Why doesn't Washington have a governor like states do?
President Donald Trump's decision to send National Guard troops to Washington and put the Metro Washington Police Department under direct federal control comes in part because of the city's unique status as a district, rather than a state.
Trump made the announcement in a August 11 press conference, saying the move is intended to bring down crime in the city. According to crime statistics from the Metropolitan Police Department released August 11, show that violent crime in the city is down 26% from 2024.
Why doesn't Washington have a governor like states do?
Washington is a district, not a state, so it doesn't have a governor. For most of it's history it didn't have control over its own budget or affairs. Instead, U.S. Congress and the president both play some of the roles managing the district that a governor would.
In 1973, Congress gave locals some authority with the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, which allowed citizens to elect a Mayor and Council.
But, Congress still reviews all legislation passed by the Council before it can become law and has authority over the District's budget. The president appoints District judges, and citizens have a delegate in the House who cannot vote rather than a representative.
Trump cited Section 740 of the Home Rule Act in taking control of the police department.
Who is Mayor Muriel Bowser?
Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser is the district's seventh elected mayor. She was elected in 2015 after serving as an Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner from 2004 to 2006 and as a Member of the D.C. Council from 2007 to 2015.
Bowser and Trump clashed during his first term, but so far have had a cordial relationship in his second term.
More: Trump to send National Guard into Washington, DC, and take over police: Live updates
On Aug. 8 she pushed back on Trump's claims that rising crime warranted the federal government taking over law enforcement in the city, but acknowledged that he can.
"We are not experiencing a crime spike," she said on MSNBC's "The Weekend." "The President is very aware of our efforts. He established a task force, which our police department and agencies support with information and anything else they ask us for. ... It is always the President's prerogative to use federal law enforcement or the National Guard."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Journals
3 minutes ago
- Business Journals
Opportunity Zone tracts that could be in play across Los Angeles
Story Highlights New Opportunity Zone program reduces eligible areas by 26%. Governors must select zones by July 1, 2026. Intense lobbying is expected for limited Opportunity Zone designations. The second iteration of the federal Opportunity Zone program is expected to have fewer zones than its predecessor, potentially sparking intense lobbying efforts to determine which census tracts qualify for the high-stakes designation. The sweeping tax-and-spend legislation enacted last month — President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill — changed the criteria of the previous version of the Opportunity Zone program in a way that ultimately will shrink the number of eligible areas. The program by definition is intended to "spur economic growth and job creation in low-income communities while providing tax benefits to investors." GET TO KNOW YOUR CITY Find Local Events Near You Connect with a community of local professionals. Explore All Events In the original program, passed during President Trump's first term as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, 42,176 census tracts were eligible to become designated Opportunity Zones. Ultimately, governors in each state and territory picked 8,764 of those locations to receive the tax-advantaged investments made possible by the program. In the new version of the Opportunity Zone program, Congress narrowed the definition of "low-income community" to census tracts with a median household income that does not exceed 70% of an area's median income, down from an 80% threshold previously. A census tract also would be eligible if it has a poverty rate above 20%. Congress also removed the ability of governors to nominate census tracts that would not otherwise be eligible but were allowed in the previous edition of the program because they were 'contiguous' to an eligible tract. Eliminating those tracts in the program's new version shrinks the eligibility pool even further. The federal government has not yet published an official list of eligible tracts under the new law. But, according to an analysis of census tracts and the most recently available poverty data by The Business Journals, about 26,000 tracts appear to meet the eligibility criteria for an Opportunity Zone designation under the parameters of the revamped program. If governors were to then pick the maximum-allowed 25% of those sites to be Opportunity Zones, that would mean about 6,500 zones in the program — a nearly 26% drop from the number of available sites in the program's first iteration. That figure is in line with other estimates that have found the number of eligible Opportunity Zones could fall by more than 20% under the new law. To determine the estimated number of zones that could be available locally under the new version of the program, The Business Journals analyzed the 2025 Census Bureau list of all tracts and applied the new eligibility rules to those tracts. The analysis included poverty rate data from the Census Bureau's American Community Survey. In and around Los Angeles, more than 1,300 census tracts appear to qualify under the new criteria. Here's a look at the number of eligible tracts by county, according to The Business Journals' analysis: Los Angeles County: 846 tracts San Bernardino County: 159 Orange County: 138 Riverside County: 131 Ventura County: 44 New rules expected to fuel fights For Jacob Naig, a real estate agent, contractor and Opportunity Zone investor in Des Moines, Iowa, having fewer tracts means every mayor, chamber of commerce official and developers' coalition is going to have to fight harder to ensure their areas are included in the program. 'Look for polished census tract pitch decks, not only letters from governors' offices," Naig said in an email. "In Iowa, I can already see Des Moines, Cedar Rapids, Davenport and who knows where else jockeying for a limited pool of urban tracts, while rural counties protest that they were forgotten last time and need a carve‑out.' Naig said there also are upsides to fewer Opportunity Zones. The changes should ensure that capital can go to truly distressed regions and not so-called 'tourist' areas as in the previous version of the program — places where no subsidy was truly needed to get developers to build. He also thinks states will devise clearer, more-transparent scoring rubrics, such as highlighting jobs or vacancy rates, to protect Opportunity Zone nominations from political blowback. He anticipates cities and states will pile on additional benefits such as facade grants, expedited permitting or special taxation zones, as well. 'States will codify what was previously ad hoc, and locals will create packages of incentives to sweeten tracts that appear scary on paper,' Naig said. Where Opportunity Zones could be located Some states will have many more eligible census tracts than others, according to The Business Journals' analysis. California tops all states in our estimate, with 2,738 census tracts that appear to be eligible, followed by Texas with 2,492 and New York with 1,649. Vermont, on the other hand, has just 19 such census tracts, according to our estimate, followed by Wyoming with 29 and Arkansas with 30. At a more-local level, the most-populous counties are at the top of the list for eligible number of census tracts, according to The Business Journals' analysis. That means Los Angeles County, with 846 tracts that appear to be eligible, followed by Chicago's Cook County, with 528. Harris County (Houston) in Texas has 526 eligible tracts, followed by New York's Kings County (Brooklyn) and Wayne County (Detroit) in Michigan. What will change for the program The new Opportunity Zone program calls for governors to identify their targeted sites by July 1, 2026, and for the program to officially open for investment on Jan. 1, 2027. That might seem like a lengthy timeline, but experts say business owners, landowners, investors and local-government officials should be taking action now — especially since the sun-up to designating new zones is likely to be a time of intense lobbying. Blake Christian, CEO at builder MIT Modular and an Opportunity Zone expert, said lobbying during the first round of the Opportunity Zone program was not pronounced because people were less aware of the full scope of the program and its potential. Governors ended up picking tracts that were already developed or were poorly suited to attract investment. Not this time, Christian said. 'Local lobbying has already begun, and with rural census tracts now more directly competing with urban areas, governors will be getting more public input than they may want,' Christian said. The original Opportunity Zones program saw about $89 billion in qualifying equity investments across 5,600 census tracts through the end of 2022, according to a working paper by the Economic Innovation Group — with expectations those investments will eventually total more than $100 billion. The group additionally noted that Opportunity Zones ultimately were responsible for a net increase of 313,000 housing units over a five-year period. Ahmed Whitt, director of the Center for Wealth Equity at Living Cities, said the new limitations on eligibility will likely discourage some real estate projects that contributed to the issues of gentrification and oversupply that plagued the program previously. 'We'll see more-intense lobbying, especially for select urban neighborhoods,' Whitt said. 'Still overall, the changes in 2.0 are likely to create a more-effective program by focusing on areas that truly need both investment and have growth potential.' Stay on top of the latest real estate news by signing up for The National Observer: Real Estate Edition.
Axios
3 minutes ago
- Axios
Defense industry is filling the Golden Dome vacuum
Golden Dome is the most publicly discussed U.S. defense project in years — except by the people commissioning it. The big picture: The Trump administration is mum about its $175 billion hemispheric missile shield, but U.S. defense contractors are maneuvering and messaging as they seek a piece of the action. Driving the news: Golden Dome was verboten for certain speakers on stage at the Space and Missile Defense Symposium in Huntsville, Alabama, last week. It was a different scene, though, in the hallways and at the happy hours. Check this split-screen: From industry: Ads. Announcements. News hits. Sci-fi-style graphics with colorful grids, dramatic missile arcs and explosions. Promises. From the Pentagon: Very little, as headline after headline after headline made clear. As Breaking Defense put it: "The first rule of Golden Dome is don't talk about Golden Dome." The intrigue: There is engagement — it's just behind closed doors. And contractors are pushing forward while still deciphering what, exactly, the administration wants and the military needs. Here are some of the latest examples: Lockheed Martin launched a command-and-control incubator in Virginia to work on battle management, mission planning and AI integration. The company is also planning a test of space-based interceptors by 2028, according to Robert Lightfoot, who leads the company's space efforts. Peraton is eyeing a "system of systems integration approach" while leaning on its offensive and defensive cyber expertise, Milton Carroll, vice president of business development for space and intelligence, told Axios. "We don't build space assets," he said. "We don't build radars." AV and Sierra Nevada Corporation teamed up. Their announcement specifically mentioned sensors, directed energy and electronic warfare, as well as drone and missile defense. And L3Harris Technologies named Rob Mitrevski president of Golden Dome strategy and integration, a new role. The company is already involved with the Hypersonic and Ballistic Tracking Space Sensor program, namedropped in President Trump's original decree. Between the lines: Tom Karako, a missile-defense expert at CSIS, told Axios on the sidelines of the symposium that Pentagon silence is "probably temporary" and based on "internal machinations around public affairs." In the meantime? "We've got to create the consensus, and we've got to create the shared understanding of what is it that we're doing here and why," he said. "That's why my message is … Golden Dome: Start talking."
The Hill
3 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump's China deal on AI chips prompts significant security concerns
President Trump's reversal on previously blocked chip sales to China has sparked cries that the White House is selling out America's security concerns in a bid to raise revenue. Trump on Monday agreed to allow tech giants Nvidia and AMD to secure export licenses to sell their advanced artificial intelligence (AI) chips in China in exchange for a 15 percent cut of the profits. The White House said Tuesday that more such deals could be on the table. The unusual deal doesn't just raise legal questions. Experts say the U.S. should be wary of turning over American-made technology that could boost its adversary's AI capabilities, at a time when the two countries are fiercely competing for dominance. The security concerns appear to be a two-way street. China urged tech companies there to avoid any purchase of the chip, citing security issues. The move once again has Trump at odds with Congress's China hawks, who argue the administration is shortchanging America's national security interests to make a buck. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (Ill.), the top Democrat on the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, in a statement said the most troubling part of the deal was a contradiction at the heart of the policy. 'The administration cannot simultaneously treat semiconductor exports as both a national security threat and a revenue opportunity,' he said. 'By putting a price on our security concerns, we signal to China and our allies that American national security principles are negotiable for the right fee.' The same panel's GOP chair, Rep. John Moolenaar (Mich.), said there are 'questions about the legal basis' for such a deal. 'Export controls are a frontline defense in protecting our national security, and we should not set a precedent that incentivizes the Government to grant licenses to sell China technology that will enhance its AI capabilities,' he said in a statement. Greenlighting the sales marks a reversal for the Trump administration, which in April initially imposed restrictions on Nvidia's H20 chip and AMD's MI308 chip, effectively blocking shipments to China. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has argued China is only receiving Nvidia's 'fourth best' chip, but this has done little to assuage concerns. The administration has increasingly taken up the mantle, supported by the semiconductor industry, that the U.S. should focus on boosting the adoption of U.S. technology abroad rather than imposing more stringent export restrictions. The reasoning follows that the best way to win the AI race is to keep China dependent on American-made chips and prevent Huawei from gaining ground both inside and outside of China. Others contend this will simply boost Beijing's capabilities in a way that would be impossible without the U.S. technology. 'We've got to realize we're in an intellectual war, a technology war with China, and we're in an AI competition. Having Nvidia providing this technology to China is a mistake,' Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) said during an appearance on 'The Hill' on NewsNation. 'China getting our chips is not a good deal.' National security experts say the risks are manifold. Not only do the sales boost China in what many see as a technological cold war, it also opens the door to the risk the communist government could use chips for military technology or other uses that directly threaten the U.S. Liza Tobin, who served as China director at the National Security Council under the first Trump and Biden administrations, said chip producers only have so much capacity, so shipping them to China shortchanges others. 'It's putting a priority on China's AI development at the expense of American or other countries' AI development,' she told The Hill. She also expressed concern over chips being used for 'malign purposes that potentially harm and kill American men and women in uniform.' 'These chips themselves are inherently dual use. It's not like these are just made for the military or have some limit on them to only be allowed for cat food apps. That's just not how it works.' Nvidia on Tuesday argued the sales will help the U.S. become a technology leader with little risk to either party. 'As both governments recognize, the H20 is not a military product or for government infrastructure,' the company said in a statement. 'China has ample supply of domestic chips to meet its needs. It won't and never has relied on American chips for government operations, just like the U.S. government would not rely on chips from China. Banning the sale of H20 in China would only harm U.S. economic and technology leadership with zero national security benefit.' Peter Harrell, a nonresident fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said the export control licenses Trump is now negotiating with companies were expressly designed to weigh those types of national security risks. 'It's a very troubling precedent because historically when we've been looking at export control licenses, it's been strictly speaking a national security review,' Harrell said. 'Does the export of this widget threaten U.S. national security? Whereas now, there's also going to be this factor of, 'Well maybe it does threaten U.S. national security … but hey, we got some money from it.'' 'I think it would be quite negative for us if we get in the business of 'We're happy to arm our adversaries as long as they pay us a bit of money to do so.' I hope that's not where we are. I do worry that this could become a broader precedent.' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Tuesday that the administration would consider other similar arrangements in spite of legal concerns. 'Right now, it stands with these two companies. Perhaps it could expand in the future to other companies,' Leavitt said. 'I think it's a creative idea and solution. The legality of it, the mechanics of it is still being ironed out by the Department of Commerce.' 'This was another idea of the president and his brain trust on his trade team to try to get good deals for the American people and the American taxpayer,' she added. It's not clear such deals would be legal. Export taxes are barred by the Constitution, while fees for export licenses are prohibited under federal law. However, it's unclear whether the 15 percent cut from Nvidia and AMD's chip sales would count as a formal tax or fee, as well as whether anyone would bring such a challenge. Still, several raised concerns about the precedent set by the deal, noting there are many other American-made products China would be interested in purchasing that could be detrimental to U.S. interests. 'Are we now going to see the Commerce Department shaking down high-tech exporters generally for a 15 percent cut? Are we going to see the State Department, which regulates exports of defense weaponry, start shaking down defense exporters for a 15 percent cut?' Harrell asked. 'I have to assume that there would be some lines, maybe it is F-35s. Would he sell nuclear weapons? You have to think there are some lines that Trump wouldn't cross. But this is blowing past a bunch of past precedent, and I think suggests that whatever lines he does have that he would not be willing to cross are very, very different from the lines any previous president would have had.' Rep. Jake Auchincloss (D-Mass.) noted that Trump has also sought to bypass a law passed by Congress and signed by former President Biden that would block the popular app TikTok unless the China-based ByteDance sells the company. Born out of fears that Chinese law could require the app to hand over data on Americans, Trump has punted enforcement, signing three separate extensions. 'So now the US government is financially motivated to sell AI to China?' Auchincloss wrote on the social platform X. 'Makes me shudder to think what a TikTok deal might look like.' Tobin, however, said China is likely to set their sights on securing more advanced chips than the H20, including the Blackwell, which is still under development. Trump suggested Monday that he would consider making a deal on a reduced-capacity version of the Blackwell. Trump's dealmaking, Tobin said, will suggest to the Chinese that such things are now open to negotiation, a dynamic she warns the government is also using with Nvidia. China's warning not to immediately order Nvidia's chips serves a twofold purpose, she said, one that allows them to exert some control over the company while opening the door to demanding information about the chips that could aid in their replication. 'They know there are technical means that could potentially be weaponized,' she said, adding that while China has 'rational' security concerns, the move is also 'a pretext for squeezing out more from Nvidia' by a country that has previously required companies to share their intellectual property. 'The Chinese government has already been calling Nvidia in to explain whether its chips are secure, and that's a way to put Nvidia on notice and say, 'Hey, you better be behaving the way we want you to, or else we're going to make it very painful for you to stay in the China market.'' Nvidia has previously said it would not send 'any [graphics processing unit] designs to China to be modified to comply with export controls.' 'Our products are extraordinarily complex and take tens of thousands of engineering years to create, and by the time an NVIDIA product is available in the market, we are already far along in our design of the next one,' a spokesperson said Tuesday. Any Chinese advances may mean the deal may only be of short-term value to Nvidia, Tobin argued, but it's one she said the government should shield against. 'The role of government is to put the guardrails on so that private interests don't control our national security,' Tobin said.
