DC police chief says Trump administration move is a 'dangerous' threat to law and order
wbal.com -- Friday, August 15, 2025, 11:28:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: State Politics & Governors, Immigration Policy & Border Issues, Social Media & Public Statements
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The nation's capital sued to block President Donald Trump's takeover of its police department in court on Friday, hours after his administration escalated its intervention into the city's law enforcement by naming a federal official as the new emergency head of the department.
Washington's police department chief said that a Trump administration order installing a federal official as its head would upend command structure and be a "dangerous" threat to law and order. Police Chief Pamela Smith's statement came in a court filing as the city seeks to block the federal takeover of its police department in court.
Washington's top legal official sought an emergency restraining order in federal court blocking a Trump administration move to put a federal official in charge of its police. District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb argues the police takeover is illegal and threatens to "wreak operational havoc."
The lawsuit comes after U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said Thursday night that Drug Enforcement Administration boss Terry Cole will assume the police chief's duties and approval authority for any orders issued to officers. It was unclear where the move left the city's current police chief, Smith, who works for the mayor.
Schwalb argues the new order goes beyond Trump's authority and implementing it would "sow chaos" in the Metropolitan Police Department. "The administration's unlawful actions are an affront to the dignity and autonomy of the 700,000 Americans who call D.C. home. This is the gravest threat to Home Rule that the District has ever faced, and we are fighting to stop it," Schwalb said.
The Justice Department declined to comment on the district's lawsuit, and a White House spokesperson did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment Friday morning.
The police takeover is the latest move by Trump to test the limits of his legal authorities to carry out his agenda, relying on obscure statutes and a supposed state of emergency to bolster his tough-on-crime message and his plans to speed up the mass deportation of people in the United States illegally.
It also marks one of the most sweeping assertions of federal authority over a local government in modern times. While Washington has grappled with spikes in violence and visible homelessness, the city's homicide rate ranks below those of several other major U.S. cities, and the capital is not in the throes of the public safety collapse the Trump administration has portrayed.
Schwalb had said late Thursday that Bondi's directive was "unlawful," arguing it could not be followed by the city's police force. He wrote in a memo to Smith that "members of MPD must continue to follow your orders and not the orders of any official not appointed by the Mayor," setting up the legal clash between the heavily Democratic district and the Republican administration.
The district's attorney general is an elected position and the city's top legal officer. It's separate from federal U.S. attorney appointed by the president to serve in Washington, a role now filled by former Fox News Channel host and judge Jeanine Pirro. Trump also appointed Bondi as U.S. attorney general, the nation's top law enforcement official.
Bondi's directive came even after Smith had told MPD officers hours earlier to share information with immigration agencies regarding people not in custody, such as someone involved in a traffic stop or checkpoint. The Justice Department said Bondi disagreed with the police chief's directive because it allowed for continued enforcement of "sanctuary policies," which generally limit cooperation by local law enforcement with federal immigration officers.
Bondi said she was rescinding that order as well as other MPD policies limiting inquires into immigration status and preventing arrests based solely on federal immigration warrants. All new directives must now receive approval from Cole, the attorney general said.
Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser pushed back Thursday, writing on social media that "there is no statute that conveys the District's personnel authority to a federal official."
The president has more power over the nation's capital than other cities, but D.C. has elected its own mayor and city council since the Home Rule Act was signed in 1973.
Trump is the first president to exert control over the city's police force since it was passed. The law limits that control to 30 days without congressional approval, though Trump has suggested he'd seek to extend it. Schwalb argues the president's role is narrow under the law, limited to requiring the mayor to provide police services for federal purposes.
A population already tense from days of ramp-up has begun seeing more significant shows of force across the city. National Guard troops watched over some of the world's most renowned landmarks and Humvees took position in front of the busy main train station. Volunteers helped homeless people leave long-standing encampments -- to where was often unclear.
Department of Homeland Security police stood outside Nationals Park during a game Thursday between the Washington Nationals and the Philadelphia Phillies. DEA agents patrolled The Wharf, a popular nightlife area, while Secret Service officers were seen in the Foggy Bottom neighborhood.
Bowser, walking a tightrope between the Republican White House and the constituency of her largely Democratic city, was out of town Thursday for a family commitment in Martha's Vineyard but would be back Friday, her office said.
The uptick in visibility of federal forces around the city, including in many high-traffic areas, has been striking to residents going about their lives. Trump has the power to take over federal law enforcement for 30 days before his actions must be reviewed by Congress, though he has said he'll re-evaluate as that deadline approaches.
Officers set up a checkpoint in one of D.C.'s popular nightlife areas, drawing protests. Troops were stationed outside the Union Station transportation hub as the 800 Guard members who have been activated by Trump started in on missions that include monument security, community safety patrols and beautification efforts, the Pentagon said.
Troops will assist law enforcement in a variety of roles, including traffic control posts and crowd control, National Guard Major Micah Maxwell said. The Guard members have been trained in de-escalation tactics and crowd control equipment, Maxwell said.
National Guard troops are a semi-regular presence in D.C., typically being used during mass public events like the annual July 4 celebration. They have regularly been used in the past for crowd control in and around Metro stations.
Sign Our PetitionThe recent legal confrontation between Washington D.C. and the Trump administration over the federal takeover of the Metropolitan Police Department underscores the complex tensions between local governance and federal authority—a conflict steeped in historical precedence and contemporary social justice struggles. At the heart of this dispute is the notion of Home Rule, the principle that local governments should have the autonomy to govern themselves without interference from higher levels of government. D.C.'s lawsuit, initiated by Attorney General Brian Schwalb, frames the administration's actions as not merely an overreach but as an existential threat to the rights and dignity of the 700,000 residents of the nation’s capital.
Historically, the District of Columbia has been a unique entity, often caught in the crossfire of national politics. The city's lack of voting representation in Congress has long been a point of contention, highlighting systemic inequalities within the U.S. political framework. The imposition of federal oversight over local law enforcement echoes past instances where marginalized communities have faced external control, often leading to the erosion of civil liberties and community trust in law enforcement. By asserting federal authority in such a manner, the Trump administration not only disregards D.C.'s Home Rule but also perpetuates a pattern of governance that prioritizes power over people, particularly in communities that already face systemic oppression.
Moreover, the broader implications of this takeover extend into the realm of civil rights and social justice. The assertion of federal control over the police department is not just an administrative maneuver; it represents a tough-on-crime rhetoric that has historically resulted in increased militarization of police forces, disproportionately impacting communities of color. This directive paves the way for potential abuses of power and further alienation of already vulnerable populations. The increased presence of federal agents in local law enforcement—coupled with the Trump administration’s focus on mass deportation and anti-immigrant sentiment—paints a troubling picture of a government willing to sacrifice community safety and trust for perceived political gains.
The Trump administration's actions are also reminiscent of historical moments where federal authority has been wielded against local governance—most notably during the Civil Rights Movement when federal forces were deployed to enforce desegregation. In the case of D.C., the invocation of a state of emergency to justify federal intervention is particularly ironic, considering that the city is not experiencing the kind of public safety crisis that the administration has portrayed. According to crime statistics, D.C.'s homicide rate is lower than that of several major cities, challenging the narrative that the capital is in the throes of chaos. This discrepancy reveals a deliberate distortion of reality, one that seeks to instill fear and justify an authoritarian grip on control, rather than addressing the systemic issues that fuel urban crime, such as poverty and lack of access to mental health resources.
The response from D.C.’s local officials emphasizes the importance of maintaining local accountability and command structures within law enforcement. Chief Pamela Smith's insistence that the Metropolitan Police Department must operate under the authority of locally elected officials is a critical reminder that democracy should be rooted in the communities it serves. Schwalb’s legal battle against the federal directive is not just a fight for D.C.’s Home Rule; it is emblematic of a larger struggle for local control and accountability in policing practices across the nation. As communities increasingly demand reform and accountability from law enforcement, it is crucial to recognize the role that local governance plays in shaping policing policies that respect the rights and dignity of all community members.
Ultimately, the clash between Washington D.C. and the Trump administration is a microcosm of the ongoing debates about federalism, local governance, and civil rights in America. It serves as a reminder of the importance of resisting authoritarian overreach and advocating for the empowerment of local communities. As we navigate these complex issues, it is essential to engage in informed discussions about the implications of federal interventions in local matters and to draw connections between historical injustices and contemporary struggles for equity and justice. In doing so, we can better equip ourselves to challenge narratives that seek to undermine local autonomy and civil rights in pursuit of political power.
The recent intervention by the Trump administration into the District of Columbia’s police department represents a significant and alarming escalation in the federal government's authority over local law enforcement. This action, taken amid a backdrop of rising tensions over policing and crime in urban areas, has profound implications for the autonomy of local governments and the principle of Home Rule. Not only does this move signal a blatant disregard for the democratic process, but it also poses a dangerous precedent for the relationship between federal and local jurisdictions. The legal battle initiated by the District of Columbia serves as a vital flashpoint in our ongoing struggle for civil liberties and local governance.
Historically, the District of Columbia has been unique in its political status, lacking true Home Rule that allows residents to govern their own affairs fully. Despite being the nation’s capital, Washington, D.C. has a population that exceeds many states yet does not have voting representation in Congress. This longstanding disenfranchisement has fueled a sense of injustice among residents, making the Trump administration's actions particularly egregious. By attempting to impose federal control over local law enforcement, the administration not only undermines the authority of the D.C. mayor and police chief but also insults the dignity of the 700,000 residents who deserve the right to self-govern. This conflict is not merely about law enforcement; it encapsulates broader issues of democracy, representation, and civil rights.
What makes this situation even more pressing is the context in which it is occurring. The Trump administration has repeatedly invoked a tough-on-crime narrative, often exaggerated, to justify heavy-handed measures. In this instance, the federal takeover of the police department is couched in the language of public safety, despite evidence suggesting that D.C.’s crime rates do not warrant such drastic measures. This manipulation of facts serves a dual purpose: it stokes fear among the public while simultaneously providing a pretext for increasing federal control—a dangerous combination that should alarm all who value democratic governance. The administration’s actions reflect a deeper trend of eroding trust in local institutions, which can lead to a cycle of fear and authoritarianism.
As citizens, we have a critical role to play in responding to these challenges. It is essential to mobilize and advocate for the principles of Home Rule and local governance. Engaging with community organizations and local leaders to raise awareness about the implications of federal overreach is crucial. Organizing town halls, writing to elected representatives, and participating in peaceful protests can amplify the message that residents of D.C. deserve the same rights and representation as all Americans. Additionally, supporting legislation that protects local governance and strengthens the voice of residents in D.C. can help counteract these federal encroachments.
Educationally, this situation provides a rich opportunity for discourse on the balance of power in our political system. Engaging in discussions that dissect the implications of federalism, the rights of states and local governments, and the historical context of the D.C. Home Rule can empower citizens to better understand their rights and responsibilities. By fostering an informed electorate, we can cultivate a society that values democracy and resists attempts to undermine it. This moment is not just about D.C.; it is a critical point of reflection for all Americans about the future of our democracy, our rights, and the very structure of our governance. Engaging thoughtfully and actively in these discussions can help galvanize support for safeguarding democratic principles in the face of federal overreach.
In response to the article discussing the Trump administration's federal takeover of the Washington, D.C. police department, there are several actionable steps that individuals can take to oppose this move and support local governance and autonomy. Here’s a detailed list of ideas and specific actions:
### 1. **Educate Yourself and Others** - **Action**: Read up on the implications of federal intervention in local law enforcement, the concept of Home Rule, and the history of D.C.'s governance. - **Example**: Share articles and resources on social media, in community groups, and through local forums to raise awareness about the issue.
### 2. **Support the Local Legal Action** - **Action**: Contribute to or support the lawsuit filed by D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb. - **Example**: Consider donating to organizations that focus on civil rights and local governance, such as the ACLU or local civic groups fighting for D.C. residents’ rights.
### 3. **Petitions** - **Action**: Start or sign petitions demanding that the federal government respect D.C.’s autonomy and Home Rule. - **Example Petition**: Use platforms like Change.org to create a petition calling for the federal government to withdraw its intervention in D.C.'s police department. - **What to Say**: "We urge the federal government to respect the autonomy of Washington, D.C., and to cease any actions that undermine local governance and community trust in law enforcement."
### 4. **Contact Local and Federal Representatives** - **Action**: Write to your local representatives and federal officials expressing your concerns about the federal takeover. - **Who to Contact**: - **D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton**: - Email: [norton.house.gov/contact](https://norton.house.gov/contact) - USPS Address: 2136 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515 - **Senator Chris Van Hollen**: - Email: [vanhollen.senate.gov/contact](https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/contact) - USPS Address: 110 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510 - **Senator Ben Cardin**: - Email: [cardin.senate.gov/contact](https://www.cardin.senate.gov/contact) - USPS Address: 509 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510 - **What to Say**: "I am writing to express my strong opposition to the federal takeover of D.C.’s police department. This move undermines local governance and threatens the rights of D.C. residents. I urge you to take a stand for Home Rule and support the ongoing legal efforts to block this action."
### 5. **Participate in Local Activism** - **Action**: Attend local city council meetings, rallies, or demonstrations organized against the federal takeover. - **Example**: Look for events hosted by local advocacy groups or community organizations focused on protecting D.C.'s rights and governance.
### 6. **Utilize Social Media** - **Action**: Use social media platforms to raise awareness and mobilize others. - **Example**: Post updates regarding the lawsuit, share the petition, and encourage others to voice their concerns using hashtags related to D.C. governance and police accountability.
### 7. **Engage with Media** - **Action**: Write opinion pieces or letters to the editor in local newspapers to express your views on the federal intervention. - **Example**: Submit letters to publications like the Washington Post or local community newspapers emphasizing the importance of local control and the dangers of federal overreach.
### 8. **Join or Support Advocacy Organizations** - **Action**: Get involved with organizations that focus on civil rights, police reform, and local governance. - **Examples**: Groups like the Campaign for Youth Justice or the D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute often work on issues related to local governance and community safety.
By taking these actions, individuals can actively participate in opposing the federal takeover of D.C.'s police department and advocate for the rights and autonomy of its residents. Each step contributes to a larger movement for accountability, justice, and local governance.