What is the Home Rule Act? Trump just invoked it to ‘rescue' Washington, DC
In an Aug. 11 press conference, he said he was employing Section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, permitting him to federalize the city's police department.
'I'm announcing a historic action to rescue our nation's capital from crime, bloodshed, bedlam and squalor and worse,' Trump said. 'This is Liberation Day in D.C., and we're going to take our capital back.'
He also vowed to deploy the National Guard to 'restablish law, order and public safety,' mirroring tactics used during recent protests in Los Angeles.
Multiple Democratic lawmakers condemned the president's move, denouncing it as an example of executive overreach and a political distraction.
Passed by Congress in 1973, the District of Columbia Home Rule Act granted the city limited self-governing powers while leaving other authorities in federal hands.
For the first time, it permitted D.C. residents to elect their own city council and mayor. However, it established significant oversight powers for Congress, including allowing lawmakers to review all legislation passed by the city council.
'The Home Rule Act is the result of the ongoing push by District residents for control of their own local affairs,' according to the city council's website. 'The existing local government is the most expanded form of self-government since the establishment of the District as the seat of the federal government.'
Section 740 of the act — invoked by Trump — is concerned with the control of the police in emergency situations.
'Whenever the President of the United States determines that special conditions of an emergency nature exist which require the use of the Metropolitan Police force for Federal purposes, he may direct the Mayor to provide him, and the Mayor shall provide, such services of the Metropolitan Police force as the President may deem necessary and appropriate,' the section states.
However, there are limits on the president's authority to federalize the city police.
The president is only permitted to take control of the police department for a maximum of 48 hours without alerting Congress, the act states.
But, if the president provides a written letter to the ranking members 'of the Committees on the District of Columbia of the Senate and the House of Representatives,' he may continue to exercise control of the police department for 30 days.
After one month, this authority can only be extended by a joint resolution from the Senate and the House.
Before invoking the legislation, Trump previously expressed interest in repealing the Home Rule Act, telling reporters on Aug. 5, 'We have to run D.C.'
In his Aug. 11 press conference, Trump portrayed Washington, D.C. as a city plagued by lawlessness.
'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 said.
But, official data paints a more complicated picture. While D.C.'s crime rates remain higher than other cities by certain measures, they are steadily improving.
So far in 2025, violent crime has decreased 26% year-over-year, with homicides down 12% and robberies down 28%, according to police department statistics. Total crime is also down by 7%.
And in 2024, violent crime in the District of Columbia fell by 35% from 2023, reaching its lowest level in over three decades, according to the Department of Justice.
Still, Washington's homicide rate in 2024 was among the highest of the nation's largest cities, behind St. Louis, New Orleans and Detroit, according to the Center for Public Safety Initiatives at Rochester Institute of Technology.
The falling crime rate in the capital mirrors a broader national trend of reduced violent crime in recent years, following a pandemic-era surge, according to CBS News.
FBI Director Kash Patel noted this positive progression during Trump's press conference, stating, 'The murder rates are plummeting. We are now able to report that the murder rate is on track to be the lowest in U.S. history, in modern reported U.S. history.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Palantir Nears Record High As Trump's $175 Billion Missile Defense Plan Opens Door To Massive SHIELD Contracts
Defense contractor Palantir Technologies' (NASDAQ:PLTR) stock trended on Wednesday as it traded close to its 52-week high of $190. President Donald Trump's $175 billion Golden Dome missile defense plan could create new contract opportunities for companies like Palantir by opening bids under the Scalable Homeland Innovative Enterprise Layered Defense (SHIELD) initiative. Palantir's software could support missile tracking, cybersecurity, and data integration across the system's satellite and ground-based defense layers, aligning with the Pentagon's push to strengthen national security by 2028. Also Read: Palantir stock gained over 147% year-to-date, driven by its performance in the AI sector and increased government contracts. Also this week, Palantir expanded its long-term partnership with SOMPO Holdings through a new multi-year deal via Palantir Technologies Japan KK, deepening the use of its Foundry platform across multiple SOMPO subsidiaries. The integration now spans elder care, insurance claims, and underwriting, with AI-driven tools streamlining fraud detection, claims processing, and risk evaluation. By embedding Foundry deeper into core operations, SOMPO expects to boost efficiency, accuracy, and annual financial results by about $10 million. Analysts expect Palantir's growth to accelerate after its strong second-quarter results and guidance that topped expectations. Piper Sandler's Brent Bracelin cited record revenue gains in government and commercial segments, including a $10 billion Army deal and 93% year-over-year U.S. commercial growth. Bank of America's Mariana Perez Mora noted that Palantir remains best in class for operationalizing AI in enterprises and aligns with the Trump administration's 'Winning the Race' AI plan. Both analysts view Palantir as uniquely positioned to capture share in two $1 trillion-plus markets. Price Action: PLTR shares are trading 1.11% higher at $189.02 as of the last check on Wednesday. Read Next:Image: Shutterstock UNLOCKED: 5 NEW TRADES EVERY WEEK. Click now to get top trade ideas daily, plus unlimited access to cutting-edge tools and strategies to gain an edge in the markets. Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga? PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES (PLTR): Free Stock Analysis Report This article Palantir Nears Record High As Trump's $175 Billion Missile Defense Plan Opens Door To Massive SHIELD Contracts originally appeared on © 2025 Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Court Lets Trump Block Billions of Dollars in Foreign Aid
(Bloomberg) -- The Trump administration can cut billions of dollars in foreign assistance funds approved by Congress for this year, a US appeals court ruled. Sunseeking Germans Face Swiss Backlash Over Alpine Holiday Congestion To Head Off Severe Storm Surges, Nova Scotia Invests in 'Living Shorelines' New York Warns of $34 Billion Budget Hole, Biggest Since 2009 Crisis Five Years After Black Lives Matter, Brussels' Colonial Statues Remain For Homeless Cyclists, Bikes Bring an Escape From the Streets In a 2-1 decision on Wednesday, the appellate panel reversed a Washington federal judge who found that US officials were violating the Constitution's separation of powers principles by failing to authorize the money to be paid in line with what the legislative branch directed. The ruling is a significant win for President Donald Trump's efforts to dissolve the US Agency for International Development and broadly withhold funding from programs that have fallen out of favor with his administration, regardless of how Congress exercised its authority over spending. Trump's critics have assailed what they've described as a far-reaching power grab by the executive branch. The nonprofits and business that sued could ask the all of the active judges on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit to reconsider the three-member panel's decision. Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson wrote in the majority opinion that the challengers lacked valid legal grounds to sue over the Trump administration's decision to withhold the funds, also known as impoundment. The US Comptroller General — who leads an accountability arm of Congress — could sue under a specific law related to impoundment decisions, Henderson wrote, but the challengers couldn't bring a 'freestanding' constitutional claim or claim violations of a different law related to agency actions. Henderson, appointed by former President George H.W. Bush, was joined by Judge Greg Katsas, a Trump appointee. The court didn't reach the core question of whether the administration's unilateral decision to refuse to spend money appropriated by Congress is constitutional. Judge Florence Pan, nominated by former President Joe Biden, dissented, writing that her colleagues had turned 'a blind eye to the 'serious implications' of this case for the rule of law and the very structure of our government.' The two consolidated cases before the appeals court only deal with money that Congress approved for the 2024 fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30. Grantees are poised to lose access to funds if they haven't yet been approved to be spent by federal officials — a precursor to actual payouts — or unless a court order is in place. The administration lost one of its few battles before the US Supreme Court earlier this year in the foreign aid fight. In March, a majority of justices refused to immediately stop US District Judge Amir Ali's injunction taking effect while the legal fight went forward. Since then, however, the challengers have filed complaints with Ali that the administration is failing to obligate or pay out the funds. They've rebuffed the government's position that the delay is part of a legitimate effort to 'evaluate the appropriate next steps' and accused officials of angling to use a novel tactic to go around Congress in order to cut appropriated money. The Trump administration has dramatically scaled back the US government's humanitarian work overseas, slashing spending and personnel and merging the US Agency for International Development into the State Department. The challengers say the foreign aid freeze has created a global crisis, and that the money is critical for malaria prevention, to address child malnutrition and provide postnatal care for newborns. The groups argued that the president and agency leaders couldn't defy Congress' spending mandates and didn't have discretion to decide that only some, let alone none, of the money appropriated by lawmakers should be paid. The president can ask Congress to withdraw appropriations but can't do it on his own, the challengers argued. The Justice Department argued Ali's order was an 'improper judicial intrusion into matters left to the political branches' and that the judge wrongly interfered in the 'particularly sensitive area of foreign relations.' The government also said that the Impoundment Control Act, which restricts the president from overruling Congress' spending decisions, wasn't a law that the nonprofits and business could sue to enforce. The challengers countered that Ali's order blocking the funding freeze was rooted in their constitutional separation-of-powers claim, not the impoundment law. The cases are Global Health Council v. Trump, 25-5097, and AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. US Department of State, 25-5098, US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit. (Updated with details from the opinion.) Bessent on Tariffs, Deficits and Embracing Trump's Economic Plan Why It's Actually a Good Time to Buy a House, According to a Zillow Economist Dubai's Housing Boom Is Stoking Fears of Another Crash The Social Media Trend Machine Is Spitting Out Weirder and Weirder Results A $340 Million New York Office Makeover Is Converting Boardrooms to Bedrooms ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
The Hill
8 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump's economic war on India is a gift to China
President Trump's decision to slap secondary sanctions on India over its imports of Russian oil, while also unleashing a tariff barrage on Indian exports, is more than a trade dispute. It is a self-inflicted wound to America's most vital strategic partnership in Asia, and it comes at a time when China is flexing its military muscle throughout the region. Washington has long courted India as a bulwark against an expansionist China and as a critical pillar of its ' free and open Indo-Pacific ' strategy. Yet Trump's punitive steps against India are eroding the very trust on which strategic alignment rests — to Beijing's delight. The mutual trust painstakingly built over years underpins bilateral cooperation. Once lost, it will be hard to rebuild. Even if the administration eventually reaches a trade deal with India, it may not be able to repair the damage. Targeting India over Russian oil purchases smacks of selective enforcement. The European Union's large imports of Russian energy products, especially liquefied natural gas, have been left untouched. Such European imports not only contribute more to Russia's coffers than India's purchases, but Europe spends more on Russian energy than on assisting Ukraine. Trump has also spared the world's largest buyer of Russian oil and gas: China. But India, the very country Washington has spent years courting as an Asian counterweight, has become the first victim of his secondary sanctions. This suggests Trump's tactics are less about punishing Moscow than about pressuring New Delhi. Russian oil is a pretext to strong-arm India into accepting a Trump-dictated trade agreement, much as he foisted a largely one-sided deal on the European Union. That his tariffs on India have little to do with Russian oil is evident from one telling fact: Indian exports to the U.S. of refined fuels such as gasoline, diesel and jet fuel — increasingly made from Russian crude — remain exempt from his tariffs. Such is the Trumpian logic. He has hit Indian non-energy exports with steep tariffs, but spared booming exports of refined fuels made largely from Russian crude. Trump seems to have no problem with Russian oil — as long as it is refined in India and then pumped into American planes, trucks and cars. Furthermore, given continued U.S. imports of Russian enriched uranium, fertilizers and chemicals, Trump does not seem troubled that his own administration is helping fund Russia's war in Ukraine while still locked in a proxy war with Moscow. In truth, Trump is using New Delhi's Russian oil purchases as a crude bargaining tactic to secure a bilateral trade deal on his terms. India illustrates how the Trump administration has weaponized tariffs not merely to extract trade concessions but also to bind other countries more closely to American strategic and security interests. In seeking to bend India to its will, it has targeted that country's traditionally independent approach to global affairs, including neutrality on conflicts. Indian exports to the U.S. now face a steep 50 percent tariff, signaling the end of Trump's bromance with Prime Minister Narendra Modi. His moves against strategic-partner India are harsher than against China. This marks a dramatic U-turn from his first term, when bilateral relations thrived to the extent that Trump declared at a huge February 2020 rally in Modi's home state of Gujarat, 'America loves India, America respects India, and America will always be faithful and loyal friends to the Indian people.' In Trump's second term, Modi was among the first world leaders to visit the White House, agreeing to fast-track trade negotiations. In July, the Indians believed they had reached an interim deal, awaiting only Trump's approval. But in characteristic fashion, Trump abruptly rejected the accord and embarked on punishing India. New Delhi has publicly criticized the Trump administration's double standards. But it is more concerned about a deeper question: If Washington can so easily turn its coercive tools on a supposed ally, what is to stop it from doing so again? U.S.-India relations have probably plunged to their lowest point in the 21st century, thanks to Trump's economic war and his singling out of India for secondary sanctions. The fallout will extend beyond lost trade. India could respond by doubling down on strategic autonomy — hedging between the U.S., Russia and others — and diversifying its economic and security partnerships. Trump's gamble may wring out trade concessions in the short term, but it risks undermining the security architecture in the Indo-Pacific, where unity among key democracies is the only real check on China's expansionism. America is effectively handing China an opening to court a disillusioned India. New Delhi is already signaling that it has other geopolitical options. Russian President Vladimir Putin is expected to visit India in the coming weeks. In less than three weeks, Modi is scheduled to meet Chinese President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit, which Putin will also attend. Moscow is pushing for a revived Russia-India-China grouping. A stable Indo-Pacific order demands more than joint military exercises and communiqués; it requires political will to accommodate each other's core interests. Punishing India in ways that ignore its legitimate security and energy needs sends the opposite message. Ironically, Trump's sanctions-and-tariffs blitz may have done India a favor by exposing the strategic reality of America's unreliability. By presenting the U.S. as a transactional power, Trump has signaled that Washington cannot be counted on to separate short-term commercial considerations from long-term strategic imperatives. Trump's economic coercion risks alienating a vast, still-growing market that U.S. firms see as central to their future growth. India remains the world's fastest-growing major economy, and as many other economies stagnate and populations shrink, it stands out as a rising giant. Sacrificing a linchpin of Indo-Pacific stability for a fleeting win in a tariff war is not tough bargaining. It is strategic recklessness — and a gift to China.
