltimore back into the national spotlight for the wrong reasons. The latest example is state Sen. Dalya Attar, who now faces federal charges of extortion and conspiracy. According to prosecutors, Attar and two co-defendants allegedly planted hidden cameras to record a former campaign consultant and use the footage as leverage. Attar has proclaimed her innocence, but the indictment tells of a sitting senator accused of weaponizing surveillance to silence critics. For a city already burdened by reputational scars, this case risks reinforcing the narrative that Baltimore’s politics are defined by bad actors.

If you’re like us, you’re asking yourself: How on earth is this happening again? Another Baltimore elected official facing criminal charges. Another allegation of a deep ethical and moral failure. It’s exhausting. And it forces us to confront an uncomfortable question — has Baltimore, and Maryland more broadly, become a magnet for the worst of the worst in politics? We don’t want to believe that. And in fact, we don’t. We know this city is full of people who serve with integrity and who fight every day to make their neighborhoods stronger.

Instead, we think something much deeper is at play. In Maryland, and especially here in Baltimore, we live in a land of one‑party rule. Political competition is far more limited than in most places. Our democratic system is supposed to test candidates twice: first in the primary, then in the general election. But in Baltimore, once you’re through the primary, it’s more or less over. The general election becomes a formality, with the occasional exception of the mayor’s race. That lack of real competition, we believe, shapes behavior. When the only hurdle is the primary, accountability narrows, and the incentive to act with hubris and arrogance rather than for the sake of the broader public grows stronger. It’s not that either party is immune to corruption and bad behavior. The more our candidates are tested, the more likely it is that the system will catch those who are more interested in serving themselves than their constituents.

Our message to Baltimore is simple: If we truly want to break the cycle of corruption, negative headlines and political distrust, we have to broaden our view of who deserves a chance to lead. That means considering all candidates, not just the ones who are byproducts of the political establishment. Real accountability doesn’t come from recycling the same brand of politicians with the same policies and agendas. It comes from opening the door to new voices, fresh ideas and leaders who are true outsiders. Baltimore deserves better than another headline about a scandal. And the best way to achieve that is to focus on prospective leaders who exist outside that world.

Baltimore Sun editorial writers offer opinions and analysis on news and issues relevant to readers. They operate separately from the newsroom.

But the widespread adoption of AI-assisted technology is not without risks. Another high-profile incident involved a Baltimore County student who was flagged for possessing a firearm that was detected by the newly implemented Omnilert AI-assisted system that uses surveillance cameras to detect weapons. It turns out the “weapon” was merely a bag of Doritos, revealed only after the student was swarmed by officers and detained by law enforcement at gunpoint. This embarrassing ordeal highlights the abundant risks that come with blind reliance on burgeoning AI technology. The rise of “deepfakes,” including the infamous deepfake conspiracy that cost a Baltimore County school principal his job, leaves policymakers uncertain about how to balance the practical benefits of AI with the risks.

As Maryland grapples with the implications of police officers using AI to support their police reports, we should consider the risk/reward framework. A critical shortage of police officers has created immense and unsustainable demands on law enforcement. Leveraging AI-assisted tools to fine-tune, capture details and clarify reports is a universal benefit, both for law enforcement and residents. The intuitive reasoning power of AI empowers officers to request clarifying questions, trigger deeper insights and ensure that police reports meet judicial merit.

By the same token, immense risks exist that could jeopardize the integrity of our justice system. The primary risk involves blind reliance on AI to generate content that could embellish or create inaccurate accounts of police encounters. An AI model, for example, could be prompted to write a police report in such a way as to lead to a specific outcome. While such a request is not entirely unreasonable, there’s a risk that an AI tool could be instructed to evaluate laws and insert facts or details that may be inaccurate. As programmers love to say, “A computer will do exactly what you tell it to.” Without an ethical or moral framework, AI could be used in an extremely malicious manner.

This underscores the vital importance of a balanced and careful approach to integrating AI tools into our judicial systems. The most important mitigation factor is ensuring that the people involved with using these tools are properly trained on the ethical and appropriate use of such tools. Policies should reinforce that AI should never be used to originate content for reports. Other healthy restraints should limit the primary use of AI to evaluation and feedback, and modifications made should only be for the purpose of grammatical corrections and stylistic flow. Everything touched by AI must be reviewed carefully by a human being and subjected to additional scrutiny.

AI is a transformative technology that will revolutionize our human experience. We hope that these changes are generally for the better. All the same, there will inevitably be numerous abuses and malicious misuse of these tools. Agencies, regulators and policymakers alike must remain vigilant to the risks and monitor for ways to mitigate them. Simply avoiding the use of AI is not sufficient. Artificial intelligence can be a boon for our society, but the institutions that employ it have a responsibility to ensure it’s employed in a wise and healthy manner.

Baltimore Sun editorial writers offer opinions and analysis on news and issues relevant to readers. They operate separately from the newsroom.

Unfortunately, here in Baltimore, our mayor didn’t seem to get the message. Last week, Brandon Scott used the 32nd Annual Civil Rights Breakfast to deliver a call to action, calling on the public to fight against the Trump administration “in every sense of the word.” He went on to claim that President Donald Trump and Republicans seek to “eliminate all of our existence” and even acknowledged at one point he was going off script in a way that worried his top aides.

Let’s be clear — what Mayor Scott said was deeply irresponsible. The Democratic Party cannot afford to let remarks like these pass without consequence. At minimum, these kinds of words deserve a reprimand, if not outright condemnation. And perhaps that has already begun in private, given how many Democrats have gone on record denouncing political violence in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination. But comments like Scott’s cut directly against the grain of those denouncements. They weaken the credibility of a party that insists it wants to lower the temperature.

And for those who shrug off Scott’s remarks as no big deal, it’s worth slowing down and unpacking them. He didn’t just call for resistance or civic engagement — he said the public should fight “in every sense of the word.” In plain English, “fight” carries its most literal definition: physical confrontation. That’s why it’s so loaded when a public official says something to that effect — it can mean everything from fighting at the ballot box to fighting with fists and weapons.

Clearly, our mayor doesn’t seem to care much about the weight of his rhetoric. He reaches for it often, using sharp words to grab headlines. But every time he does, he lays tinder in front of people already teetering on the edge of acting out violently. It’s a real risk in a country where political anger has too often spilled into bloodshed. It should be a no‑brainer for the elected leader of a major American city to avoid language that can be read as a call to arms.

And to be abundantly clear, no one is saying the mayor has to like President Trump, nor does he need to bite his tongue when it comes to criticizing the administration. Strong disagreement is part of politics, and sharp critique has its place. But the way that criticism is expressed matters. When it crosses into language that can be read as a call to violent action, it stops being about accountability and starts being about recklessness. That’s the line Mayor Scott crossed, and it’s a line no responsible leader should come close to.

Bottom line: This isn’t about party labels. Plenty of Republicans have crossed the line with rhetoric that was inflammatory, reckless and dangerously close to a call for violence. They deserve the same criticism. Wrong is wrong, no matter who says it. But here in Baltimore, the overwhelming majority of our elected officials are Democrats. And for a party that insists it does not encourage or promote violence, even as radicals on its fringe increasingly act on it, having a mayor spout off like this is simply too damaging to ignore.

Baltimore Sun editorial writers offer opinions and analysis on news and issues relevant to readers. They operate separately from the newsroom.

Mamdani is a polarizing figure. When Hamas attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, he stood with pro-Palestinian activists to protest Israel’s counterattack on Gaza. He does not like capitalism and thinks billionaires should not exist. He has flip-flopped on whether he believes prostitution should be legalized and whether the NYPD should be defunded. He has vowed to direct the NYPD to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he enters the city. He has been a proud champion of “good cause eviction” laws and rent freezes. And for four straight years, he refused to co-sponsor the state legislature’s annual resolution to commemorate International Holocaust Remembrance Day.

His rapid rise to victory and global notoriety came to the surprise of just about everyone — perhaps even himself. During his brief tenure as an assemblyman, he managed to pass just three bills. Two amendments to New York State’s administrative procedure law to enhance public participation in public hearings, and another that established an exemption under the state’s liquor license law, permitting the Astoria Museum of the Moving Image to serve alcohol within 200 feet of a school (there are currently 53 of these exemptions).

Mamdani pulled off a feat unseen in modern history, thanks in large part to his slick social media presence and socialist utopian ideals, appealing to a poverty-stricken younger generation that turned out at 35.2% in the primary election, nearly double their turnout in the 2021 mayoral race. That surge in support proved decisive. The youth vote has rarely been a focus for campaigns in prior cycles. In fact, for the first time in history, voters under 50 made up more than half of the Democratic Party’s primary turnout.

And it shouldn’t be all that surprising. It’s the product of a perfect storm: decades of unchecked power and a city that rarely pushes back on wrongdoing. Rent stabilization has left tens of thousands of units vacant because the cost to fix them and rent them at capped rates is untenable, driving housing prices skyward. Add an unlikable former governor and a stubborn Republican nominee to split the vote. Layer on ever-rising commercial rents that push the price of everything from milk to burritos well beyond what you’ll pay just a few miles past the Throgs Neck Bridge, and top it off with a glut of universities that overpromise, overcharge and underdeliver, leaving students buried in debt and hobbled at the starting line, while those same institutions keep expanding their land holdings and paying nothing in property taxes.

And what do you get?

New Yorkers dismayed by the result should have seen it coming from a mile away. Mamdani promised the residents of one of the country’s most important cities everything they wanted: rent freezes, city-owned grocery stores, free bus routes. How could a younger generation saddled with debt and with nothing to lose say no? Why would they vote for the former governor who resigned in disgrace over sexual assault allegations or the Republican who insists on repeating that he was “shot in the back of a yellow cab in 1992 by the Gottis and the Gambinos”?

New York is the epicenter of the United States economy. It has been hailed as the “Capital of the World” for some of our most important economic and technology industries. The New York Stock Exchange, NASDAQ, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, BlackRock, Circle (the world’s second-largest cryptocurrency stablecoin issuer) and countless others are all headquartered right in Manhattan. New York City is also the world’s #2 tech hub with around 9,000 start-ups, behind Silicon Valley.

That’s not to say other local races aren’t important. But we can’t deny that when the leadership of the “[Insert Industry Here] Capital of the World” is on the line, the world watches, and the ripple effects are felt far beyond the city’s limits.

Mamdani’s tenure as mayor may not spell the end for New York City’s dominance, but, for the first time in a long time, it may be the lesson that the city needs.

Baltimore Sun editorial writers offer opinions and analysis on news and issues relevant to readers. They operate separately from the newsroom.

The One Percent Doctrine may have been Cheney’s brainchild. But the doctrine continues to inform the global projection of United States military power and a nation on a permanent war footing today: nearly 800 military bases abroad; special forces in hundreds of foreign countries; summoning the military not only to kill alleged drug traffickers in the Caribbean and Pacific but also to fortify domestic law enforcement. We have become a garrison state sporting an annual $1.5 trillion national security budget. Then-Vice President Cheney quipped to Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.”

But Cheney was much more than the One Percent Doctrine. He spent most of his life in the corridors of power: chief of staff to President Gerald R. Ford, six terms in the United States House of Representatives representing Wyoming and rising to chair of the Republican Policy Committee and House minority whip, secretary of defense under President George H.W. Bush, and twice vice president under President George W. Bush, exerting a supersized influence over national security.

Dick Cheney is widely regarded by scholars and historians as one of, if not the most, powerful and influential vice presidents in U.S. history. His power stemmed not from constitutional mandates (which are few) but from a unique combination of factors: his own extensive experience in Washington, a president (George W. Bush) who delegated significant authority and the central role the vice president’s office assumed in the war on terror after 9/11.

Cheney’s views were not all of a conservative stripe. Supporting his gay daughter, Mary, he advocated for the legalization of same-sex marriage. He opposed U.S. troops marching to Baghdad in the 1991 Gulf War. In 2024, he voted for Democrat Kamala Harris over Republican Donald Trump in the presidential election. Cheney elaborated: “[Trump] tried to steal the last election using lies and violence to keep himself in power after the voters had rejected him. He can never be trusted with power again. As citizens, we each have a duty to put the country above partisanship to defend our Constitution.”

Cheney was not the only traditional Republican who balked at Trump’s quest for kingship. He stood by his daughter, Republican Congresswoman Liz Cheney, in her star role on the House Select Committee to investigate the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol. The congresswoman was defeated in her reelection bid in 2022.

His influence within the Republican Party may have waned in his later years, but Cheney was remembered after his passing by his colleagues and family as both a dedicated family man and a patriot. His family statement at the time of his death emphasized his role as a loving patriarch, and many political figures, including former President George W. Bush, praised his deep love for the United States.

Baltimore Sun editorial writers offer opinions and analysis on news and issues relevant to readers. They operate separately from the newsroom.

Central to the frustration was a persistent lack of government policy leadership on the matter. PSEG officials were evasive about which “state-level” stakeholders were involved. Gov. Wes Moore’s office was largely quiet on the matter during the initial debate around the project, eventually expressing specific concerns about community involvement in the planning and local impact, while stopping short of outright opposing PSEG’s plan for the power line. Broader political engagement from state officials, seemingly reluctant to take credit (or blame) for either greenlighting or obstructing the project, was tepid at best.

With so much time having passed without state leadership taking an active role in the process, it’s little wonder local resistance to the MPRP coalesced around grassroots, community-led organizations, leading to a far more emotionally charged movement. Residents channeled energy away from procedural and political resistance and leaned into more personalized expressions of defiance.

With state leadership absent, there was no mediator between representatives of PSEG and the residents of Carroll, Frederick and Baltimore counties dead set on stopping the power line from cutting through their communities. That’s been a recipe for a volatile situation that has raised anxieties that the worst-case scenario might come to fruition: violence between property owners and PSEG surveyors.

Frustrated property owners have openly vowed to deny access to their private property. In response, PSEG has sought police protection, including U.S. Marshals, for its surveyors as they venture onto private property, but in Carroll County, local law enforcement refused to allocate resources to escort surveyors. The tense and emotional nature of the confrontation has MPRP officials so concerned that they recently requested a judicial order to ban property owners from hunting on their own property during survey times, after commenters posted online threats to “hunt” surveyors.

PSEG’s employees deserve to feel safe from threats to their lives as they go about their work. Property owners deserve to be able to use their land freely and be able to effectively advocate for their interests. Clearly, neither side benefits from this state of affairs. The situation is chaotic, confusing and completely unnecessary. A persistent pattern of neglect and political prevarication leaves owners feeling they have to resort to more drastic measures to protect their property. One of the main functions of government is to stand in as an alternative to emotional human responses, to prevent situations just like this.

Maryland has long struggled with a hyper-fragmented energy policy infrastructure. The confusing and convoluted nature of this process invites the disorder we are witnessing with MPRP. Property owners impacted by the MPRP should have the undivided attention of Maryland’s executive branch to offer legitimate avenues to speak out against the project. Now that the situation has become so emotionally charged, judicial intervention may be required to curb the risk of reckless actions. State leadership should immediately engage with the grassroots organizers and make a decision about how to address the MPRP. Only then can we see whether cooler heads will prevail.

Baltimore Sun editorial writers offer opinions and analysis on news and issues relevant to readers. They operate separately from the newsroom.

But there’s one Democrat who’s been making headlines for all the wrong, or perhaps all the right, reasons, depending on your vantage point: Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania. Much to the chagrin of his party’s leadership, Fetterman has broken ranks on multiple fronts. He’s blasted the government shutdown for hurting ordinary Americans and voted with Republicans to reopen the government. He’s also refused to demonize Trump supporters, stating plainly that backing the president doesn’t make someone a Nazi or a fascist. And in a move that would have been unthinkable for most Democrats just a few years ago, Fetterman gave Trump credit for helping broker a peace deal in the Middle East.

In a party increasingly defined by ideological litmus tests, Fetterman’s blunt realism stands out as a political anomaly. But his approach also serves as a potential blueprint for the Democratic Party to regain its relevance. What sets Fetterman apart is that he doesn’t take the bait. The GOP’s whole strategy right now is built around getting Democrats to freak out. They throw a jab, watch the meltdown and rack up the headlines. It’s outrage as a weapon, and it works because most Democrats walk right into it. But Fetterman shrugs it off. He doesn’t overreact, doesn’t moralize, doesn’t turn every provocation into a press conference. He just answers plainly, keeps it moving, and ends up looking like the most reasonable guy in the room.

When you take your enemy’s biggest weapon out of their hand, you flip the game. That’s exactly what Fetterman does every single day. He doesn’t flinch when the far-left base throws a fit. He’s not looking over his shoulder to see what Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or Jasmine Crockett thinks. He’s not auditioning for MSNBC panels or Twitter applause. He answers to Pennsylvania, a battleground state where even plenty of Democrats lean conservative. That’s his compass. And because he’s not scared of the party’s ideological enforcers, he can say what most politicians won’t. That kind of political courage is rare today, on both sides.

But of course, leave it to the Democratic Party to try and neutralize its most effective weapon against Trumpism. As Axios reported in mid-October, top Democrats in Pennsylvania are already maneuvering to primary Fetterman in 2028. Let that sink in for a second. There’s one guy who’s actually connecting with swing voters and showing how to defuse the outrage machine — and they want him gone. Fetterman is laying out the playbook for how to beat Trump, in real time, and instead of learning from it, party insiders are plotting his ouster. How could they be so naive and short-sighted? If Democrats keep punishing authenticity and rewarding echo-chamber theatrics, they’ll keep losing, and they’ll deserve every bit of it.

Now, that’s not to say it’s all smooth sailing. Fetterman’s unapologetic support for Israel puts him at odds with the party’s younger, more progressive base. But this isn’t about agreeing with every stance he takes. It’s about recognizing what he’s doing right. Democrats don’t have to copy Fetterman’s every move to learn from his playbook. At the core of his strategy is something the party desperately needs: credibility with swing voters. In Pennsylvania, you win by sounding reasonable to the folks in the middle. And in most elections, those voters are all that matters.

Baltimore Sun editorial writers offer opinions and analysis on news and issues relevant to readers. They operate separately from the newsroom.

That’s why, until the Red Line is built, Maryland should consider making the Fort McHenry Tunnel toll-free for Baltimore City residents. It’s not a perfect substitute for fixed rail, but it’s a gesture of mobility justice and an acknowledgment that the state’s failure to deliver east-west transit has real costs, measured in time, wages and missed opportunities. The tunnel is perhaps the most critical artery connecting East and West Baltimore and currently charges residents to cross their own city. Waiving that toll for city drivers would be a modest but meaningful step forward, especially for those commuting across town for work, school or care.

Fiscal hawks will warn of decreased toll revenue, but let’s be honest: The Fort McHenry Tunnel isn’t funded by Baltimoreans alone. Much of the toll revenue comes from through traffic in the form of trucks barreling up and down the I-95 corridor, travelers shuttling between Washington, D.C., and Boston, and commercial fleets that treat the tunnel as a cost of doing business. Maryland collects millions from these pass-throughs. Waiving tolls for city residents wouldn’t break the bank — it would simply rebalance the scales. This is the least we can do for our own people: those who live here, work here and bear the brunt of a transit system that has failed to connect them.

The benefits of this change would ripple through the city’s traffic grid. Making the Fort McHenry Tunnel toll-free for Baltimore residents could dramatically ease congestion along downtown corridors like Pratt Street, Lombard Street and Boston Street, where drivers often detour to avoid tolls. Right now, crossing the harbor toll-free means weaving through city streets, clogging arteries meant for local traffic and commerce. Remove that barrier, and you remove the incentive to cut through downtown. Commuters could bypass the bottlenecks, freeing up space for pedestrians, cyclists and local businesses. It’s a simple fix with an outsized impact.

Despite the necessity of this change, we must acknowledge that it is a band-aid nonetheless. Toll relief is a stopgap and a gesture toward fairness, not a substitute for transformation. What Baltimore truly needs is fixed, reliable rail running east to west. The Red Line is a structural correction decades overdue. We acknowledge Gov. Wes Moore’s effort to finally get it done. Let’s build the spine this city deserves and make Baltimore one step closer to a modern metropolis.

Baltimore Sun editorial writers offer opinions and analysis on news and issues relevant to readers. They operate separately from the newsroom.

Sadly, Brown’s guidance reads more like a political audition than a policy imperative. Maryland law enforcement agencies are already well-versed in the boundaries of their authority. This guidance doesn’t clarify anything. By inserting himself into a national immigration debate under the guise of state leadership, Brown risks turning Maryland into a battleground for federal retaliation. The Trump administration has shown no hesitation in spotlighting states it deems uncooperative, and this headline-generating move all but invites that scrutiny.

“When working with federal agents, Maryland officers remain bound by Maryland law and standards in nearly all circumstances,” reads the Oct. 15 guidance. That’s not objectionable, but who would have figured otherwise?

That the necessity of the issuance of this highly publicized memo is so questionable raises concerns about how much it was motivated by an interest in offering clarity to state and local law enforcement as opposed to jumping into the fray of a tendentious national issue and boosting the Office of the Attorney General’s profile. If it’s the latter, it means vulnerable Marylanders are becoming rhetorical props in a political performance. It’s a cynical play, and one that risks real consequences for those caught in the crossfire.

Just this month, we’ve seen California representatives make this same mistake on the immigration issue, when Democratic Reps. Nancy Pelosi and Kevin Mullin issued a bold statement in response to federal immigration enforcement that made the questionable claim that “state and local authorities may arrest federal agents if they break California law.” No one really expects California cops to put Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in cuffs, but if the intention of the statement was to gain attention and pick a fight with the Trump administration, it was a great success. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche fired back with a warning that the Justice Department will “investigate and prosecute any state or local official” who conspires to interfere with federal law enforcement. The representatives’ fiery statement likely had no effect on federal law enforcement activity in California, only serving to further fracture the relationship between the Trump administration and state officials.

We’re not arguing that Maryland officials should bend the knee whenever state policy conflicts with that of the federal government. But when officials like Attorney General Brown take shots at the administration that do little to serve Marylanders’ interests, it’s hard to justify the logic behind poking the bear.

If the true goal were safeguarding Marylanders, Attorney General Brown’s guidance would have been quietly distributed through internal channels like briefings, private memos and direct consultations with law enforcement leadership. Instead, it arrived with a press release and carefully crafted media positioning. Safety doesn’t require spectacle, but spectacle is exactly what you get when the spotlight matters more than the substance.

Worse yet, Brown’s memo risks chilling legitimate cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities. Carroll County State’s Attorney Haven Shoemaker rightly pointed out that there are real, lawful scenarios where coordination with ICE is necessary, particularly when dealing with serious criminal offenders who pose a threat to public safety. Blanket discouragement sends the wrong message. But that message is much more politically advantageous for our attorney general.

Baltimore Sun editorial writers offer opinions and analysis on news and issues relevant to readers. They operate separately from the newsroom.