Pierce County sheriff scoffs at WSP's apology for disrupting Pride flag ceremony
Swank didn't call out the State Patrol for disrupting the Wednesday ceremony. He said the agency should be 'embarrassed' for apologizing in a post that explained why troopers marched through the ceremony and reiterated its mission to protect, defend and respect the rights of all.
'You should be embarrassed by this post,' Swank wrote on his X account. 'Any WSP who wants to work for a real law enforcement organization should come work at the Pierce County Sheriff's Office.'
The post from the State Patrol read: 'The Washington State Patrol offers our heartfelt apologies for disrupting the raising of the Pride Flag on Capitol Campus today. The team leading our cadets to their graduation ceremony did not adequately communicate about the alternate route planned around the crowd.'
The post went on: 'It was never our intention to disrupt an important community event. Our motto is 'Service with Humility,' and our mission is to protect, defend and respect the rights of all. We apologize for our misstep on what should be a great day for us all as we celebrate Pride.'
Swank did not immediately return a phone call and text message Thursday asking if he would explain why the State Patrol should be embarrassed by the post.
Chris Loftis, a spokesperson for the State Patrol, declined to comment on Swank's comment.
The event was sponsored by the state's LGBTQ commission and was attended by Democratic Gov. Bob Ferguson and Department of Natural Resources Commissioner Dave Upthegrove, the Olympian reported. Citing statistics showing a significant number of LGBTQ youth have considered suicide in the past year, Upthegrove — also a Democrat — told the newspaper that giving visibility to the LGBTQ community by raising the Pride flag shows people they can live full, meaningful lives.
At some point during the ceremony, two lines of troopers marched through the event instead of taking an alternate route around the crowd. Videos of the incident on social media caused some to speculate that the troopers had deliberately disrupted the event to intimidate the crowd.
In a written statement, Loftis said there was no intent to offend or distract from the event. He said it was a simple mistake, not any sort of statement.
'We had a miscommunication in our planning, and it led to us inadvertently disrupting another public event being held by citizens we are sworn to serve, protect, and respect,' Loftis wrote.
'We quickly and rightfully apologized to the impacted parties,' he added. 'That was the right things to do as public servants, as a law enforcement agency, and as friends and neighbors.'
Swank has a track record of being provocative on social media. He once posted on X that a transgender legislator from Montana, Democratic Rep. Zooey Zephyr, was a man with mental health issues who should be called by her given male name. He's also posted that men and women who pretend to be the opposite sex are 'appropriating gender.'
Swank retired from the Seattle Police Department in 2023 as a captain after 33 years on the force. But his conduct on social media — denigrating trans people and defending the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol — led former Seattle Police Department Chief Sue Rahr to declare earlier this year that he would have been fired if he had stayed.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

USA Today
4 minutes ago
- USA Today
How DC's unique status let Trump take control of police, deploy National Guard
As Trump sends the National Guard to bolster immigration enforcement, Democratic governors and mayors are fighting his use of the military for law enforcement. WASHINGTON – Although President Donald Trump threatened to extend his takeover of the DC Metropolitan Police Force to fight crime and homelessness to other cities, it can't be replicated elsewhere, according to legal experts. The capital's unique status as a federal city, rather than part of a state, grants the federal government unique power to manage it directly. But the president is unlikely to be able to take control of the entire DC government because that would require a change in federal law, which would be difficult to get through the Senate, experts said. Trump also has special authority to deploy the National Guard in DC, in contrast to governors traditionally overseeing mobilizations in their states. But the military is typically blocked from participating directly in law enforcement, which is why California filed a federal lawsuit against Trump's recent deployment of thousands of troops in Los Angeles. 'DC as a federal enclave is fundamentally different than a state or a local government,' Anthony Michael Kreis, a law professor at Georgia State University, told USA TODAY. Here's what to know about Trump's authority to bolster law enforcement in states and cities − and the limitations on that power: Trump becomes first to take over DC police under 1973 Home Rule Act The Constitution ratified in 1787 provided for a federal capital district to serve as the seat of government controlled by Congress, and DC was founded a few years later. In 1973, Congress approved the Home Rule Act that gave the city a mayor and city council. But Congress kept control over the city's spending and the ability to overturn DC laws, as happened in 2023 when the council tried to reduce penalties for some crimes. A provision in DC law allows the president to take control of the Metropolitan Police Force temporarily during an emergency. 'I think Washington DC is the only city where the president can do that,' Tom Manger, the former chief of Capitol police and departments in the DC suburbs of Montgomery County in Maryland and Fairfax County in Virginia, told USA TODAY. Trump invoked the provision for the first time Aug. 11 aiming to rid the city of what he called was an emergency of 'crime, bloodshed, bedlam and squalor and worse.' He said the city was overrun with "violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals," despite a declining crime rate. Trump had to notify the leaders of congressional committees overseeing DC in order for him to keep control of the police for 30 days. A longer extension would require authorization by lawmakers. Trump told reporters Aug. 13 that he would ask Congress to 'long-term extensions' for him to remain control of the DC police, which he expected to be approved 'pretty much unanimously.' But he said he could call a national emergency if needed. 'We're going to be essentially crime free,' Trump said. 'This is going to be a beacon.' Trump declared the initial emergency despite DC reporting a 35% drop in violent crime from 2023 to 2024, and a 26% drop in crime so far in 2025. Kreis said 'a lot of people would contest' the declaration of an emergency, but the challenge would be difficult to litigate. 'You almost by default have to defer to the president's judgment on this, no matter who the president is,' Kreis said. Taking away DC home rule would require change in federal law Trump is unlikely to be able to take control of the entire DC government because that would require a change in federal law. The legislation could be blocked by filibuster in the Senate, which requires 60 votes to overcome in a chamber with 53 of Trump's fellow Republicans and 47 members of the Democratic caucus. Trump also criticized crime in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Baltimore as 'bad, very bad.' Trump threatened to expand the deployment of the National Guard to help fight crime in other states and cities. He specifically cited New York, Chicago and other cities as targets for more troops. "We're not going to lose our cities over this. This will go further. We're starting very strongly with DC," Trump said. 'This will go further,' Trump said. "We're going to take back our capital," Trump added. "And then we'll look at other cities also. In August 2023, Trump criticized Atlanta's crime in August 2023 as 'WORST IN NATION' and a 'GIANT MURDER WAVE!' despite a decline in the crime rate. But other cities and states aren't part of the federal government, so experts say he could not directly take over their police or local governments.'The federal government does not have the authority to commandeer state and local officials against their will to do their (its) bidding,' Kreis said. 'He just fundamentally cannot do that as a federalism matter.' DC Mayor Muriel Bowser called Trump's takeover of the police force 'unsettling and unprecedented' but didn't challenge it in court. 'It's times like these when America needs to know that DC should be the 51st state,' Bowser said in a social media post Aug. 12. Trump leads DC National Guard as commander in chief Trump didn't need any additional authority Aug. 11 to assign 800 National Guard troops to bolster crime fighting in DC because as commander in chief he oversees the Guard in the federal city. Joseph Nunn, national security counsel at New York University's Brennan Center for Justice, said presidents can deploy the National Guard where they want, but the troops are prevented from helping with law enforcement under a law called the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act. NOT CLEAR TO ME HERE WHAT THIS MEANS WRT THE ASSIGNMENT IN DC? IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE SAYING THEY WON'T BE ALLOWED TO DO LAW ENFORCEMENT, BUT IN DC THEY WILL. DO YOU MEAN HERE TO SAY THAT PRESIDENTS CAN DEPLOY THE DC NATIONAL GUARD OUTSIDE DC? BUT OUTSIDE DC THEY CANNOT DO LAW ENFORCEMENT? CAN YOU CLARIFY HERE? This is why WHAT KIND OF? troops in Los Angeles WERE THEY DC NATL GUARD? SPECIFYwere described as protecting federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and buildings rather than helping arrest undocumented immigrants. 'He can put those troops wherever he wants to put them, but they will be constrained by the Posse Comitatus Act in terms of what they want to do,' Nunn told USA TODAY. THAT LAST PHRASE IS CONFUSING. WHO IS THEY? FIRST THEY WOULD BE THE TROOPS, BUT SECOND IS MAYBE REFERRING TO THE PRESIDENT? BC WHAT THE TROOPS THEMSELVES WANT TO DO SEEMS LIKE A WEIRD CONCEPT... IF HE MEANT PRES CAN YOU REVISE TO CLARIFY? 'Up to now, the sort of logistical support we've seen provided to ICE during in the interior country has largely been provided by federalized National Guard and by active-duty armed forces.' National Guard deployments have been routine Before Trump's latest directives, National Guard deployments were routine in DC and elsewhere for purposes other than law enforcement. For example, after the Capitol attack Jan. 6, 2021, Manger was given the authority to request National Guard reinforcements FROM THE PRESIDENT? OR JUST DIRECTLY FROM THE GUARD ITSELF? on his own as chief of Capitol police, AS OPPOSED TO WHAT SITUATION PREVIOUSLY?. Manger said he appreciated the extra staffing to protect the Capitol or help with traffic during protests, such as when he set up dozens of traffic posts to keep vehicles moving during a trucker protest against public health restrictions by truckers. 'The National Guard is terrific,' Manger said. Local authorities also often coordinate with federal law enforcement such as the FBI to fight organized crime or the Drug Enforcement Administration to combat drug trafficking. 'There's a symbiotic relationship between federal and local police across the country,' Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum think tank, told USA TODAY. 'What happened in Washington is distinctly different from what happened in pretty much any city in the country.' Wexler added that the National Guard has a role to play, but troops are traditionally use 'sparingly.' 'They will never be a replacement for local police,' Wexler said. 'No police chief I know would ever put the National Guard in a position where they're making an arrest or their dealing directly with a volatile crowd. They have to be used strategically.' But Manger was uncertain how Trump would move homeless people out of the capital. 'I'm not aware of any other cities or towns around the country that are clamoring for homeless," Manger said. "Where is he going to put them?" Richard Stengel, a former undersecretary of state during the Obama administration, warned against the use of military to bolster law enforcement at a time when violent crime in DC is at a 30-year low. 'Throughout history, autocrats use a false pretext to impose government control over local law enforcement as a prelude to a more national takeover,' Stengel said in a social media post Aug. 11. 'That's far more dangerous than the situation he says he is fixing.' Trump bolsters immigration enforcement with National Guard The Pentagon announced on July 25 that 1,700 National Guard personnel – 1,200 already deployed plus 500 additional troops – will work on "case management, transportation and logistical support, and clerical support for the in- and out-processing" of ICE arrests. GIVEN THE IMPORTANCE OF DISTINGUISHING IN THIS PIECE WHETHER THEY ARE FROM DC OR A CERTAIN STATE, CAN YOU CLARIFY WHICH LOCALITY THEY ARE FROM HERE? The duties of some will also include taking DNA swabs, photographs and fingerprints of people held at ICE facilities, according to a defense official speaking on condition of anonymity. California fights Trump's use of National Guard for law enforcement A landmark federal trial began Aug. 11 in San Francisco challenging Trump's deployment of 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 active-duty Marines to support deportations and quell immigration protests in Los Angeles. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco will determine if the government violated the Posse Comitatus Act. California sued the Trump administration by arguing the deployment violated federal law and state sovereignty. But a federal appeals court allowed Trump to retain control of California's National Guard during the legal fight. California Gov. Gavin Newsom seeks a ruling that would return its National Guard troops to state control and a declaration that Trump's action was illegal. What is the Insurrection Act? One option for Trump to get around the prohibition on troops conducting law enforcement would be to invoke the 1807 Insurrection Act, which aimed to suppress armed rebellion or insurrection. Despite the harsh terms, president have invoked the law throughout the country's history. Former President George H.W. Bush was the last to invoke the law in 1992, in response to rioting in Los Angeles after the acquittal of four white police officers charged with beating a Black motorist, Rodney King. CAN YOU SAY HERE WHAT BUSH DID WITH THAT INVOCATION? LIKE HE SENT ARMY TROOPS INTO LA? TO DO WHAT? Trump threatened repeatedly after Black Lives Matter protests in 2020 to invoke the Insurrection Act but hasn't done so recently. Legal experts said any challenge to Trump invoking that law would turn on similar semanatics defining whether the emergency or rebellion justified taking over the DC police or deploying National Guard troops in other cities. 'I think it would be naïve to suggest that the president would not try or could not try to stretch the definitions of insurrection or rebellion beyond their common political usage to suit his political needs,' Kreis said. 'The law might say one thing but its ability to be stretched and molded into a political weapon for the president's benefit is not really purely speculative.' Contributing: Cybele Mayes-Osterman and Reuters


The Hill
4 minutes ago
- The Hill
Kansas City mayor: Takeover threats not ‘making anyone safer'
The mayor of Kansas City, Mo., cast doubt on the effectiveness of President Trump's crime crackdown in Washington, D.C., and argued the tactics being used are 'not a solution for anyone.' 'I think what most reasonable people would say is there are certainly situations where help could be a great thing for America's cities,' Mayor Quinton Lucas (D) said in a CNN interview Wednesday morning. 'But threats of takeovers — just sending hundreds of forces, troops in some ways, into America's cities — is not something that's making anyone safer, particularly if you think about what a lot of our urban violence is.' Lucas, who has been a vocal advocate of stricter gun laws, said much of the violent crime in major cities is retaliatory and gun-related, rather than random street crimes. 'Bringing National Guard forces or making FBI agents come out of their usual investigative detail and walk around parks in your community is actually not a solution for anyone,' he said. Trump declared a public safety emergency Monday and announced he was seizing control of the District of Columbia's Metropolitan Police Force (MPD) and deploying hundreds of Nation Guard troops. The announcement ramped up the D.C. crimefighting tactics Trump launched over the weekend by sending in officers from the FBI, Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other agencies. The president has repeatedly suggested that he may try similar methods in other cities with high crime rates — particularly ones led by Democrats — like Lucas's. 'I don't think mayors have ever said we'll refuse federal help — indeed, we've worked with the ATF, the FBI, on investigations for years,' the Kansas City mayor said. 'Usually, you need folks to help you get guns off the streets, to do investigations on crime guns so you can actually get the evidence to convict people. That is collaboration.' Lucas said he thinks that Trump may be motivated by politics, rather than safety. 'What they're doing now, I think it is a political stunt, and that's what you'll continue to see as he looks to other cities,' he said. '[Trump]'s not really interested in trying to save lives for us, but just exploiting the political issue.' The Hill has reached out to the White House about Lucas's remarks. The administration has pushed back on suggestions from other Democratic mayors who have criticized Trump's moves.


Axios
4 minutes ago
- Axios
California's redistricting play sets up fight for control of Congress
California Gov. Gavin Newsom says the state will advance a plan to draw new congressional maps — a move he claims will "end the Trump presidency" and flip the U.S. House to Democrats. Why it matters: Newsom's gambit escalates a red-versus-blue-state standoff ahead of the 2026 midterms — a fight that could decide control of Congress. Driving the news: The Golden State governor mocked the president's bombastic style in a Tuesday-evening post on X, referring to President Trump in all caps as "Donald 'Taco' Trump" before declaring that California would draw "historic" and "more 'beautiful maps'" to have Trump removed from office and help Democrats "take back the House." What he's saying:"BIG PRESS CONFERENCE THIS WEEK WITH POWERFUL DEMS AND GAVIN NEWSOM — YOUR FAVORITE GOVERNOR — THAT WILL BE DEVASTATING FOR 'MAGA'," he wrote. Catch up quick: After Texas Republicans pushed ahead with off‑cycle congressional redistricting under pressure from Trump, Newsom proposed a "trigger" ballot measure: California would redraw its own electoral maps if Texas proceeded with its plan. Newsom previously said he intends to hold a special election on Nov. 4 for voters to approve a yet-to-be-drawn map aimed at increasing Democratic seats. "We'll fight fire with fire," Newsom said late last week. "We'll assert ourselves, and we'll punch above our weight, and it will have profound impacts on the national outcome, not just here in the state of California." The Legislature would need to vote to send the measure to a special election before voters could weigh in. Context: Trump ignited the redistricting arms race last month by urging Texas Republicans to redraw their maps to gain seats, with Missouri and Ohio following suit. New York and California, Democratic bastions, quickly promised to answer in kind. The U.S. Supreme Court unleashed the partisan gerrymandering floodgates in 2019, when it ruled federal courts had no right to rein in the practice. Between the lines: California's initiative would amend a 2008 voter-approved measure that created an independent redistricting commission to do the job every decade after a new census. The new maps would be in place for the next three election cycles — in 2026, 2028 and 2030 — with authority then reverting to the redistricting commission.