DC sues Trump administration over 'unlawful' federal takeover
The lawsuit, filed Friday by D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb, states that the administration's actions under Section 740 of the Home Rule Act "[do] not authorize this brazen usurpation of the District's authority over its own government."
"That narrow statute permits the President and his delegee to request that the Mayor provide the "services" of MPD — nothing more. None of the directives in the Bondi Order fall within the compass of that limited grant of authority," he said in the federal court filing.
Schwalb also argued that Attorney General Pam Bondi's new order seeking to sideline Metropolitan Police Chief Pamela Smith is unlawful, and asked the court to overturn the order.
This is a breaking news story. Check back for updates.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The rich already know how private equity mints money — and it's not from a 401(k)
The ultrawealthy are envied for many reasons. For instance, we wish we could access the same private-market investments that they favor. Now, after the White House issued an executive order on Aug. 7, you may be able to invest like the billionaires do. Homeowners rush to refinance as mortgage-rate plunge opens window of opportunity My wife and I are in our 50s and have $11 million. We're not leaving it to our kids. Is that wrong? You could receive up to $7,500 from the AT&T settlement. Here's how class-action suits work. But would you want to? The executive order allows ordinary retirement savers to invest in private assets and cryptocurrency. This will expand investment options for anyone with a 401(k) or similar tax-advantaged retirement plan. It is a big deal — opening part of America's $12.4 trillion defined-contribution market to private-asset managers. The largest private-equity firms and other asset managers are salivating at the opportunity to pitch this untapped market of retirement savers. Private assets encompass a range of investments that do not trade on a public exchange. Examples include hedge funds, private equity, private credit and infrastructure. The case for private assets is they can provide a buffer against inflation — plus steady returns. The downsides include high fees, illiquidity and complexity. The nation's biggest asset managers welcome the executive order. They want to develop funds that make private assets easier for people to buy, and argue that the added diversification serves savers' best interests. Larry Fink, chief executive of BlackRock BLK, says retirement savers should replace the traditional 60% stocks/40% bonds asset-allocation model with a 50/30/20 split: 50% stocks, 30% bonds and 20% private assets. Read: Larry Fink proposes an alternative to the 60/40 portfolio. It means more fees. Should you be excited about this widening menu of investment choices? It depends on whom you ask. Some investment professionals like the idea of making private assets more available to more people. 'Historically, a number of private-market strategies have produced higher performance and additional diversification in defined-benefit pensions,' says Peter von Lehe, head of investment solutions and strategy at Neuberger Berman. 'It's appropriate that a broader range of investors have access to private assets in their defined-contribution plans because of the potential for return and diversification that these long-term investments can provide.' However, von Lehe cautions that these investments are illiquid and 'have a higher degree of complexity.' He says his 'most appropriate use case' for private-market investments is through professionally managed target-date funds or other funds that allocate a percentage of defined-contribution money to these complex but potentially more lucrative alternatives. Read: Here's something the rich know about managing investment risk that can help you, too Financial advisers have differing views on the role of private assets in client portfolios. Steven Roge, a certified financial planner in Bohemia, N.Y., says private markets are not for everyone. 'It's for people in the wealth-accumulation phase, say 40 to 50 years old, who have a long time horizon and a high risk tolerance,' Roge says. 'And they have to be sophisticated enough to understand it. We know if they don't understand it, they may not stick with it.' Of the firm's 300 clients, he says that 'only about a dozen' fit the bill for adding private-market assets to their retirement accounts. Even with the expanded investment options that may result from the White House's action, Roge remains a fan of passive strategies for most investors. 'Indexing is how they will win over the long run,' he says. 'But some clients want something that's special and different' as they seek market-beating returns. Given the illiquidity of private assets, Roge anticipates setting expectations for those clients who tend to monitor their portfolio daily — and who engage in frequent trading. 'These private investments may only price four times a year,' Roge says. 'That's not enough action for certain clients who track their portfolio like a hawk.' In his personal portfolio, Roge uses private markets — especially private equity — to diversify his holdings. He says he allocates about 25% to alternative assets. 'It helps me sleep at night knowing my portfolio isn't being pushed around by the volatility of public markets,' he says. Roge adds that he is not concerned about the current high valuations of private-equity funds. 'The valuations [of private-equity funds] are more realistic than the erratic valuations we see in public markets on a daily basis,' he says. Other advisers are more skeptical of the White House executive order. 'It's less being done out of interest for the general public and more for private industry lobbying the [Trump] administration,' says Alex Ruda, an adviser in Silver Spring, Md. The executive order undoubtedly pleases asset managers and private-equity firms. For years, they've wanted to attract retirement savers' money. These savers bear primary responsibility for managing their 401(k) compared with today's older retirees, many of whom receive employer-funded defined-benefit pensions. While some younger savers enjoy picking their investments, others dread it. 'The average American worker isn't equipped to navigate these complex [private-market] investments,' Ruda says. 'And they may fall prey to a little performance chasing given where we are in the market cycle' — as private markets have outperformed publicly traded stocks since 2000. Ruda feels so strongly about not incorporating private assets into client portfolios that he's willing to forgo newcomers who express such interest. 'If I wanted to broaden my client base, I'd have to play to what they want,' he says. 'But I don't have to do that. So I'd say to them, 'I'm not the best fit.'' Read next: Here's what it's like to invest in private equity — and why you don't want it in your 401(k) More: As private equity enters retirement plans, is it too dangerous for average investors to jump in? I'm a senior who barely survives on $1,300 a month. No way could I live on $1,000. 'I am a senior citizen': My car needs $3,500 for repairs, but only has a trade-in value of $6,000. Do I bother fixing it?
USA Today
14 minutes ago
- USA Today
Notice a theme to Trump's planned takeovers of cities? These Black mayors do.
President Trump has warned he might send the National Guard to other cities. The Black mayors of those cities vow to push back. OAKLAND, California ‒ Oakland Mayor Barbara Lee and other officials in this California city are treating President Donald Trump's warning that he might send the National Guard there as more than just an offhand comment. They're bracing for a fight. Lee and other Black mayors, along with civil rights activists and lawmakers across the country are increasingly concerned about Trump singling out cities like Oakland, Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Baltimore and Washington, DC. All of them are led by Black mayors and all of those leaders are Democrats. 'We just can't help but feel in some kind of way that we're being specifically profiled," said Van R. Johnson, president of the African American Mayors Association and mayor of Savannah, Georgia. 'That's not right. That's not fair. We want our federal government to work with us. We're just a phone call away.' New York Rep. Yvette Clarke, chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, called Trump's takeover of DC's policing a 'blatantly racist and despicable power grab.' 'It won't stop in Washington, DC," she said in a statement. 'The stakes are high not just for Washington, DC, but for the future of democracy in every corner of this country.' Trump used his presidential powers in early August to take over policing in Washington, DC, complaining crime is rampant and officials haven't done enough to address it ‒ despite statistics showing crime in the district is at a 30-year-low. Trump also threatened to deploy the National Guard to help fight crime in other communities. "We're going to take back our capital," Trump said Aug. 11. "And then we'll look at other cities also." He called it a "historic action to rescue our nation's capital from crime, bloodshed, bedlam and squalor and worse." Different visions for tackling urban problems White House officials argue the nation's capital is filthy and that Trump has seen that firsthand. In March, Trump signed an executive order titled "Making the District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful," which sets up a task force of federal officials to clean up the city. 'If Democrats had any common sense, they would follow President Trump's lead to crack down on violent crime that has plagued our nation's capital – and Democrat-run cities across the country," Taylor Rogers, White House assistant press secretary, said in an email to USA TODAY. "Instead of criticizing President Trump's popular, tough-on crime policies, they should focus on cleaning up their own cities which are some of the most dangerous places in America." Many big cities are run by Democrats, but both violent and property crimes have fallen nationwide in recent years, federal data shows. Civil rights leaders criticized Trump for portraying cities, especially those led by Black mayors, as crime ridden. "Painting a false picture of the city's largest Black-majority cities, led by Black mayors, is part of the Trump administration's ongoing strategy to exploit racial distrust for political gain,'' Marc Morial, president of the National Urban League, and George Lambert, president of the Greater Washington Urban League President, said in a statement. If Trump really wanted to help cities, several mayors argued, he wouldn't be cutting funding for anti-poverty programs and community policing efforts. 'We need to have this federal government invest in cities like Oakland instead of disinvesting in us,' said Lee, who spent 27 years in Congress, including during Trump's first term. 'It doesn't make any sense what this government is doing if they want to see cities not just survive but thrive.' More: 'DC has a right to govern itself': Civil rights leaders denounce Trump's takeover move 'Reasonable people can look at the optics' Trump has yet to publicly bring up race in his criticisms of those cities, but experts point to his history of racially disparaging remarks, including during his first term when he questioned why the United States would let in people from countries like Haiti and parts of Africa, which he referred to using an expletive. Trump also called Baltimore, a predominately Black city, a 'disgusting, rat and rodent-infested mess.' While the president didn't specifically mention race then or in his recent references, it's clearly implied, said Jason Williams, a professor of Justice Studies at Montclair State University in New Jersey. Williams said urban centers historically have been code for talking about Black people or communities of color. 'He doesn't necessarily have to say it in order for his base to know what the implications are,' said Williams, adding that most people know DC has a significant Black population. 'It does give him some plausible deniability. Not that I think this president would care." Oakland's Lee told USA TODAY she finds Trump's actions "fearmongering and diversionary." "A lot of what he does is to provoke unrest and that gives him an excuse, so we have to be prepared and ready to fight," she said. Oakland has a contingency plan if Trump tries to send in National Guard, Lee added. When asked if she could provide any details, the mayor replied, 'I'm not at liberty to do that right now. That would be inappropriate at this point.' In DC, Trump justified his actions by citing a recent overnight assault of a former federal official and in Los Angeles, he called in the National Guard to quell civil protests spurred by the aggressive immigration crackdown. He might take advantage of other isolated incidents to target other big cities, said Insha Rahman, vice president of advocacy at the Vera Institute of Justice, a nonprofit organization focused on criminal justice. "It's the red meat that Trump uses to rile up the MAGA base and it is effective as bait only when it's left unchecked," Rahman said. 'We've been here before' Federal officials have sometimes used their powers to undermine Black urban leadership and portray them as chaotic and incompetent or crime prone, Williams said. He pointed to examples such as the urban renewal of the 1960s and 1970s when federal officials displaced Black neighborhoods with highways and a century earlier, after Reconstruction, when governments dismantled post-Civil War gains. 'We've been here before with federal overreach and an attempt to try to roll back hard-won wins," Williams said. The nation's capital has long been in the crosshairs of Trump and GOP congressional leaders. Earlier this year, Republican lawmakers threatened to withhold funds if Bowser didn't remove a Black Lives Matter mural from a street near the White House. 'DC has always been this sort of political football for the Republicans,' Williams said. While some Black mayors are concerned about their cities becoming a Trump target, they're continuing their work to combat crime, Johnson, the Savannah mayor, said. 'We're worried about fighting our federal government as well as fighting crime," he said. 'It's a continuous 'what if, what next,' which we think are distractions from what the American people are really talking about.' Johnson said the ideologies and approaches of some Black mayors may be different than Trump's, but that doesn't mean they can't be partners on issues, including crime. 'We understand elections. We're politicians ourselves," he said. 'We're charged with playing with whoever is on the field. When Donald Trump became president, he became president of our cities too.' Contributing: Phillip Bailey
CBS News
15 minutes ago
- CBS News
Trump administration to more heavily scrutinize "good moral character" requirement for U.S. citizenship
The Trump administration is signaling it will more heavily scrutinize applications filed by legal immigrants seeking American citizenship, in its latest effort to tighten access to U.S. immigration benefits. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the federal agency overseeing the country's legal immigration system, instructed officers on Friday to consider additional factors when determining whether immigrants applying for U.S. citizenship have a "good moral character." Typically, legal immigrants with U.S. permanent residency, also known as a green card, can apply for naturalized American citizenship after a 3- or 5-year period, depending on their case. Demonstrating "a good moral character" has long been one of the requirements in U.S. immigration law for American citizenship, alongside passing English and civics tests. For decades, under Republican and Democratic administrations, the "good moral character" assessment has generally been satisfied if applicants don't have any of the criminal offenses or disqualifying conduct outlined in U.S. immigration law. Those disqualifying factors range from violent crimes like murder and aggravated felonies to drug offenses and being a "habitual drunkard." But a policy issued Friday by USCIS expands the "good moral character" assessment, saying that determination must involve "more than a cursory mechanical review focused on the absence of wrongdoing." Instead, the review, the agency told its officers, should be "a holistic assessment of an alien's behavior, adherence to societal norms, and positive contributions that affirmatively demonstrate good moral character." The directive orders officers to place a "greater emphasis" on applicants' "positive attributes and contributions," listing community involvement, family caregiving and ties, educational attainment, "stable and lawful" employment, the length of time spent in the U.S., and paying taxes as some of those factors. The memo also mandates "greater scrutiny" of factors that show applicants lack a "good moral character," beyond the crimes and disqualifying conduct detailed in U.S. immigration law. Those factors, the policy said, include "acts that are contrary to the average behavior of citizens in the jurisdiction where aliens reside," including actions that are "technically lawful" but also "inconsistent with civic responsibility within the community." USCIS listed "reckless or habitual traffic infractions, or harassment or aggressive solicitation" as some of those actions. Lastly, the new USCIS policy instructs officers to weigh factors that could show that applicants who have engaged in wrongdoing have rehabilitated, such as complying with probation, paying overdue taxes or child support and receiving letters of support from their community. Over the past decade, the U.S. government has naturalized between 600,000 and 1 million immigrants as citizens annually, USCIS figures show. In a statement to CBS News, USCIS chief spokesman Matthew Tragesser said the directive is another effort by President Trump's administration to "restore integrity" to the U.S. immigration system. "U.S. citizenship is the gold standard of citizenship — it should only be offered to the world's best of the best," Tragesser added. "Today, USCIS is adding a new element to the naturalization process that ensures America's newest citizens not only embrace America's culture, history, and language but who also demonstrate Good Moral Character." Doug Rand, a former senior USCIS official during the Biden administration, suggested the Trump administration's policy is designed to scare legal immigrants from applying for American citizenship and require officers to put their "thumb on the scale" to find more reasons to deny applications. "They're trying to increase the grounds for denial of U.S. citizenship by kind of torturing the definition of good moral character to encompass extremely harmless behavior," Rand said, citing the policy's reference to traffic infractions. While the Trump administration has launched a highly visible crackdown on illegal immigration by deploying thousands of troops to the southern border, expanding immigration raids across the country, and fast-tracking deportations of those in the U.S. illegally, it has simultaneously moved to restrict legal immigration, with less fanfare. The Trump administration has virtually shut down refugee admissions, terminated Biden-era programs that allowed migrants to enter the U.S. legally, limited visas for certain countries and implemented aggressive vetting procedures for legal immigration benefits. Those efforts include expanded vetting of social media activity of legal immigrants and stricter screening requirements for some applications.
