How DC's unique status let Trump take control of police, deploy National Guard
WASHINGTON – Although President Donald Trump threatened to extend his takeover of the DC Metropolitan Police Force to fight crime and homelessness to other cities, it can't be replicated elsewhere, according to legal experts.
The capital's unique status as a federal city, rather than part of a state, grants the federal government unique power to manage it directly. But the president is unlikely to be able to take control of the entire DC government because that would require a change in federal law, which would be difficult to get through the Senate, experts said.
Trump also has special authority to deploy the National Guard in DC, in contrast to governors traditionally overseeing mobilizations in their states. But the military is typically blocked from participating directly in law enforcement, which is why California filed a federal lawsuit against Trump's recent deployment of thousands of troops in Los Angeles.
'DC as a federal enclave is fundamentally different than a state or a local government,' Anthony Michael Kreis, a law professor at Georgia State University, told USA TODAY.
Here's what to know about Trump's authority to bolster law enforcement in states and cities − and the limitations on that power:
Trump becomes first to take over DC police under 1973 Home Rule Act
The Constitution ratified in 1787 provided for a federal capital district to serve as the seat of government controlled by Congress, and DC was founded a few years later. In 1973, Congress approved the Home Rule Act that gave the city a mayor and city council.
But Congress kept control over the city's spending and the ability to overturn DC laws, as happened in 2023 when the council tried to reduce penalties for some crimes. A provision in DC law allows the president to take control of the Metropolitan Police Force temporarily during an emergency.
'I think Washington DC is the only city where the president can do that,' Tom Manger, the former chief of Capitol police and departments in the DC suburbs of Montgomery County in Maryland and Fairfax County in Virginia, told USA TODAY.
Trump invoked the provision for the first time Aug. 11 aiming to rid the city of what he called was an emergency of 'crime, bloodshed, bedlam and squalor and worse.' He said the city was overrun with "violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals," despite a declining crime rate.
Trump had to notify the leaders of congressional committees overseeing DC in order for him to keep control of the police for 30 days. A longer extension would require authorization by lawmakers.
Trump told reporters Aug. 13 that he would ask Congress to 'long-term extensions' for him to remain control of the DC police, which he expected to be approved 'pretty much unanimously.' But he said he could call a national emergency if needed.
'We're going to be essentially crime free,' Trump said. 'This is going to be a beacon.'
Trump declared the initial emergency despite DC reporting a 35% drop in violent crime from 2023 to 2024, and a 26% drop in crime so far in 2025. Kreis said 'a lot of people would contest' the declaration of an emergency, but the challenge would be difficult to litigate.
'You almost by default have to defer to the president's judgment on this, no matter who the president is,' Kreis said.
Taking away DC home rule would require change in federal law
Trump is unlikely to be able to take control of the entire DC government because that would require a change in federal law. The legislation could be blocked by filibuster in the Senate, which requires 60 votes to overcome in a chamber with 53 of Trump's fellow Republicans and 47 members of the Democratic caucus.
Trump also criticized crime in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Baltimore as 'bad, very bad.' Trump threatened to expand the deployment of the National Guard to help fight crime in other states and cities. He specifically cited New York, Chicago and other cities as targets for more troops.
"We're not going to lose our cities over this. This will go further. We're starting very strongly with DC," Trump said.
'This will go further,' Trump said.
"We're going to take back our capital," Trump added. "And then we'll look at other cities also.
In August 2023, Trump criticized Atlanta's crime in August 2023 as 'WORST IN NATION' and a 'GIANT MURDER WAVE!' despite a decline in the crime rate.
But other cities and states aren't part of the federal government, so experts say he could not directly take over their police or local governments.'The federal government does not have the authority to commandeer state and local officials against their will to do their (its) bidding,' Kreis said. 'He just fundamentally cannot do that as a federalism matter.'
DC Mayor Muriel Bowser called Trump's takeover of the police force 'unsettling and unprecedented' but didn't challenge it in court.
'It's times like these when America needs to know that DC should be the 51st state,' Bowser said in a social media post Aug. 12.
Trump leads DC National Guard as commander in chief
Trump didn't need any additional authority Aug. 11 to assign 800 National Guard troops to bolster crime fighting in DC because as commander in chief he oversees the Guard in the federal city.
Joseph Nunn, national security counsel at New York University's Brennan Center for Justice, said presidents can deploy the National Guard where they want, but the troops are prevented from helping with law enforcement under a law called the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act. NOT CLEAR TO ME HERE WHAT THIS MEANS WRT THE ASSIGNMENT IN DC? IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE SAYING THEY WON'T BE ALLOWED TO DO LAW ENFORCEMENT, BUT IN DC THEY WILL. DO YOU MEAN HERE TO SAY THAT PRESIDENTS CAN DEPLOY THE DC NATIONAL GUARD OUTSIDE DC? BUT OUTSIDE DC THEY CANNOT DO LAW ENFORCEMENT? CAN YOU CLARIFY HERE?
This is why WHAT KIND OF? troops in Los Angeles WERE THEY DC NATL GUARD? SPECIFYwere described as protecting federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and buildings rather than helping arrest undocumented immigrants.
'He can put those troops wherever he wants to put them, but they will be constrained by the Posse Comitatus Act in terms of what they want to do,' Nunn told USA TODAY. THAT LAST PHRASE IS CONFUSING. WHO IS THEY? FIRST THEY WOULD BE THE TROOPS, BUT SECOND IS MAYBE REFERRING TO THE PRESIDENT? BC WHAT THE TROOPS THEMSELVES WANT TO DO SEEMS LIKE A WEIRD CONCEPT... IF HE MEANT PRES CAN YOU REVISE TO CLARIFY?
'Up to now, the sort of logistical support we've seen provided to ICE during in the interior country has largely been provided by federalized National Guard and by active-duty armed forces.'
National Guard deployments have been routine
Before Trump's latest directives, National Guard deployments were routine in DC and elsewhere for purposes other than law enforcement.
For example, after the Capitol attack Jan. 6, 2021, Manger was given the authority to request National Guard reinforcements FROM THE PRESIDENT? OR JUST DIRECTLY FROM THE GUARD ITSELF? on his own as chief of Capitol police, AS OPPOSED TO WHAT SITUATION PREVIOUSLY?. Manger said he appreciated the extra staffing to protect the Capitol or help with traffic during protests, such as when he set up dozens of traffic posts to keep vehicles moving during a trucker protest against public health restrictions by truckers.
'The National Guard is terrific,' Manger said.
Local authorities also often coordinate with federal law enforcement such as the FBI to fight organized crime or the Drug Enforcement Administration to combat drug trafficking.
'There's a symbiotic relationship between federal and local police across the country,' Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum think tank, told USA TODAY. 'What happened in Washington is distinctly different from what happened in pretty much any city in the country.'
Wexler added that the National Guard has a role to play, but troops are traditionally use 'sparingly.'
'They will never be a replacement for local police,' Wexler said. 'No police chief I know would ever put the National Guard in a position where they're making an arrest or their dealing directly with a volatile crowd. They have to be used strategically.'
But Manger was uncertain how Trump would move homeless people out of the capital.
'I'm not aware of any other cities or towns around the country that are clamoring for homeless," Manger said. "Where is he going to put them?"
Richard Stengel, a former undersecretary of state during the Obama administration, warned against the use of military to bolster law enforcement at a time when violent crime in DC is at a 30-year low.
'Throughout history, autocrats use a false pretext to impose government control over local law enforcement as a prelude to a more national takeover,' Stengel said in a social media post Aug. 11. 'That's far more dangerous than the situation he says he is fixing.'
Trump bolsters immigration enforcement with National Guard
The Pentagon announced on July 25 that 1,700 National Guard personnel – 1,200 already deployed plus 500 additional troops – will work on "case management, transportation and logistical support, and clerical support for the in- and out-processing" of ICE arrests. GIVEN THE IMPORTANCE OF DISTINGUISHING IN THIS PIECE WHETHER THEY ARE FROM DC OR A CERTAIN STATE, CAN YOU CLARIFY WHICH LOCALITY THEY ARE FROM HERE?
The duties of some will also include taking DNA swabs, photographs and fingerprints of people held at ICE facilities, according to a defense official speaking on condition of anonymity.
California fights Trump's use of National Guard for law enforcement
A landmark federal trial began Aug. 11 in San Francisco challenging Trump's deployment of 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 active-duty Marines to support deportations and quell immigration protests in Los Angeles.
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco will determine if the government violated the Posse Comitatus Act.
California sued the Trump administration by arguing the deployment violated federal law and state sovereignty. But a federal appeals court allowed Trump to retain control of California's National Guard during the legal fight.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom seeks a ruling that would return its National Guard troops to state control and a declaration that Trump's action was illegal.
What is the Insurrection Act?
One option for Trump to get around the prohibition on troops conducting law enforcement would be to invoke the 1807 Insurrection Act, which aimed to suppress armed rebellion or insurrection.
Despite the harsh terms, president have invoked the law throughout the country's history. Former President George H.W. Bush was the last to invoke the law in 1992, in response to rioting in Los Angeles after the acquittal of four white police officers charged with beating a Black motorist, Rodney King. CAN YOU SAY HERE WHAT BUSH DID WITH THAT INVOCATION? LIKE HE SENT ARMY TROOPS INTO LA? TO DO WHAT?
Trump threatened repeatedly after Black Lives Matter protests in 2020 to invoke the Insurrection Act but hasn't done so recently.
Legal experts said any challenge to Trump invoking that law would turn on similar semanatics defining whether the emergency or rebellion justified taking over the DC police or deploying National Guard troops in other cities.
'I think it would be naïve to suggest that the president would not try or could not try to stretch the definitions of insurrection or rebellion beyond their common political usage to suit his political needs,' Kreis said. 'The law might say one thing but its ability to be stretched and molded into a political weapon for the president's benefit is not really purely speculative.'
Contributing: Cybele Mayes-Osterman and Reuters
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Factbox-Russian energy export disruptions since start of Ukraine war
(Reuters) -When U.S. President Donald Trump meets Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday, one of his bargaining chips to encourage Putin to make progress toward a ceasefire in Ukraine will be to ease U.S. sanctions on Russia's energy industry and exports. Trump has also threatened tougher sanctions if there is no progress. Here is how sanctions have impacted Russian energy exports since the start of the conflict. NATURAL GAS AND LNG Russia was the top supplier of natural gas to Europe before the war. Most gas travelled through four pipeline routes: Nord Stream running under the Baltic Sea, the Yamal line crossing Poland, transit via Ukraine, and the Turkstream line. Europe also imports Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG). In 2021, total Russian gas imports to the EU totalled 150 billion cubic metres (bcm) per year, or 45% of its total imports, and have fallen to 52 bcm or 19% since, according to the European Commission. While the EU has not imposed sanctions on Russian pipeline gas imports, contract disputes and damage to Nord Stream caused by an explosion, have cut supplies. As part of a fresh round of sanctions announced in July, the European Union has now banned transactions including any provision of goods or services related to Nord Stream, which albeit damaged could be revived as a gas supply route. Transit via Ukraine ended at the end of 2024, leaving just Turkstream as a functioning route for Russian pipeline gas to Europe. The European Commission has also proposed a legally binding ban on EU imports of Russian gas and LNG by the end of 2027, but this has not been passed into legislation yet. The U.S. in 2024 imposed sanctions on companies supporting the development of Russia's Arctic LNG 2 project, which would become Russia's largest plant with an eventual output of 19.8 million metric tons per year. OIL The U.S., UK, and EU all prohibited the import of seaborne crude oil and refined petroleum products from Russia during the first year of the war in Ukraine. In addition to the embargoes, the G7 group of countries (including the US, UK, and EU) imposed a price cap on Russian seaborne crude oil for third countries at $60 per barrel in December 2022, and a cap on fuels the following February. The EU and UK altered the crude price cap level in June 2025 to $47.60, or 15% below the average market price, but the U.S. did not back the move. The price cap aims to reduce Russia's revenues from oil sales by prohibiting shipping, insurance and reinsurance companies from handling tankers carrying crude traded above the cap level. Western powers have also imposed sanctions on more than 440 tankers belonging to the so-called shadow fleet that transports sanctioned oil outside of Western services and the price cap. Russia's leading shipper Sovcomflot is also under sanctions in the West. The U.S. has also sanctioned major Russian oil companies including Gazprom Neft and Surgutneftegaz. The measures banning Russian oil imports in the west and restricting Russian oil trade elsewhere have redirected Russian oil flows towards Asia, with China, India, and Turkey emerging as the major buyers for Russian crude. The price cap was meant to keep Russian oil flowing to prevent a spike in global oil prices which would have followed a halt or severe drop in Russian exports. Trump has, however, signalled a change in policy in recent weeks by threatening to impose secondary sanctions on India and China for buying Russian oil to put pressure on Putin to agree to a ceasefire in Ukraine. COAL The European Union banned imports of Russian coal in 2022, seeing volumes drop from 50 million metric tonnes in 2021 to zero by 2023, according to data from Eurostat.
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump and Putin Have Different Goals for Anchorage Summit
(Bloomberg) -- Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin will measure success at their summit in Alaska very differently, even as both leaders are already looking toward a second meeting. The US president sees any kind of ceasefire in Ukraine as a key objective of the talks. For the Russian leader, getting face time with Trump on American soil without having made any concessions on the war is already a win. The US-Canadian Road Safety Gap Is Getting Wider Festivals and Parades Are Canceled Amid US Immigration Anxiety To Head Off Severe Storm Surges, Nova Scotia Invests in 'Living Shorelines' Five Years After Black Lives Matter, Brussels' Colonial Statues Remain Princeton Plans New Budget Cuts as Pressure From Trump Builds Those are the contrasting stakes as both leaders head to Anchorage for their first summit since 2018 in Helsinki. The imbalance points to the perils and opportunities for Trump, who has long cast himself as the only one who can end the war. Putin has little incentive to stop the fighting as Russia's military slowly grinds out gains in Ukraine, but can ill afford to alienate a president with whom he's long cultivated a relationship. En route to Anchorage on Friday morning, Trump didn't rule out that Ukraine might get some form of security guarantees from western nations, or that it might have to agree to swap land with Russia. But he said it wasn't his place to decide. 'I've got to let Ukraine make that decision,' Trump said of the idea of the two countries trading land. 'And I think they'll make a proper decision. But I'm not here to negotiate for Ukraine. I'm here to get them at the table.' By invading Ukraine in 2022, Putin began Europe's biggest war for 80 years and became an international pariah. The summit with Trump helps him to chip away at the isolation the US and its Group of Seven allies have sought to impose on the Russian leader over his aggression. Even more symbolically potent is the decision to host the encounter at a military base, Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, in the US. By that metric, Putin has scored a victory simply by showing up. The meeting also marks a repudiation of former President Joe Biden's approach of 'nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine,' a mantra that made sure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy always had a seat at the table. 'Russia wants to continue to pursue its objectives, which are to dramatically weaken Ukraine and essentially undermine its independence and sovereignty,' Richard Haass, a former senior State Department official, said in an interview. 'So Russia sees negotiations not as an alternative to that, but as a means toward that end.' The perils for Trump account for the White House's strategy of tamping down expectations for the meeting. Trump described it as a 'feel-out meeting,' a message reinforced by White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, who called the summit 'a listening exercise for the president.' Trump is already looking ahead to a potential second summit that would include Zelenskiy — and perhaps European leaders — which he anticipated would be 'more productive than the first.' The Kremlin, anticipating that move, has invited Trump to come to Russia next. It's a far cry from Trump's boasts on the campaign trail that he could end the war within a day of taking office. In May, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said it was 'abundantly clear' that a breakthrough was only possible with involvement of Trump and Putin. The new framing gives Trump room to maneuver during the actual meeting, according to people familiar with the matter, who asked not to be identified discussing private deliberations. That will allow him to make decisions in the moment as he relies on his instincts, which aligns with his preference for personal diplomacy over traditional bureaucratic deliberations. In one optimistic scenario, the two leaders could leave Alaska with an agreement to halt the fighting — at least temporarily or partially, for instance by agreeing to pause Russian air attacks. Trump could boost Putin's proposal to take Ukrainian territory that his forces have captured. Or they could come away with nothing at all, something Trump was happy to accept after he walked out of talks with North Korea's Kim Jong Un in 2019. Trump said in an interview with Bret Baier on Friday that if the meeting does not go well, 'I would walk,' according to Fox News. 'I think it's going to work out very well and if it doesn't, I'm going to head back home real fast,' he told Baier. For his part, Putin is eager to widen cracks between the US and Europe while seeking relief from sanctions that have crippled Russia's economic growth. The list of attendees reflects the importance both sides attach to the meeting. Trump will be joined by Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, as well as his CIA director, John Ratcliffe. There's a concern among governments in Europe that rather than focus on Ukraine's interests, the meeting could pivot to improving the US-Russia economic relationship. That might provide Putin a lifeline to continue the war, according to a European diplomat who asked not to be identified without authorization to speak to publicly. 'Once he gets into the room with Vladimir Putin, and Putin is able to make his case, I think he will be malleable, and the inclination will be to get along with Putin,' Andrea Kendall-Taylor, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, told reporters on Thursday. 'I think a lot of the goodwill and agreement with the Europeans may very well go right out the door.' Trump told reporters on Air Force One he belived Putin would also include economic officials in his delegation. 'I noticed he's bringing a lot of business people from Russia, and that's good I like that because they want to do business,' Trump said. 'But they're not doing business until we get the war settled.' Putin brings his longtime foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, as well as his defense and finance ministers. That suggests Russia wants to discuss the potential for increased economic cooperation — an idea that appeals to Trump. Trump and Putin are expected to speak alone ahead of a lunch with their delegations and a joint press conference is planned afterward. That raises the specter of a repeat of the now-infamous news conference in Helsinki where Trump publicly sided with Putin in rejecting US intelligence assessments that Russia had meddled in the 2016 presidential election. --With assistance from Hadriana Lowenkron. (Updates with Trump comment in 17th paragraph. A previous version of this story corrected that Vice President JD Vance is not expected to attend the summit.) Americans Are Getting Priced Out of Homeownership at Record Rates What Declining Cardboard Box Sales Tell Us About the US Economy Bessent on Tariffs, Deficits and Embracing Trump's Economic Plan Dubai's Housing Boom Is Stoking Fears of Another Crash Twitter's Ex-CEO Is Moving Past His Elon Musk Drama and Starting an AI Company ©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What are President Trump's approval ratings? See what Indiana thinks of his performance
President Donald Trump's approval ratings nationally are in the red, but in about half of the states, including Indiana, more people approve than disapprove of his job performance. While Trump's approval rating nationally remains historically low, a look at state-by-state survey results show a more complicated picture. Here is what we know: Trump has positive approval rating in 27 states Trump's approval rating is above water in 27 states, according to an Aug. 12 update from Morning Consult, which gathers polls over the course of three months to get a look at state-level data among registered voters. The number of states who approve of Trump is unchanged from July's update. Morning Consult found that Trump is most popular in Wyoming, where 66% of voters approve of his job performance, and least popular in Vermont, where 64% disapprove. His approval is net negative in two states with gubernatorial races this fall: New Jersey and Virginia, according to Morning Consult. In Texas, 53% of voters approve of Trump's performance while 44% disapprove. In California, where Gov. Gavin Newsom has threatened to counter changes in Texas' redistricting plan, 41% approve of Trump's job peformance while 56% disapprove. California is Trump's seventh worst rating among the states, according to Morning Consult. What is Trump's approval rating in Indiana? According to Morning Consult, 51% of Hoosiers approve of Trump while 45% disapprove. Despite recent "No Kings" and "Good Trouble" protests, Indiana is one of the 27 states where Trump's approval ratings are more positive than not. Story continues after photo gallery. What is Trump's approval overall? RealClearPolitics Poll Average shows Trump's approval rating dipping throughout the first few weeks of July before rising toward the end of the month. Aggregated polls by the New York Times show a similar trend. As of Jan. 27, Trump had a +6.2 percentage point approval rating, but as of March 13, that flipped to slightly negative, the RealClearPolitics graphics show. His approval rating fell lowest on April 29 around Trump's 100-day mark to 7.2 percentage points. It came close to that low again on July 22 and 23 at -7.1 percentage points, as the controversy over Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced financier and convicted pedophile, carried into its third week. As of Aug. 12 Trump's average approval rating margin, according to RealClearPolitics, is -5.4 percentage points. The approval margin according to the New York Times aggregator on Aug. 12 is -8 percentage points. How does Trump's approval rating compare to previous presidents? A historical analysis by Gallup shows Trump's approval ratings in July of his first years in office — both as the 45th and 47th presidents — are lower than those of any other modern president at the same time in their administrations. In a Gallup poll conducted from July 7-21, 37% approved of Trump's job performance. Here's how that compares to other presidents in July of their first year of their term, according to Gallup: Kinsey Crowley is the Trump Connect reporter for the USA TODAY Network. Reach her at kcrowley@ Follow her on X and TikTok @kinseycrowley or Bluesky at @ This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: What is Trump's approval rating in Indiana?