Trump says he will take control of DC police, deploy National Guard to capital
"I'm deploying the National Guard to help reestablish law, order and public safety in Washington, D.C.," Trump told reporters at the White House, flanked by administration officials including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Attorney General Pam Bondi. "Our capital city has been overtaken by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals."
Trump's announcement is his latest effort to target Democratic cities by exercising executive power over traditionally local matters. He has dismissed criticism that he is manufacturing a crisis to justify expanding presidential authority.
Hundreds of officers and agents from over a dozen federal agencies, including the FBI, ICE, DEA, and ATF, have already fanned out across the city in recent days.
The Democratic major of Washington, Muriel Bowser, has pushed back on Trump's claims, 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 fell 26% in the first seven months of 2025 after dropping 35% in 2024, and overall crime dropped 7%, according to the city's police department.
But gun violence remains an issue. In 2023, Washington had the third-highest gun homicide rate among U.S. cities with populations over 500,000, according to gun control advocacy group Everytown for Gun Safety.
The deployment of National Guard troops is a tactic the Republican president used in Los Angeles, where he dispatched 5,000 troops in June in response to protests over his administration's immigration raids. State and local officials objected to Trump's decision as unnecessary and inflammatory.
A federal trial was set to begin on Monday in San Francisco on whether the Trump administration violated U.S. law by deploying National Guard troops and U.S. Marines without the approval of Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom.
The president has broad authority over the 2,700 members of the D.C. National Guard, unlike in states where governors typically hold the power to activate troops. Guard troops have been dispatched to Washington many times, including in response to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by a mob of Trump supporters.
During his first term, Trump sent the National Guard into Washington in 2020 to help quash mostly peaceful demonstrations during nationwide protests over police brutality following the murder of George Floyd. Civil rights leaders denounced the deployment, which was opposed by Bowser.
The U.S. military is generally prohibited under law from directly participating in domestic law enforcement activities.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
29 minutes ago
- The Independent
Land swaps with Russia are not only unpopular in Ukraine. They're also illegal
A peace deal that requires Kyiv to accept swapping Ukrainian territory with Russia would not only be deeply unpopular. It also would be illegal under its constitution. That's why President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has categorically rejected any deal with Moscow that could involve ceding land after U.S. President Donald Trump suggested such a concession would be beneficial to both sides, ahead of his meeting Friday with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska. Zelenskyy said over the weekend that Kyiv 'will not give Russia any awards for what it has done,' and that 'Ukrainians will not give their land to the occupier.' The remarks came after Trump said a peace deal would involve swapping of Ukrainian territories by both sides 'to the betterment of both.' For Zelenskyy, such a deal would be disaster for his presidency and spark public outcry after more than three years of bloodshed and sacrifice by Ukrainians. Moreover, he doesn't have the authority to sign off on it, because changing Ukraine's 1991 borders runs counter to the country's constitution. For now, freezing the front line appears to be an outcome the Ukrainian people are willing to accept. A look at the challenges such proposals entail: Russia occupies about a fifth of Ukraine Russia occupies about a fifth of Ukraine, from the country's northeast to the Crimean Peninsula, which was annexed illegally in 2014. The front line is vast and cuts across six regions — the active front stretches for at least 1,000 kilometers (680 miles) — but if measured from along the border with Russia, it reaches as far as 2,300 kilometers (1,430 miles). Russia controls almost all of the Luhansk region and almost two-thirds of Donetsk region, which together comprise the Donbas, as the strategic industrial heartland of Ukraine is called. Russia has long coveted the area and illegally annexed it in the first year of the full-scale invasion, even though it didn't control much of it at the time. Russia also partially controls more than half of the Kherson region, which is critical to maintain logistical flows of supplies coming in from the land corridor in neighboring Crimea, and also parts of the Zaporizhzhia region, where the Kremlin seized Europe's largest nuclear power plant. Russian forces also hold pockets of territory in Kharkiv and Sumy regions in northeastern Ukraine, far less strategically valuable for Moscow. Russian troops are gaining a foothold in the Dnipropetrovsk region. These could be what Moscow is willing to exchange for land it deems more important in Donetsk, where the Russian army has concentrated most of its effort. 'There'll be some land swapping going on. I know that through Russia and through conversations with everybody. To the good, for the good of Ukraine. Good stuff, not bad stuff. Also, some bad stuff for both,' Trump said Monday. Ukrainian forces are still active in the Kursk region inside Russia, but they barely hold any territory there, making it not as potent a bargaining chip as Kyiv's leaders had probably hoped when they launched the daring incursion across the border last year. Swapping Ukrainian controlled territory in Russia, however minuscule, will likely be the only palatable option for Kyiv in any land swapping scenario. Conceding land risks another invasion Surrendering territory would see those unwilling to live under Russian rule to pack up and leave. Many civilians have endured so much suffering and bloodshed since pro-Moscow forces began battling the Ukrainian military in the east in 2014 and since the full-scale invasion in 2022. From a military standpoint, abandoning the Donetsk region in particular would vastly improve Russia's ability to invade Ukraine again, according to the Washington-based think tank Institute for the Study of War. Bowing to such a demand would force Ukraine to abandon its 'fortress belt,' the main defensive line in Donetsk since 2014, "with no guarantee that fighting will not resume,' the institute said in a recent report. The regional defensive line has prevented Russia's efforts to seize the region and continues to impede Russia's efforts to take the rest of the area, ISW said. Ukraine's constitution poses a major challenge to any deal involving a land swap because it requires a nationwide referendum to approve changes to the country's territorial borders, said Ihor Reiterovych, a politics professor in the Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv. 'Changes in territorial integrity can be done only by the decision of the people — not the president, the cabinet of ministers or the parliament can change it,' he said. 'In the constitution it is written that only by referendum can changes to Ukraine's territory be conducted.' If during negotiations Zelenskyy agrees to swap territory with Russia, "in the same minute he will be a criminal because he would be abandoning the main law that governs Ukraine,' Reiterovych said. Trump said he was 'a little bothered' by Zelenskyy's assertion over the weekend that he needed constitutional approval to cede to Russia the territory that it captured in its unprovoked invasion. 'I mean, he's got approval to go into a war and kill everybody, but he needs approval to do a land swap?' Trump added. 'Because there'll be some land swapping going on. I know that through Russia and through conversations with everybody.' Zelenskyy is still trying to regain the people's trust that was damaged when he reversed course on a law that would have diminished the independence of Ukraine's anti-corruption watchdogs. The move was a red line for those citizens who are protective of the country's institutions and are suspicious of certain members of Zelenskyy's inner circle. Freezing the conflict seems a lesser evil for Ukraine Analysts like Reiterovych dismiss a land swap as a distraction. Freezing the conflict along the current front line is the only option Ukrainians are willing to accept, he said, citing recent polls. This option would also buy time for both sides to consolidate manpower and build up their domestic weapons industries. Ukraine would require strong security guarantees from its Western partners to deter future Russian aggression, which Kyiv believes is inevitable. Still, freezing the conflict will also be difficult for Ukrainians to accept. Along with the illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the partial occupation of Luhansk and Donetsk after that, it would require accepting that the Ukrainian military is not able to retake lost territories militarily. Kyiv accepted its inability to retake these territories but never formally recognized them as Russian. A similar scenario could unfold in the new regions taken by Russian forces. It also is not a viable long-term solution. 'It is the lesser evil option for everyone and it will not provoke protests or rallies on the streets,' Reiterovych said. —- Associated Press journalist Volodymyr Yurchuk contributed.
Reuters
30 minutes ago
- Reuters
Indian refiners using term deals as hedge against Russian supply risk, govt says
NEW DELHI, Aug 12 (Reuters) - India's state oil refiners will continue to use annual contracts to secure oil supplies and hedge against market volatilities as the future of cheap Russian purchases is in doubt, the oil ministry said in a report to parliament on Tuesday. India has emerged as the leading buyer of Russian seaborne oil, which is sold at a discount after some Western nations shunned purchases and imposed restrictions on Russian exports over Moscow's 2022 invasion of Ukraine. However, U.S. President Donald Trump, who announced 25% import tariffs on Indian goods last month, is threatening further levies due to India's Russian oil purchases. And state refiners are currently awaiting clarity from the government on whether to continue importing Russian oil. "Increased imports of Russian crude into India may not last forever," the ministry said in a report responding to a parliamentary panel's questions that did not directly mention the United States or Trump's threatened tariffs. The report said that state refineries were moving forward with all of their term contracts with other suppliers and regions to secure supply requirements. Refiners consider factors including supply security, international politics and trade relations when finalising their procurement plans, it added. "This approach ensures both energy security and the procurement of crude oil at optimal value," the report said. India, the world's third-largest oil importer and consumer, relies on Russian crude for more than a third of its imports. State refiners, which account for over 60% of the country's 5.2 million barrels per day of refining capacity, have paused purchases of Russian oil due to narrowing discounts. Private refiners Reliance Industries Ltd ( opens new tab, Nayara Energy, and HPCL-Mittal Energy Ltd are continuing with their purchases. Trump has made bringing an end to the war in Ukraine a priority of his administration. He is due to meet with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin, with whom he's had a tumultuous relationship, in Alaska on Friday as part of his efforts to secure a peace deal.
Reuters
30 minutes ago
- Reuters
Explainer: How US marijuana reclassification could help cannabis companies
Aug 12 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump's administration is looking to reclassify marijuana as a less dangerous drug, a shift that could ease criminal penalties and reshape the pot industry by lowering tax burdens and making it easier for firms to secure funding. Trump said on Monday a decision could come within the next couple of weeks. U.S.-listed cannabis-linked stocks rose in pre-market trading on Tuesday, led by a 13% jump in Canopy Growth . Organigram Global , SNDL , Aurora Cannabis and Tilray Brands (TLRY.O), opens new tab gained between 3% and 12%. Under the Controlled Substances Act, marijuana is listed as a Schedule I substance, meaning it has a high potential for abuse and no current accepted medical use. Reclassifying marijuana as a less dangerous drug could unlock banking access for pot producers, attract institutional investors, reduce tax burden and spur mergers and acquisitions. Securing funding remains one of the biggest challenges for cannabis producers, as federal restrictions keep most banks and institutional investors out of the sector, forcing pot producers to turn to costly loans or alternative lenders. Last year, the Biden administration asked the Department of Health and Human Services to review marijuana's classification, and the agency recommended moving it to Schedule III, a category for substances with a moderate to low risk of physical or psychological dependence. One of the biggest benefits from a reclassification would be that cannabis firms would no longer be subject to Section 280E of the U.S. federal tax code. That provision prevents businesses dealing in Schedule I and II controlled substances from claiming tax credits and deductions for business expenses. TD Cowen analyst Jaret Seiberg said full legalization remains unlikely, citing a lack of meaningful support in Congress and limits on how far the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) can go through rescheduling alone. "It seems more likely to us that Trump would revive the effort at the DEA to move cannabis to Schedule III, which would permit the government to regulate it," said Seiberg. Some analysts, however, say a reclassification will not change much. Cannabis will remain federally illegal, interstate trade will not be allowed and the silo system of each state deciding their own market rules will still apply, according to equity research firm Zuanic & Associates.
