Trump seizes control of Washington DC police and deploys National Guard troops
"Our capital city has been overtaken by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals," Trump told a news conference at the White House.
And Trump signalled that other major US cities with Democratic leadership could be next, including Chicago, a city that has long been beset by violent crime, although it was down significantly in the first half of the year. "If we need to, we're going to do the same thing in Chicago, which is a disaster," Trump said at the White House, adding, "Hopefully L.A. is watching." Trump has shown particular interest in taking over Washington, which is under the jurisdiction of Congress but exercises self-governance under a 1973 US law.
Hundreds of officers and agents from more than a dozen federal agencies, including the FBI, ICE, DEA and ATF, have fanned out across the city in recent days. Attorney General Pam Bondi will oversee the police force takeover, Trump said.
Washington mayor Muriel Bowser has pushed back on Trump's claims of rising crime in the US capital. Source: AP / Julia Demaree Nikhinson The US Army said the National Guard troops would carry out a number of tasks, including "administrative, logistics and physical presence in support of law enforcement." Between 100 and 200 of the troops would be supporting law enforcement at any given time. The Democratic mayor of Washington, Muriel Bowser, has pushed back on Trump's claims of unchecked violence, saying the city is "not experiencing a crime spike" and highlighting that violent crime hit its lowest level in more than three decades last year. Violent crime, including murders, spiked in 2023, turning Washington into one of the nation's deadliest cities. However, violent crime dropped 35 per cent in 2024, according to federal data, and it has fallen an additional 26 per cent in the first seven months of 2025, according to city police. The city's attorney general, Brian Schwalb, called Trump's actions "unprecedented, unnecessary and unlawful" in an X post, and said his office was "considering all of our options."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
21 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Warning from Washington: Speak out about Chinese threat or risk AUKUS subs
Washington: Australia must speak more clearly about the threats posed by China, including how it would respond to a regional conflict, or risk the AUKUS submarine agreement, Indo-Pacific experts in the United States are warning. John Bolton, who served as Donald Trump's national security adviser in his first term, and held senior roles in other Republican administrations, said policymakers in Washington had noted the Albanese government was 'less vocal about what the problem is' compared with its predecessors. 'It is a little hard to get used to,' Bolton said in an interview. 'In the Cold War days, Labour governments in Great Britain were just as anti-communist as the Conservatives. When you see a leftist government that's not willing to talk as openly about what the real threat is, it does make some people nervous. 'I would be less than fully candid if I said it didn't make me a little nervous. Why the hell are we worried about talking about what the threat is? The struggle is on, and we ought to be candid about it.' Naval operations expert Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute with close links to the administration, said the AUKUS review was about putting Australia on notice that the US expected Australia to use the submarines it bought. 'The Australians have been a little reticent to explicitly call out that they might use them against China,' he told this masthead. 'If you're not willing to say it in public, then you're not going to put the Chinese on notice. It has been privately conveyed in the past, but the US would like Australia to make it more public.' Clark noted – as have other prominent defence experts in Washington – that AUKUS represented a significant portion of the Australian defence budget, especially at the current level of defence spending. 'That's the concern in the US – that you're spending 10 to 20 per cent of your procurement budget on this one system, yet you're not talking about how you might use it,' he said.
The Age
21 minutes ago
- The Age
Warning from Washington: Speak out about Chinese threat or risk AUKUS subs
Washington: Australia must speak more clearly about the threats posed by China, including how it would respond to a regional conflict, or risk the AUKUS submarine agreement, Indo-Pacific experts in the United States are warning. John Bolton, who served as Donald Trump's national security adviser in his first term, and held senior roles in other Republican administrations, said policymakers in Washington had noted the Albanese government was 'less vocal about what the problem is' compared with its predecessors. 'It is a little hard to get used to,' Bolton said in an interview. 'In the Cold War days, Labour governments in Great Britain were just as anti-communist as the Conservatives. When you see a leftist government that's not willing to talk as openly about what the real threat is, it does make some people nervous. 'I would be less than fully candid if I said it didn't make me a little nervous. Why the hell are we worried about talking about what the threat is? The struggle is on, and we ought to be candid about it.' Naval operations expert Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute with close links to the administration, said the AUKUS review was about putting Australia on notice that the US expected Australia to use the submarines it bought. 'The Australians have been a little reticent to explicitly call out that they might use them against China,' he told this masthead. 'If you're not willing to say it in public, then you're not going to put the Chinese on notice. It has been privately conveyed in the past, but the US would like Australia to make it more public.' Clark noted – as have other prominent defence experts in Washington – that AUKUS represented a significant portion of the Australian defence budget, especially at the current level of defence spending. 'That's the concern in the US – that you're spending 10 to 20 per cent of your procurement budget on this one system, yet you're not talking about how you might use it,' he said.
ABC News
21 minutes ago
- ABC News
Labor and the Coalition have very different ideas about ties to the United States
The prime minister's well-telegraphed announcement this week that Australia will recognise a Palestinian state surprised precisely no one in the end. Nor did the opposition's rejection of this diplomatic step. But the arguments from both sides this week revealed more than just a foreign policy split over the Middle East. The growing divide over how deferential Australia should be towards the United States has become a chasm. The prime minister and opposition leader have expressed starkly different views on whether Australia should be prepared to "break" with its great ally on such a major foreign policy question. The partisan divide over how closely to align with the US has been steadily building since Donald Trump's return to the White House. The Albanese government remains committed to the US alliance. It wants AUKUS to survive the ongoing Pentagon review and is confident it will. But at the same time, the prime minister is demonstrating greater independence from the US than any of his recent predecessors would have dared. The unpopularity of Trump in Australia has allowed him the room to move. Australia and the United States are now at odds on climate change (Albanese is sticking with net zero and the Paris Agreement), trade (Trump's tariffs are "not the act of a friend") and defence spending (Australia is resisting US calls to reach a 3.5 per cent of GDP target). In his John Curtin oration last month, Albanese spoke of this greater independence within the US alliance as a virtue. He sees a more sovereign stance benefiting Australia's relations in the region and Labor's political standing at home. When pressed this week on the implications of splitting with the US on Palestinian recognition, the prime minister's response was revealing. "We make our sovereign decisions as a nation state in Australia's national interest, and we are aligning ourselves with like-minded countries," he said. "Sovereignty" and "national interest" carry a patriotic appeal. Aligning with "like-minded countries" refers to the UK, Canada, France who have all committed to Palestinian recognition. The US, notably, is not regarded as "like-minded" here. Australia has been increasingly siding with this "like-minded" group as western nations navigate the turbulence of Trump. In statements condemning Israel, in discussions about how to support Ukraine without the US, on climate and trade — this "like-minded" coalition is finding more common ground. Opposition Leader Sussan Ley's view of how Australia should prioritise the US relationship could not be more different. The Coalition is already more closely aligned to Trump's world view on a range of fronts. It's considering joining Trump in dropping the net zero target. On trade, it seeks to blame the Albanese government, at least in part, for Trump's tariffs. On defence spending, the Coalition's pledge to reach a 3 per cent of GDP target was re-stated immediately after the election, while everything else remains under review. Barely a day goes by when the opposition isn't criticising the prime minister failing to secure a face-to-face meeting in the Oval Office. The Coalition views this as vital. It derided the length of Albanese's recent visit to China, on the grounds he should be in Washington instead. On Palestinian recognition, the opposition leader revealed just how heavily she thinks the US relationship should weigh in Australia's thinking. "There can be no breaking with our closest ally," Ley declared at a press conference after a shadow cabinet decision to oppose and reverse Palestinian recognition. "It's disrespectful of the relationship with the US," she told 2GB. Shadow Finance Minister James Paterson, incidentally, struck a somewhat different tone. While also strongly criticising the government's decision, he told Sky News Australia "of course, Australia's foreign policy is a matter for Australia, and we should decide it consistent with our own national interest, regardless of what our friends or allies might say". It was an acknowledgement the Coalition's position should still be framed as a sovereign decision, not one driven by deference to the United States. For his part, Trump is clearly not in favour of Palestinian recognition while Hamas remains in place and before a peace process. He agrees with those who argue recognition only rewards Hamas. He dismisses the significance of momentum amongst US allies who have taken this step. But Australia's decision to join the list hasn't caused much of a reaction from Trump at all. Indeed, the level of presidential concern appears to be subsiding as more allies take this step. A White House official told the Nine newspapers while the president's position is clear, he "is not married to any one solution as it pertains to building a more peaceful region". Still, Trump is nothing if not unpredictable. He may well say something much stronger if directly asked. This difference over Palestinian recognition could add to strains in the Australia-US relationship. The Albanese government has no doubt factored in that risk, along with all the other risks that go along with the decision to recognise a Palestinian state. The fear of upsetting Trump, however, isn't stopping US allies from moving towards Palestinian recognition. And here in Australia, this decision has exposed an even wider gap between the prime minister and opposition leader over whether "breaking with our closest ally" is OK. David Speers is national political lead and host of Insiders, which airs on ABC TV at 9am on Sunday or on iview.
