Five takeaways as Trump seizes control of DC police, deploys National Guard

The Hill

5 hours ago

President Trump announced on Monday that he was taking control of the District of Columbia's police and deploying the National Guard.
Trump portrayed the moves, which will involve around 800 National Guard troops, as a response to high crime rates in the nation's capital.
He said it was an attempt to 'rescue' the District from 'bloodshed, bedlam and squalor.'
Reporters in a packed White House briefing room received handouts just before the president spoke where the District's murder rate was shown as higher than those of other international cities including Bogota, Delhi and London.
Police statistics, however, show that crime rates in the District have fallen sharply over the past two years. Violent crime is down 26 percent when compared year-to-date against 2024. Last year, in turn, saw a 32 percent drop in homicides and a 35 percent drop in overall violent crime compared to 2023.
That being said, the total number of homicides last year, 187, was still above the years that immediately preceded 2020's COVID-19 pandemic.
Here are the main takeaways from Trump's announcement.
A major assertion of federal power — and Trump's power
The decision from Trump was more expansive than many people expected.
A deployment of National Guard troops had been predicted, in part because the District's status — short of full statehood — gives the president clear control of when the Guard is deployed.
The decision to wrest control of Washington's police — the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) — was a significantly larger step.
The fact that it came amid falling crime rates makes it even more controversial.
So too does the politics of the District. Voters who gave then-Vice President Harris more than 90 percent of their votes last November will have their police force taken over by a notably divisive Republican president. Trump secured fewer than seven percent of the vote in D.C.
The Home Rule Act of 1973, which gives the District its current measure of autonomy, provides for a president taking emergency control of the D.C. police for 48 hours.
During that period, a president who wishes to extend control is supposed to provide the reasons for that decision to the chairpersons and ranking members of House and Senate committees with responsibilities for the District.
Doing this enables presidential control for 30 days. Any extension beyond that, the statute says, can only come if 'the Senate and the House of Representatives enact into law a joint resolution authorizing such an extension.'
Whether Trump accedes to those requirements remains to be seen.
D.C. mayor offers modulated response
District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser (D) was critical of Trump's decision without intensifying her rhetoric as much as she could have.
Bowser called the president's move 'unsettling and unprecedented' in a news conference.
She also used the move to reiterate her belief that D.C. should be granted full statehood — a long-standing aim for many of the District's voters.
In relation to a question about the prospect of military troops being deployed, Bowser said: 'I think I speak for all Americans: We don't believe it is legal to use the American military against American citizens on American soil.'
But Bowser struck a fairly restrained tone throughout — including on social media where she wrote: 'Here's where we stand after today's announcement: we will follow the law, work with federal officials, and continue the work we do every single day to keep D.C. safe, beautiful, and the best city in the world.'
Not everyone in city government was quite so measured.
The District's attorney general, Brian Schwalb (D), said that Trump's move was 'unlawful' and asserted that 'there is no crime emergency in the District of Columbia.'
Democrats, liberal groups worry about militarization at Trump's behest
Beyond the D.C. government, Democrats, liberals and civil rights groups expressed angst over what they see as Trump's penchant for gratuitous militarization.
Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) said in a statement that Trump's 'ever-expanding use of the military for domestic matters is beyond alarming.'
Reed cited as a precursor Trump's deployment of the National Guard and Marines in Los Angeles earlier this year — against the wishes of California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) — saying that this showed a willingness 'to deploy U.S. military forces on American streets for inflammatory and political reasons.'
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) accused Trump of being 'an incoherent wannabe dictator who is trying to turn D.C. into his personal police state.'
Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) contended that 'using U.S. military forces to enforce a policy agenda on American soil is a gross abuse of power that reeks of authoritarianism.'
Among the broader criticism, Monica Hopkins, the executive director of the D.C. chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) called Trump's move, 'political theater and a blatantly phony justification for abuse of emergency powers.'
It's unclear where things go from here
Even amid all the words on both sides, there is a lot of uncertainty.
One obvious question is whether Trump will fulfill the demands of the Home Rule Act, in terms of informing Congress about the reasons for his decision to take control of the police, and in ceding back control of the MPD after no more than 30 days.
Another issue is where exactly the National Guard or other federally-commanded troops will be deployed.
Trump has focused on tourist-friendly areas being besmirched by crime. But in fact Washington's worst crime rates by far are found in the economically deprived neighborhoods east of the Anacostia River, far from the epicenter of tourism.
Another uncertainty hangs over what the president would characterize as success. In a social media post, he insisted that crime — as well as 'Savagery, Filth and Scum' — would 'DISAPPEAR' from D.C.
Presumably he doesn't consider literally zero crime to be an achievable goal. Does any crime at all amount in his mind to justification for maintaining federal control?
The news conference wasn't all about D.C.
During Monday's news conference, Trump took questions on other topics.
The most interesting moments came when he discussed his upcoming meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, scheduled for Friday in Alaska.
Trump's tone suggested a new turn against Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Trump and Vice President Vance berated Zelensky during an Oval Office meeting in late February but more recently the president had seemed to be putting pressure on Putin.
That changed back Monday, when Trump once again appeared to blame Zelensky for the war, which was in fact started by Russia's 2022 invasion.
'I get along with Zelensky but, you know, I disagree with what he's done — very severely disagree,' Trump said. 'This is a war that should have never happened.'
A deadline Trump had set for new sanctions on Russia expired on Friday without action being taken.