On August 19, 2025, a peculiar moment on Fox News captured the attention of viewers across the country, as host Jesse Watters publicly thanked Edward Coristine—a former DOGE employee and ex-Elon Musk operative, known by his nickname "Big Balls"—for being assaulted in Washington, D.C. earlier in the month. The reason for Watters' gratitude? According to him, Coristine's ordeal led directly to President Donald Trump orchestrating a federal takeover of the nation’s capital.
Coristine, described by Fox News as "baby-faced" and a former associate of Elon Musk, was attacked by several teenagers during what police suspect was a carjacking attempt. The incident, while harrowing for Coristine, quickly became the centerpiece of a heated national debate about crime, federal authority, and political optics in the capital city.
Despite the fact that Washington, D.C.'s violent crime rate is reportedly at a 30-year low, the attack on Coristine was seized upon by Trump as evidence that local leadership had failed to keep the city safe. According to Fox News, Trump wasted no time in threatening a federal takeover of the capital. He soon followed through, deploying the National Guard and assuming direct control of the capital’s police force—a move that sent shockwaves through D.C. and beyond.
Fox News host Will Cain, appearing as a guest on Watters' program, admitted he didn't spend much time in D.C. and only had "anecdotal evidence" regarding the city's crime situation. "But," Cain said, "I know people were happy Trump intervened." His claim echoed a growing chorus of conservative voices who have praised Trump’s actions as necessary, even as others accused the former president of using the incident as a smokescreen for unrelated controversies, such as the ongoing discourse surrounding the Jeffrey Epstein files.
Watters, never one to shy away from a provocative soundbite, quipped, "When Big Balls went down, that’s when Trump had to call it. If Big Balls isn’t safe, no one’s safe. And I’m glad he took a beating for the rest of the city, and he’s back up on his feet. So, Big Balls, we love you." The host’s comments, delivered with characteristic bravado, were both wince-inducing and telling of the current media climate, where personal misfortune can be spun into political opportunity in the blink of an eye.
Watters went on to defend Trump’s intervention on another Fox News program, "The Five." There, he addressed criticism from Democrats, who have labeled the federal takeover a "power grab." Rather than shy away from the accusation, Watters embraced it: "Yeah, it is a power grab. Democrats had this power to fight crime, weren’t using it, so Trump grabbed their power and used it to fight crime. Americans like power grabs like that." His comments laid bare the partisan divide over the issue, as well as the willingness of some to prioritize perceived results over process or precedent.
The events in D.C. have reignited an age-old debate about crime, public safety, and federal versus local control. While the capital’s violent crime rate is, by official reports, at its lowest point in three decades, high-profile incidents like the attack on Coristine can quickly upend public perception. Political actors on both sides of the aisle have seized on the episode to advance their own narratives: conservatives have framed Trump’s intervention as a bold and necessary step to restore order, while critics argue that the move is little more than an opportunistic "power grab" designed to distract from other controversies and undermine local governance.
For supporters of Trump’s intervention, the facts seem clear. They point to the swift deployment of the National Guard and the federal assumption of the police force as evidence that action—rather than rhetoric—can make cities safer. Will Cain summed up this perspective, stating that people in D.C. were "happy Trump intervened," even as he acknowledged his own lack of direct experience with the city’s crime issues. This sentiment has been echoed by other conservative commentators, who have praised Trump for "using power to fight crime" where, in their view, local leaders had failed.
On the other hand, critics of the federal takeover argue that it represents a dangerous precedent. By bypassing local authorities and assuming direct control of the city’s law enforcement, they contend, Trump has undermined the principle of local self-governance and concentrated power in the executive branch. The fact that D.C.'s violent crime rate is at a historic low, they argue, makes the intervention not only unnecessary but also suspect—particularly given its timing amid other national controversies. Some have gone so far as to suggest that the move is a deliberate attempt to distract from the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files, a claim that has gained traction among the president’s detractors.
It’s worth noting that the debate over federal intervention in D.C. is not a new one. The unique status of the capital—neither a state nor a typical municipality—has long made it a political football, with questions of control and accountability frequently coming to the fore. But rarely has the issue been so personalized as it was in the aftermath of Coristine’s assault, with national media personalities and politicians alike rallying around the story of "Big Balls" as a symbol of both vulnerability and resilience.
For Edward Coristine himself, the sudden thrust into the national spotlight must be a surreal experience. Once known primarily as an ex-Elon Musk operative, he now finds himself at the center of a heated political controversy, his nickname invoked as a rallying cry by cable news hosts and politicians alike. As Watters put it, "I’m glad he took a beating for the rest of the city, and he’s back up on his feet." The comment, while perhaps intended as a compliment, underscores the extent to which personal tragedy can be co-opted for political ends.
As the dust settles in Washington, D.C., and the National Guard continues its patrols under federal command, the broader questions raised by this episode remain unresolved. Is the federal takeover of the capital a bold step toward public safety, or an alarming overreach of executive power? Are Americans truly as enamored with "power grabs" as some commentators claim, or is there a deeper unease beneath the surface? For now, at least, the story of "Big Balls" and the events that followed serve as a vivid reminder of just how quickly the lines between personal misfortune, political theater, and national policy can blur.
In the end, the saga of Edward Coristine and the federal takeover of Washington, D.C., is a microcosm of the larger battles playing out in American society—over crime, power, and who gets to decide the fate of the nation’s capital.
