Trump administration agrees to keep DC police chief in place, but with immigration enforcement order
wbrz.com -- Saturday, August 16, 2025, 7:49:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: Immigration Policy & Border Issues, Presidential Campaigns, State Politics & Governors
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Trump administration on Friday reversed course and agreed to leave the Washington, D.C., police chief in control of the department, while Attorney General Pam Bondi, in a new memo, directed the District's police to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement regardless of any city law.
The order from Bondi came after officials in the nation's capital sued Friday to block President Donald Trump's takeover of the Washington police. The night before, his administration had escalated its intervention into the city's law enforcement by naming a federal official as the new emergency head of the department, essentially placing the police force under the full control of the federal government.
The attorney general's new order represents a partial retreat for the Trump administration in the face of intense skepticism from a judge over the legality of Bondi's earlier directive. But Bondi also signaled the administration would continue to pressure D.C. leaders to help federal authorities aggressively pursue immigrants in the country illegally, despite city laws on the books that limit cooperation between police and immigration authorities.
In a social media post Friday evening, Bondi criticized D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb, saying he "continues to oppose our efforts to improve public safety." But she added, "We remain committed to working closely with Mayor Bowser."
Mayor Muriel Bowser's office said late Friday that it was still evaluating how it can comply with the new Bondi order on immigration enforcement operations. The police department already eased some restrictions on cooperating with federal officials facilitating Trump's mass-deportation campaign but reaffirmed that it would follow the district's sanctuary city laws.
In a letter sent Friday night to D.C. citizens, Bowser wrote: "It has been an unsettling and unprecedented week in our city. Over the course of a week, the surge in federal law enforcement across D.C. has created waves of anxiety."
She added that "our limited self-government has never faced the type of test we are facing right now," but added that if Washingtonians stick together, "we will show the entire nation what it looks like to fight for American democracy - even when we don't have full access to it."
The legal battle was the latest evidence of the escalating tensions in a mostly Democratic city that now has its police department largely under the control of the Republican president's administration. Trump's takeover is historic, yet it had played out with a slow ramp-up in federal law enforcement officials and National Guard troops to start the week.
As the weekend approached, though, signs across the city -- from the streets to the legal system -- suggested a deepening crisis over who controls the city's immigration and policing policies, the district's right to govern itself and daily life for the millions of people who live and work in the metro area.
The two sides sparred in court for hours Friday before U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, who is overseeing the district's lawsuit. She indicated the law likely doesn't grant the Trump administration power to fully take over city police, but it probably does give the president more power than the city might like.
"The way I read the statute, the president can ask, the mayor must provide, but the president can't control," said Reyes, who was nominated to the bench by Democratic President Joe Biden. The judge pushed the two sides to make a compromise.
An attorney for the Trump administration, Yaakov Roth, said the move to sideline Metropolitan Police Department Chief Pamela Smith came after an immigration order that still held back some aid to federal authorities. He argued that the president has broad authority to determine what kind of help police in Washington must provide.
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.
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.
Bondi's Thursday night directive to place the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, Terry Cole, in charge of the police department 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 instructions because they allowed for continued practice of "sanctuary policies," which generally limit cooperation by local law enforcement with federal immigration officers.
Meanwhile, advocates in Washington were trying to advise immigrants on how to respond. Anusce Sanai, associate legal director for the Washington-based immigrant nonprofit Ayuda, said they're still parsing the legal aspects of the policies.
"Even with the most anti-immigrant administration, we would always tell our clients that they must call the police, that they should call the police," Sanai said. "But now we find ourselves that we have to be very careful on what we advise."
Amy Fischer, an organizer with Migrant Solidarity Mutual Aid, said that before the federal takeover, most of what they had seen in the nation's capital was Immigration and Customs Enforcement targeting specific individuals. But since last Friday night they've seen a "really significant change," she said, with ICE and federal officers doing roving patrols around the city.
She said a hotline set up by immigration advocates to report ICE activity "is receiving calls almost off the hook."
ICE said in a post on X that their teams had arrested "several" people in Washington Friday. A video posted on X showed two uniformed personnel putting handcuffs on someone while standing outside a white transport van.
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.
Friday night along the district's U Street, a popular nightlife corridor, an Associated Press photographer saw officers from the FBI, the DEA, the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Park Police, U.S. Marshals and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
As the District challenged the Trump administration in court Friday, more than 100 protesters gathered less than a block away in front of police headquarters, chanting "Protect home rule!" and waving signs saying "Resist!"
Sign Our PetitionThe recent decision by the Trump administration to maintain the leadership of the Washington, D.C. police chief, albeit with an order mandating cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, serves as a potent reminder of the ongoing battle between local autonomy and federal overreach. This conflict is not merely a legal or administrative issue; it is a manifestation of deeper socio-political struggles that trace back to the founding of this nation and highlight the continuing fight for justice and equity in our communities. The notion of sanctuary cities—places that seek to protect undocumented immigrants from federal enforcement actions—emerges from a historical context in which marginalized populations have often been subject to oppressive governmental actions.
Historically, the tensions between federal and local authority have roots in America’s struggle over civil rights, particularly during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. Back then, local law enforcement agencies often acted in concert with federal authorities to enforce discriminatory policies against African Americans and other marginalized groups. This current episode mirrors that past, as a predominantly Democratic city finds itself under the thumb of a Republican administration seeking to impose its agenda on local governance. The implications of this power dynamic extend beyond the immediate concerns of immigration enforcement and touch upon broader issues of self-governance, civil rights, and the very essence of democracy itself.
D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser’s response to the legal and political turmoil is particularly illuminating. Her acknowledgment of the "unsettling and unprecedented" nature of the situation reflects the anxiety that many residents feel as they grapple with the realities of living in a city where their rights to self-governance are being challenged. Bowser's statement that "our limited self-government has never faced the type of test we are facing right now" underscores the fragility of local authority in the face of federal intervention. This situation raises a crucial question: if a city cannot govern itself, how can it effectively advocate for the rights and safety of all its residents, particularly those who are most vulnerable?
Moreover, the Trump administration's focus on immigration enforcement under the guise of "public safety" reveals the insidious ways in which national narratives can be manipulated to justify actions that undermine community trust and safety. The directive from Attorney General Pam Bondi, which aims to pressure local law enforcement to cooperate with federal deportation efforts, is a clear attempt to leverage fear as a tool for compliance. This echoes a broader historical pattern where marginalized communities, particularly immigrants, have been scapegoated in political rhetoric for electoral gain. Such tactics not only endanger the lives of individuals but also fracture the social fabric of communities that rely on trust between law enforcement and the populations they serve.
The ongoing legal battle over D.C.’s right to dictate its own policing and immigration policies is emblematic of a larger struggle that transcends geographical boundaries. As cities across the United States grapple with similar issues, it is imperative to understand that this is not just a local issue but a national one. The outcomes of these conflicts will have lasting implications for the rights of communities to protect their most vulnerable members. Ultimately, as Bowser suggests, the resilience of Washingtonians during this crisis could serve as a model for other cities facing similar challenges. The fight for local control is, at its core, a fight for democracy and justice, and it is essential that citizens remain vigilant and organized in the face of federal overreach.
In conclusion, the confrontation between the Trump administration and D.C. officials encapsulates the ongoing struggle for civil rights, local autonomy, and equitable governance. It challenges us to examine the historical precedents that inform our current political landscape and to recognize the stakes involved in the battle for justice. As advocates for social change, it is crucial to engage with these issues not only as citizens of our communities but also as part of a broader movement advocating for the rights of all individuals, regardless of immigration status. The lessons drawn from this context can fuel our dialogues with those who may hold different views, emphasizing the importance of local governance in protecting and uplifting vulnerable populations.
The recent developments regarding the Trump administration's intervention in the Washington, D.C. police department reflect not only a contentious political climate but also a broader struggle over governance, civil rights, and the autonomy of local jurisdictions. By attempting to impose federal immigration enforcement on a city that has enacted sanctuary laws, the administration is signaling a disregard for local governance and the will of the people. This situation serves as a critical reminder of the historical tension between federal authority and local autonomy, particularly in urban areas that have sought to create inclusive environments for their residents. The conflict in D.C. is emblematic of a larger narrative about power dynamics in American politics, where local voices are often drowned out by federal overreach.
The struggle for D.C.’s self-governance is not new. Historically, the District has faced unique challenges due to its status as the nation’s capital, often grappling with the balance of power between local leaders and federal authorities. The current situation is reminiscent of past civil rights struggles in which local governments clashed with federal mandates, particularly during the Civil Rights Movement when federal intervention was necessary to enforce desegregation. However, in this instance, we are witnessing a reversal of that historical narrative, where federal forces are using their power to impose their will on a city that has actively chosen to protect its immigrant population. This raises significant questions about the nature of democracy and who truly holds power in a nation that prides itself on self-governance.
As Americans who believe in the principles of justice and equality, it is imperative that we respond to such interventions with a commitment to uphold the rights of local communities. One immediate action we can take is to amplify the voices of local leaders like D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser and Attorney General Brian Schwalb, who are fighting against this federal overreach. Supporting their efforts through community organizing, advocacy campaigns, and public forums can help raise awareness about the implications of federal control over local police forces, particularly in relation to their impact on immigrant communities. By fostering dialogue around the importance of sanctuary cities and the protection of vulnerable populations, we can blunt the effects of the Trump administration's policies and protect those who are most affected.
Additionally, educating ourselves and others about the legal frameworks surrounding immigration enforcement and local governance is essential. Many citizens may not be fully aware of their rights or the implications of federal immigration policies on their communities. By providing resources, workshops, and educational programs that empower individuals to understand their local laws and their rights, we can cultivate a more informed citizenry that is better equipped to resist unjust federal actions. This educational groundwork is crucial for fostering solidarity in the face of adversity and can serve as a foundation for broader movements advocating for justice and equity.
Finally, we must engage in a sustained push for legislation that protects the autonomy of local jurisdictions and upholds the rights of all residents, regardless of immigration status. This can be achieved through lobbying for laws that reinforce sanctuary policies and protect local law enforcement from federal mandates. By voting for representatives who prioritize the rights of communities over partisan agendas, we can help ensure that our political systems reflect the values of inclusivity and respect for local governance. The fight over D.C.’s police department is not just a localized issue; it is a microcosm of the national struggle for civil rights and local autonomy that requires our collective action, advocacy, and unwavering commitment to the principles of democracy.
The recent developments regarding the Trump administration's intervention in the Washington, D.C. police department and its directive to enforce immigration policies raise critical concerns about local governance, civil liberties, and the treatment of immigrant communities. Here’s a detailed list of ideas and actions that individuals can take to respond effectively to this situation:
### Personal Actions
1. **Stay Informed and Educate Others** - Follow reliable news sources to stay updated on local and national developments regarding immigration policies and law enforcement. - Share information with friends, family, and community members to foster discussions about the implications of federal overreach.
2. **Support Local Advocacy Groups** - Identify and support local organizations working to protect immigrant rights and advocate for policies that promote inclusivity and community safety. - Volunteer time or resources to these organizations to strengthen their efforts.
### Specific Actions
1. **Sign Petitions** - Look for petitions that advocate for the protection of immigrant rights in D.C. and oppose federal overreach. Websites like Change.org or Care2 often have petitions on relevant issues. - Example Petition: “Oppose Federal Overreach in D.C. Policing” on Change.org.
2. **Contact Local Officials** - Write to D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser to express your support for sanctuary city policies and urge her to maintain local control over immigration enforcement. - **Email:** mayor@dc.gov - **USPS Address:** Muriel Bowser Mayor of Washington, D.C. John A. Wilson Building 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20004
- Contact D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb to convey your concerns about the federal directive and its impact on public safety and immigrant communities. - **Email:** oag@dc.gov - **USPS Address:** Brian Schwalb Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia 400 6th Street NW Washington, D.C. 20001
3. **Engage with City Council Members** - Write to your local city council members encouraging them to stand against the federal directive and to affirm the city’s commitment to its sanctuary policies. - Use the D.C. Council website to find your representative's contact information.
4. **Participate in Local Demonstrations** - Join peaceful protests or community meetings organized by local advocacy groups to show solidarity with affected communities and oppose federal actions. - Keep an eye on local event listings or social media for information about upcoming gatherings.
5. **Support Legal Challenges** - Contribute to legal defense funds dedicated to challenging unlawful federal immigration enforcement actions. Organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) often have active campaigns. - Example: Support the ACLU’s work by donating or volunteering.
### What to Say
When contacting officials or participating in discussions, consider using the following points:
- **Express Your Support for Local Governance:** Emphasize the importance of D.C. maintaining its self-government and the right to create policies that reflect its values on immigration and public safety. - **Highlight Community Concerns:** Share specific examples of how federal overreach affects public safety, trust in law enforcement, and the well-being of immigrant communities.
- **Call for Action:** Urge officials to resist federal pressure and uphold sanctuary city laws, ensuring that all residents feel safe and protected regardless of their immigration status.
By engaging in these actions and advocating for humane immigration policies, individuals can contribute to a larger movement that seeks to protect the rights of all residents and uphold the values of democracy and justice in their communities.