DC mayor says Trump takeover shows why US capital should be 51st state
Bowser, who has been the city's mayor since 2015, made the remarks during an appearance on Charlamagne Tha God's radio show 'The Breakfast Club' on Tuesday, Aug. 12.
'It's times like this when America needs to know why your nation's capital, a place where 700,000 tax-paying Americans live, should be the 51st state,' said Bowser on the radio show.
'[Trump] wants to send the message to cities that if he can get away with this in Los Angeles, if he can get away with this in DC, he can get away with it in New York, or Baltimore or Chicago, or any other place where millions of people live, work and are doing everything the right way.'
On Monday, Aug. 11, Trump announced he'd be invoking Section 740 of the Home Rule Act to take control of the police department. The 1973 law grants Washington, DC residents limited authority to govern themselves.
Under the law, the president can take control of local police for two days, but any additional time would require congressional notice or an amendment to the existing law. After 30 days, Trump would need congressional approval to retain control of DC police.
Trump has touted the idea of taking over the police force since 2020, when the Black Lives Matter protests were taking hold of the city, and has since voiced his criticisms of Washington, DC leadership.
His recent attempt to crack down on violent crime came after a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) employee was assaulted during an attempted carjacking on Aug. 3.
'We're going to take our capital back,' said Trump during a news briefing at the White House on Aug. 11. 'Our capital city has been overtaken by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals, roving mobs of wild youth, drugged-out maniacs and homeless people.'
The president also said he'd be deploying National Guard troops into the city as part of the effort.
Bowser refuted the characterization that violent crime in the city has gotten out of control and disagreed with the president's actions. It's the first time a president has taken control of local police.
According to data from the Metropolitan Police Department, violent crime in DC has fallen by 26% compared to the same period last year.
'The numbers just don't justify the action,' said Bowser. She said it's 'not a good idea' for local police, who have gained the trust of city residents, to be used in a way that makes communities fearful.
Bowser said it appears the president is targeting urban areas where he is less popular, including DC.
Trump, she said, is 'very aware' of the number of DC residents who voted for him in the 2024 election and has, in turn, taken an aggressive stance. About 6% of city residents voted for the president in the 2024 election.
The president has named other liberal-leaning cities, like Chicago and Los Angeles, as places where he might send federal troops next.
Charlamagne Tha God asked Bowser if she believes Trump's actions could be a 'trial run for a police state.'
While she didn't directly respond to the question, she said: 'It is a step in fascism when the federal government can bigfoot sovereign states.
'Right now... he's trying to make it normal where citizens say the federal government should overtake local policing and try to make that a normal thing, so if he tries it in other places, people will be desensitized to it.'
She continued: 'We can't be desensitized to it because it's not normal.'
Michelle Del Rey is a trending news reporter at USA TODAY. Reach her at mdelrey@usatoday.com.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump takeover shows why DC should be 51st state, mayor says
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Hits India With 50% Tariff -- Modi Strikes Back by Rebuilding Ties With China
India is inching closer to Beijing. After US President Donald Trump doubled down with a 50% tariff on Indian goodspunishing New Delhi over discounted Russian oil purchasesPrime Minister Narendra Modi is quietly reopening the China playbook. Direct flights between the two neighbors, suspended since 2020, could resume as early as next month. According to people familiar with the matter, the announcement may coincide with Modi's first China visit in seven years for the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit. Beijing, also under pressure from Trump's trade war, just eased urea export curbs to Indiathe world's biggest buyer of the fertilizerhinting it's open to a broader reset. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 3 Warning Signs with CAH. Meanwhile, signs of a thaw are showing up across sectors. India has resumed tourist visas for Chinese nationals after years of curbs, and the urea trade reopening marks a rare economic gesture from Beijing. These developments suggest a cautious but notable warming of ties. This isn't about alignmentit's about options. With U.S. pressure rising, Modi may be recalibrating India's external relationships in real time. If Washington closes one door, New Delhi seems ready to open two elsewhere. Trump's trade blitz may have done what years of diplomacy couldn'tpush India deeper into the BRICS fold. Modi has invited Putin to visit, expanded Mercosur trade talks with Brazil, and directly challenged Trump's claims of brokering peace with Pakistan. For investors, the implications could be far-reaching. The tariff fight might accelerate closer ChinaIndia coordination on green tech, supply chain resilience, and emerging market trade. As the world's two most populous nations recalibrate, capital may follow the thaw. This article first appeared on GuruFocus. Sign in to access your portfolio
USA Today
8 minutes ago
- USA Today
South Sudan denies talks with Israel to resettle Palestinians from Gaza
The Associated Press, citing six sources, reported Israel was holding discussions with South Sudan to resettle Palestinians from Gaza. NAIROBI − South Sudan is not in talks with Israel to resettle Palestinians from war-torn Gaza, South Sudan's foreign ministry said on August 13. The Associated Press, citing six people with knowledge of the matter, reported that Israel was holding discussions with South Sudan to resettle Palestinians from Gaza in the East African nation. "These claims are baseless and do not reflect the official position or policy of the Government of the Republic of South Sudan," South Sudan's foreign affairs ministry said in a statement. More: Hamas hostage videos silenced Israeli media's talk of Gaza aid crisis Israel's military has pounded Gaza City in recent days prior to its planned takeover of the shattered enclave which is home to more than 2 million Palestinians. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on aUGUST 13 reiterated a view − also enthusiastically floated by President Donald Trump − that Palestinians should simply leave Gaza. Many world leaders are horrified at the idea of displacing the Gaza population, which Palestinians say would be like another "Nakba" (catastrophe), when hundreds of thousands fled or were forced out during the Arab-Israeli war of 1948. In March, Somalia and its breakaway region of Somaliland also denied receiving any proposal from the United States or Israel to resettle Palestinians from Gaza, with Mogadishu saying it categorically rejected any such move. South Sudan's Foreign Minister Monday Semaya Kumba visited Israel last month and met with Netanyahu, according to the foreign ministry in Juba. More: Israel approves plan to take control of Gaza City Last month South Sudan's government confirmed that eight migrants deported to the African nation by the Trump administration were currently in the care of the authorities in Juba after they lost a legal battle to halt their transfer. Since achieving independence from Sudan in 2011, South Sudan has spent nearly half its life at war and is currently in the grip of a political crisis, after President Salva Kiir's government ordered the arrest of Vice President Riek Machar in March.
Washington Post
10 minutes ago
- Washington Post
What will Trump's Alaska summit achieve?
You're reading the Prompt 2025 newsletter. Sign up to get it in your inbox. The highly anticipated Trump-Putin summit will take place tomorrow in Anchorage. On the agenda: how to end the Ukraine war. The meeting is sure to provide much theater, but will it yield anything else? I sat down with my colleagues David Ignatius and Max Boot to discuss. — Damir Marusic, assignment editor 💬 💬 💬 Damir Marusic Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk reportedly said, 'I have many fears and a lot of hope.' David, Max, how are you feeling ahead of the sit-down? David Ignatius For me, it's a mix of hope and dread. The hope is that President Donald Trump, having committed so much to ending a war that he rightly condemns as a bloodbath, will lean hard enough on Russian President Vladimir Putin to get terms that reasonable people could sell to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and his country. The fear is that Trump will simply listen to Putin's demands and either seek to impose them on Ukraine or walk away from his diplomatic mission. If I had to guess, I'd opt for the fearful version. Max Boot I have more fear than hope. I see no indication that Putin is going to call off his war (which is making little progress on the ground). The offer Putin apparently made to special envoy Steve Witkoff — he is demanding that Ukraine turn over unconquered, well-defended territory in the Donetsk region in return for a ceasefire — is a nonstarter for Ukraine. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Damir I'm maybe a bit more optimistic. Not in the sense that there will be any progress, but the opposite: The White House seems to be lowering expectations about what's possible. Trump on Monday told reporters, 'It's not up to me to make a deal.' Max Yes, I'm mildly cheered to see the White House lowering expectations. But I also know that Trump is mercurial and unpredictable, and he loves surprises. So the chances of Putin-Trump meeting in private and hatching some kind of deal (or, more exactly, the framework of a deal) and Trump coming back to proclaim 'peace for our time' are not negligible. I don't see that as the likeliest outcome — and I am also buoyed by the fact that Trump was able to say no to a bad offer from North Korean leader Kim Jong Un at their last summit — but it's a real danger. David Trump's flair for the dramatic is what got him into this negotiation in the first place. And recalling his diplomacy with Kim, it's hard to imagine him just having a 'listening exercise' and then saying, 'See you later, Vlad.' One way or another, I suspect Trump will want some drama. Max My concern level will rise if Trump and Putin meet alone, with only interpreters. That's what happened at their last meeting in Helsinki, and it was a disaster. I hope Trump will take Secretary of State Marco Rubio, retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg and others into the room with him (but preferably not Witkoff, who has proved very credulous in dealing with Putin). David An important baseline for Anchorage will come today, when Trump speaks with European leaders and Zelensky about what Europe might do to support Ukraine against continuing Russian aggression even if the U.S. backs away. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Damir The danger for me seems to be that Trump is still in thrall to the idea that everyone just wants to make money. During that Monday news conference, in the same breath as he said it was not up to him to make a deal, he seemed to hold out hope that normalizing economic relations with Russia could bring Putin to the table, saying that Putin has to get back to rebuilding his country. David Trump has always had a fantasy that there are 'trillions' to be made in a future Russia. People keep trying to talk him out of that misjudgment, I'm told. Yet it persists. Weird. Max I thought reality was dawning for Trump last month when he started denouncing Putin for having nice conversations but then continuing to bomb civilian centers. Trump was finally on the right track in threatening massive sanctions and agreeing to supply weapons to Ukraine (albeit with the Europeans buying them first). But then he did another U-turn last week, following Witkoff's meeting with Putin, again blaming Zelensky for starting the war and pretending that Putin is interested in peace. The whole summit is built on a fundamental misunderstanding: Trump thinks Putin wants to end the war. What Putin really wants is to win the war. David Trump has tried every possible approach to diplomacy. Term sheets. Timelines. High-level meetings. But he keeps coming back to his core idea that it's only a meeting between the two big guys — him and Putin — that can resolve this, so we end up in Anchorage with very little work done on the shape of a settlement or clarity about what it might involve. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Damir Is there any sense that Trump still has the 'stick' of secondary sanctions in mind? Max I don't know what Trump will do, but if he's serious about making a deal with Putin, he first has to impose the full gamut of pressure and wait for the sanctions to bite. He is making a major blunder by prematurely rushing into a summit when there is no indication that Putin will make any concessions. David I think Trump would love to use China and India as leverage to get Putin to make concessions. I'm told that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has included Ukraine in his conversations with Chinese officials, and obviously Trump has threatened India with heavy secondary sanctions if it continues to buy oil from Russia. But my guess is that these efforts will fade if Trump encounters an immovable obstacle in Putin on Friday. Damir An immovable Putin wouldn't cause him to double down, but fold? Is it TACO all over again? Max Trump has said he may conclude there is no deal to be had and walk away. That's fine, if it happens. The question is what happens next. Will he just ignore the entire war, thereby giving Putin a free hand? Or will he return to his threats of sanctions for Russia to punish Putin for intransigence? Trump doesn't have to insert himself into the peacemaking process — ultimately, it will be up to Russia and Ukraine to make peace, and thus far Putin is not even willing to meet Zelensky — but Trump does need to continue backing Ukraine. David I don't like the TACO analogy. It just eggs Trump on, as near as I can tell. I think the question for Trump is how much he's willing to risk to gain a peace in Ukraine that's desperately important for Europe but less so for the United States. And the answer, probably, is that he's not willing to risk much.
