Trump's aggressive push to take over DC policing may be a template for an approach in other cities
wjcl.com -- Sunday, August 17, 2025, 11:57:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: Presidential Campaigns, Political Protests & Rallies, State Politics & Governors
The left sees President Donald Trump's attempted takeover of Washington law enforcement as part of a multifront march to autocracy -- "vindictive authoritarian rule," as one activist put it -- and as an extraordinary thing to do in rather ordinary times on the streets of the capital. To the right, it's a bold move to fracture the crust of Democratic urban bureaucracy and make D.C. a better place to live.Where that debate settles -- if it ever does -- may determine whether Washington, a symbol for America in all its granite glory, history, achievement, inequality and dysfunction, becomes a model under the imprint of Trump for how cities are policed, cleaned up and run, or ruined.Video above: Trump calls DC statehood 'ridiculous' and 'unacceptable'Under the name of his Making D.C. Safe and Beautiful Task Force, Trump put some 800 National Guard troops on Washington streets this past week, declaring at the outset, "Our capital city has been overtaken by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals." Grunge was also on his mind. "If our capital is dirty, our whole country is dirty, and they don't respect us."He then upped the stakes by declaring federal control of the district's police department and naming an emergency chief. That set off alarms and prompted local officials to sue to stop the effort. "I have never seen a single government action that would cause a greater threat to law and order than this dangerous directive," Police Chief Pamela Smith said.On Friday, the Trump administration partially retreated from its effort to seize control of the Metropolitan Police Department when a judge, skeptical that the president had the authority to do what he tried to do, urged both sides to reach a compromise, which they did -- at least for now.Trump's Justice Department agreed to leave Smith in control, while still intending to instruct her department on law enforcement practices. In a new memo, Attorney General Pam Bondi directed the force to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement regardless of any city law.In this heavily Democratic city, local officials and many citizens did not like the National Guard deployment. At the same time, they acknowledged the Republican president had the right to order it because of the federal government's unique powers in the district.But Trump's attempt to seize formal control of the police department, for the first time since D.C. gained a partial measure of autonomy in the Home Rule Act of 1973, was their red line.For sure, there have been times when the U.S. military has been deployed to American streets, but almost always in the face of a riot or a calamitous event like the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Trump's use of force was born of an emergency that he saw and city officials -- and many others -- did not. A stranger to nuance, Trump has used the language of emergency to justify much of what he's done: his deportations of foreigners, his tariffs, his short-term deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles, and now his aggressive intervention into Washington policing.Video below: A federal judge ruled on Friday that DC's police chief can maintain control of Metropolitan Police DepartmentWashington does have crime and endemic homelessness, like every city in the country. But there was nothing like an urban fire that the masses thought needed to be quelled. Violent crime is down, as it is in many U.S. cities. Washington is also a city about which most Americans feel ownership -- or at least that they have a stake. More than 25 million of them visited in 2024, a record year, plus over 2 million people from abroad. It's where middle schoolers on field trips get to see what they learn about in class -- and perhaps to dance to pop tunes with the man with the music player so often in front of the White House.Washington is part federal theme park, with its historic buildings and museums, and part downtown, where restaurants and lobbyists outnumber any corporate presence. Neighborhoods range from the places where Jeff Bezos set a record for a home purchase price to destitute streets in economically depressed areas that are also magnets for drugs and crime.In 1968, the capital was a city on fire with riots. Twenty years later, a murder spree and crack epidemic fed the sense of a place out of control. But over the last 30 years, the city's population and its collective wealth have swelled.Against that backdrop, Philadelphia's top prosecutor, District Attorney Larry Krasner, a Democrat, assailed Trump's moves in Washington."You're talking about an emergency, really?" Krasner said, as if speaking with the president. "Or is it that you're talking about an emergency because you want to pretend everything is an emergency so that you can roll tanks?"In Washington, a coalition of activists called Not Above the Law denounced what they saw as just the latest step by Trump to seize levers of power he has no business grasping. "The onslaught of lawlessness and autocratic activities has escalated," said Lisa Gilbert, co-chair of the group and co-president of Public Citizen. "The last two weeks should have crystallized for all Americans that Donald Trump will not stop until democracy is replaced by vindictive authoritarian rule."Fifty miles northeast, in the nearest major city, Baltimore's Democratic mayor criticized what he saw as Trump's effort to distract the public from economic pain and "America's falling standing in the world.""Every mayor and police chief in America works with our local federal agents to do great work -- to go after gun traffickers, to go after violent organizations," Brandon Scott said. "How is taking them off of that job, sending them out to just patrol the street, making our country safer?"But the leader of the D.C. Police Union, Gregg Pemberton, endorsed Trump's intervention -- while saying it should not become permanent."We stand with the president in recognizing that Washington, D.C., cannot continue on this trajectory," Pemberton said. From his vantage point, "Crime is out of control, and our officers are stretched beyond their limits."The Home Rule Act lets a president invoke certain emergency powers over the police department for 30 days, after which Congress must decide whether to extend the period. Trump's attempt to use that provision stirred interest among some Republicans in Congress in giving him an even freer hand.Among them, Rep. Andy Ogles of Tennessee drafted a resolution that would eliminate the time limit on federal control. This, he told Fox News Digital, would "give the president all the time and authority he needs to crush lawlessness, restore order, and reclaim our capital once and for all."Which raises a question that Trump has robustly hinted at and others are wondering, too: If there is success in the district -- at least, success in the president's eyes -- what might that mean for other American cities he thinks need to be fixed? Where does -- where could -- the federal government go next?Associated Press writer Marc Levy in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, contributed to this report.
The left sees President Donald Trump's attempted takeover of Washington law enforcement as part of a multifront march to autocracy -- "vindictive authoritarian rule," as one activist put it -- and as an extraordinary thing to do in rather ordinary times on the streets of the capital. To the right, it's a bold move to fracture the crust of Democratic urban bureaucracy and make D.C. a better place to live.
Where that debate settles -- if it ever does -- may determine whether Washington, a symbol for America in all its granite glory, history, achievement, inequality and dysfunction, becomes a model under the imprint of Trump for how cities are policed, cleaned up and run, or ruined.
Video above: Trump calls DC statehood 'ridiculous' and 'unacceptable'
Under the name of his Making D.C. Safe and Beautiful Task Force, Trump put some 800 National Guard troops on Washington streets this past week, declaring at the outset, "Our capital city has been overtaken by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals."
Grunge was also on his mind. "If our capital is dirty, our whole country is dirty, and they don't respect us."
He then upped the stakes by declaring federal control of the district's police department and naming an emergency chief. That set off alarms and prompted local officials to sue to stop the effort. "I have never seen a single government action that would cause a greater threat to law and order than this dangerous directive," Police Chief Pamela Smith said.
On Friday, the Trump administration partially retreated from its effort to seize control of the Metropolitan Police Department when a judge, skeptical that the president had the authority to do what he tried to do, urged both sides to reach a compromise, which they did -- at least for now.
Trump's Justice Department agreed to leave Smith in control, while still intending to instruct her department on law enforcement practices. In a new memo, Attorney General Pam Bondi directed the force to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement regardless of any city law.
In this heavily Democratic city, local officials and many citizens did not like the National Guard deployment. At the same time, they acknowledged the Republican president had the right to order it because of the federal government's unique powers in the district.
But Trump's attempt to seize formal control of the police department, for the first time since D.C. gained a partial measure of autonomy in the Home Rule Act of 1973, was their red line.
For sure, there have been times when the U.S. military has been deployed to American streets, but almost always in the face of a riot or a calamitous event like the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Trump's use of force was born of an emergency that he saw and city officials -- and many others -- did not.
A stranger to nuance, Trump has used the language of emergency to justify much of what he's done: his deportations of foreigners, his tariffs, his short-term deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles, and now his aggressive intervention into Washington policing.
Video below: A federal judge ruled on Friday that DC's police chief can maintain control of Metropolitan Police Department
Washington does have crime and endemic homelessness, like every city in the country. But there was nothing like an urban fire that the masses thought needed to be quelled. Violent crime is down, as it is in many U.S. cities.
Washington is also a city about which most Americans feel ownership -- or at least that they have a stake. More than 25 million of them visited in 2024, a record year, plus over 2 million people from abroad. It's where middle schoolers on field trips get to see what they learn about in class -- and perhaps to dance to pop tunes with the man with the music player so often in front of the White House.
Washington is part federal theme park, with its historic buildings and museums, and part downtown, where restaurants and lobbyists outnumber any corporate presence. Neighborhoods range from the places where Jeff Bezos set a record for a home purchase price to destitute streets in economically depressed areas that are also magnets for drugs and crime.
In 1968, the capital was a city on fire with riots. Twenty years later, a murder spree and crack epidemic fed the sense of a place out of control. But over the last 30 years, the city's population and its collective wealth have swelled.
Against that backdrop, Philadelphia's top prosecutor, District Attorney Larry Krasner, a Democrat, assailed Trump's moves in Washington.
"You're talking about an emergency, really?" Krasner said, as if speaking with the president. "Or is it that you're talking about an emergency because you want to pretend everything is an emergency so that you can roll tanks?"
In Washington, a coalition of activists called Not Above the Law denounced what they saw as just the latest step by Trump to seize levers of power he has no business grasping.
"The onslaught of lawlessness and autocratic activities has escalated," said Lisa Gilbert, co-chair of the group and co-president of Public Citizen. "The last two weeks should have crystallized for all Americans that Donald Trump will not stop until democracy is replaced by vindictive authoritarian rule."
Fifty miles northeast, in the nearest major city, Baltimore's Democratic mayor criticized what he saw as Trump's effort to distract the public from economic pain and "America's falling standing in the world."
"Every mayor and police chief in America works with our local federal agents to do great work -- to go after gun traffickers, to go after violent organizations," Brandon Scott said. "How is taking them off of that job, sending them out to just patrol the street, making our country safer?"
But the leader of the D.C. Police Union, Gregg Pemberton, endorsed Trump's intervention -- while saying it should not become permanent.
"We stand with the president in recognizing that Washington, D.C., cannot continue on this trajectory," Pemberton said. From his vantage point, "Crime is out of control, and our officers are stretched beyond their limits."
The Home Rule Act lets a president invoke certain emergency powers over the police department for 30 days, after which Congress must decide whether to extend the period. Trump's attempt to use that provision stirred interest among some Republicans in Congress in giving him an even freer hand.
Among them, Rep. Andy Ogles of Tennessee drafted a resolution that would eliminate the time limit on federal control. This, he told Fox News Digital, would "give the president all the time and authority he needs to crush lawlessness, restore order, and reclaim our capital once and for all."
Which raises a question that Trump has robustly hinted at and others are wondering, too: If there is success in the district -- at least, success in the president's eyes -- what might that mean for other American cities he thinks need to be fixed? Where does -- where could -- the federal government go next?
Associated Press writer Marc Levy in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, contributed to this report.
Sign Our PetitionThe recent developments surrounding former President Trump's aggressive maneuver to exert control over Washington, D.C.'s policing raise critical questions about the nature of authority, governance, and civic rights in the United States. This push to take over local law enforcement under the guise of a "Making D.C. Safe and Beautiful Task Force" not only reflects a troubling trend towards authoritarianism but also serves as a stark reminder of the historical struggles against federal overreach and the erosion of local democracy. By deploying National Guard troops to the streets of the capital, Trump’s administration invoked a narrative of crisis that many locals and observers saw as exaggerated, undermining the essential principles of local governance and community safety.
Historically, the District of Columbia has been a unique example of the complexities of federalism in America. The Home Rule Act of 1973 was a significant milestone that granted D.C. a measure of autonomy, allowing its citizens to elect a mayor and council. However, Trump’s actions signal a regression to a time when the federal government exercised unchallenged authority over the district, a time that many residents believed had been left behind. The imposition of federal control not only disregards the local electorate’s choices but also raises alarm bells about the potential for this approach to be replicated in other cities across the nation, particularly those with Democratic leadership. This situation exemplifies a broader strategy that seeks to undermine local governance, especially in urban areas, where such authority is often viewed with suspicion by conservative factions.
The implications of Trump's directive extend beyond the immediate control of police operations; they tap into a deeper narrative about the relationship between federal power and civil liberties. Local leaders, like D.C. Police Chief Pamela Smith, expressed their concerns that Trump's actions posed a significant threat to community safety and order. This sentiment is echoed historically in the civil rights struggles that have sought to dismantle oppressive systems of governance. The deployment of federal forces in urban areas has often been met with resistance from local communities, as it raises questions about accountability, trust, and the role of law enforcement in society. The historical context of militarized policing in the U.S. underscores the dangers of allowing such measures to become normalized, particularly in the absence of a genuine crisis.
Moreover, the language used by Trump—framing D.C. as being “overtaken by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals”—is not only alarmist but also reminiscent of past political rhetoric that has stoked fear and division. This framing serves to justify authoritarian measures under the pretense of public safety while sidelining critical discussions about systemic issues such as poverty, inequality, and the historical impacts of racist policing practices. By focusing on a narrative of chaos, the administration effectively distracts from the underlying social injustices that contribute to crime and violence, thereby perpetuating a cycle of oppression rather than fostering solutions rooted in community engagement and social equity.
The partial retreat by Trump's administration, in which they allowed local officials to maintain some control while still attempting to influence policing practices, suggests a precarious balance between federal and local interests. However, the Justice Department's insistence on directing local law enforcement to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, irrespective of local laws, indicates a willingness to override local decision-making in favor of a broader agenda that prioritizes federal control over civil rights. This dynamic poses an ongoing challenge for advocates of social justice who recognize that effective policing should be rooted in community needs rather than federal mandates.
In conclusion, the struggle over policing in Washington, D.C. is emblematic of the broader battle for democratic governance in contemporary America. As cities grapple with the implications of federal overreach, it is crucial to engage in discussions about the importance of local autonomy, the dangers of militarization, and the need for systemic reform in policing. These issues are not merely confined to the political arena; they resonate deeply with ongoing social movements advocating for justice, equity, and accountability. As citizens confront the potential for authoritarianism in their own communities, it becomes imperative to draw on historical lessons and advocate for a participatory democracy that prioritizes the voices of marginalized communities in shaping their own safety and governance.
The recent actions taken by former President Donald Trump in Washington, D.C. have raised significant alarm among those who value democracy, local governance, and civil liberties. Trump's attempt to exert federal control over the policing of the nation’s capital through the establishment of the "Making D.C. Safe and Beautiful Task Force" is not just an extraordinary move in ordinary times; it’s a stark reminder of the potential for autocratic governance to seep into American political life. The deployment of National Guard troops and the assertion of federal authority over local law enforcement encapsulate a broader trend that seeks to undermine local autonomy and democratic processes. As we reflect on this alarming scenario, it’s imperative to understand the historical context of such maneuvers and the implications they hold for the future of governance in America.
Historically, the struggle for home rule in D.C. has been a long and contentious journey. The Home Rule Act of 1973 granted limited self-governance to the district, allowing local officials to manage many aspects of governance independently from federal oversight. Trump's move to take control of the Metropolitan Police Department not only represents a blatant disregard for this hard-won autonomy but also threatens to set a dangerous precedent. The very concept of home rule is rooted in the belief that communities should have the agency to govern themselves, reflecting their unique needs and values. By undermining this principle, Trump’s actions could pave the way for similar interventions in other cities across the nation, transforming local law enforcement into a tool of federal power rather than a reflection of community standards and priorities.
In response to these developments, it is crucial for Americans to mobilize around the principles of local governance and resist any encroachments on democratic norms. One effective action is to foster community engagement and awareness around the importance of local control. By organizing forums, town halls, and discussions that highlight the significance of local policing and governance, citizens can ensure that their voices are heard and that local officials remain accountable to their constituents. Engaging with community leaders to advocate for policies that strengthen local autonomy, as well as supporting initiatives that promote community-led safety measures, can create a ripple effect that reinforces the power of local governance over federal overreach.
Moreover, citizens must actively participate in the democratic process by voting for representatives who prioritize local control and accountability. The upcoming elections provide an opportunity to elect candidates who are committed to protecting home rule and resisting authoritarian tendencies. This includes not only local races but also state and federal elections, where representatives have the power to influence legislation affecting governance structures. By mobilizing voters around these critical issues, we can solidify a defense against any future attempts to centralize power and erode democratic institutions.
Education plays a vital role in equipping citizens with the knowledge necessary to challenge authoritarian narratives. By fostering discussions around the historical context of home rule, the implications of federal overreach, and the importance of community engagement, we can create a more informed electorate. Resources such as workshops, online courses, and public discussions can empower individuals to critically analyze the political landscape and recognize the signs of authoritarianism. Furthermore, educating young people about civic responsibility and the importance of maintaining democratic norms can cultivate a generation that prioritizes local agency and resists undemocratic impulses.
In conclusion, the recent actions taken by Trump in Washington, D.C. serve as a critical reminder of the fragility of democracy and the importance of local governance. By understanding the historical context, mobilizing communities, participating in the electoral process, and emphasizing education, we can take meaningful action to protect our democratic institutions. It is not merely a matter of preserving home rule—it is about safeguarding the very fabric of our democracy against the encroachment of authoritarianism. Let us engage, educate, and empower one another to ensure that the values of democracy and local autonomy prevail in the face of adversity.
In light of the recent developments surrounding Trump's aggressive approach to policing in Washington, D.C., it is essential for concerned citizens to take action to protect local governance, civil liberties, and community safety. Here’s a detailed list of ideas and steps we can take personally to respond to these actions:
### What Can We Personally Do About This?
1. **Stay Informed**: Knowledge is power. Regularly read news articles, attend community meetings, and follow local organizations that advocate for civil rights and community safety.
2. **Engage with Local Leaders**: Reach out to your local representatives to express your concerns about federal overreach and the implications of such actions on community policing.
3. **Support Local Activism**: Join local activist groups that are fighting against authoritarian practices and advocating for police reform and community safety.
4. **Use Social Media**: Amplify the voices of those opposing these actions by sharing articles, creating awareness campaigns, and participating in online discussions.
### Exact Actions We Can Take
1. **Sign Petitions**: - **Petition to Protect Local Policing**: Find and sign petitions that call for an end to federal overreach in local law enforcement. Websites like Change.org or MoveOn.org often have relevant petitions. - **Example Petition**: “No Federal Control of D.C. Police” on Change.org.
2. **Contact Elected Officials**: - **Write to Your Representatives**: Express your concerns about federal control of policing. Here are some examples of whom to contact: - **Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC)** Email: info.norton@mail.house.gov Address: 2136 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515 - **Mayor Muriel Bowser (D-DC)** Email: mayor@dc.gov Address: 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 316, Washington, D.C. 20004
**What to Say**: - Introduce yourself and state that you are a concerned citizen. - Express your opposition to the federal takeover of local policing and the implications for community safety and governance. - Request that they take a strong stance against such overreach and advocate for the rights of D.C. residents.
3. **Participate in Local Meetings**: - Attend city council meetings or community forums where policing is discussed. Engage with local leaders and express your views on community control over policing.
4. **Join or Support Advocacy Organizations**: - **American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)**: Become a member or donate to support their efforts against authoritarian policing measures. - **Local Community Groups**: Engage with organizations like the D.C. Justice Lab or the Black Lives Matter D.C. chapter.
5. **Organize Community Discussions**: - Host or participate in community forums discussing the implications of federal control over local police. Encourage dialogue on how to foster community-led safety initiatives.
6. **Volunteer for Campaigns**: - Volunteer for local candidates or organizations that support community-oriented policing and oppose federal overreach.
### Conclusion
By taking these concrete actions, we can collectively resist the attempts to centralize control over local policing and safeguard our communities from authoritarian practices. It is crucial to remain vigilant, engaged, and proactive in advocating for a democratic and just society that prioritizes the voices and needs of local residents.