Can Trump Federalize D.C.?
Donald Trump posted on his Truth Social platform on Tuesday a photo of a bloodied, shirtless Edward Coristine, one of the young engineers hired by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency earlier this year, claiming that he was 'beaten mercilessly by local thugs.'
The large-testicles-nicknamed 19-year-old, who reportedly used to provide 'tech support to a cybercrime ring,' became a special employee of the Social Security Administration in May.
Marko Elez, a fellow former DOGE staffer who resigned from the government amid controversy over racist social media posts before being quickly rehired, said he took the photo of Coristine.
Two teens arrested
According to a police report obtained by Wired, Coristine was allegedly assaulted by a 'group of approximately 10 juveniles' early Sunday morning. According to the report, Coristine was walking with his 'significant other' Emily Bryant toward their car when he 'saw the suspects approach and make a comment about taking the vehicle.' Coristine reportedly 'pushed' Bryant into the car before being beaten by the suspects. When officers patrolling the area approached, the suspects fled by foot, and two were caught and positively identified by the victims, the report says.
The Metropolitan Police Department announced Tuesday that the two apprehended suspects were a 15-year-old male and a 15-year-old female, both of Hyattsville, Md. They were arrested and charged with unarmed carjacking.
In Trump's post about the incident, he complained that minors ought to be prosecuted and 'locked up' as adults. 'Local 'youths' and gang members, some only 14, 15, and 16-years-old, are randomly attacking, mugging, maiming, and shooting innocent Citizens, at the same time knowing that they will be almost immediately released. They are not afraid of Law Enforcement because they know nothing ever happens to them,' he said, 'but it's going to happen now!'
Trump calls for federalization
Trump used the incident to renew his calls for the federalization of D.C., warning: 'If D.C. doesn't get its act together, and quickly, we will have no choice but to take Federal control of the City, and run this City how it should be run, and put criminals on notice that they're not going to get away with it anymore. Perhaps it should have been done a long time ago, then this incredible young man, and so many others, would not have had to go through the horrors of Violent Crime. If this continues, I am going to exert my powers, and FEDERALIZE this City.'
Musk, the President's one-time ally turned opponent, also posted about the incident, agreeing with Trump's assessment: 'It is time to federalize DC.'
Crime in D.C.
Republican leaders have long used incidents of violence in D.C. to paint an example of Democratic strongholds suffering from crime. (D.C.'s population is overwhelmingly Democratic and it has supported the Democratic ticket in every presidential election since 1964, after the 23rd Amendment allowed D.C. to participate in presidential elections.)
In 2023, D.C. recorded 274 homicides, the most since 1997. Carjackings also doubled that year.
But latest D.C. police statistics show that crime has been on the decline. Year-to-date violent crime, as of Aug. 5, is down 26% compared to the year before, and the 2024 figure dropped 35% from 2023.
The Home Rule Act
In a Cabinet meeting at the White House in July, Trump said: 'We have tremendous power at the White House to run places when we have to. We could run D.C. I mean, we're ... looking at D.C.'
Any attempt to federalize the national capital, however, would require the suspension or repeal of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act of 1973.
Washington, D.C., was established through a political compromise as a federal district in 1790. It used to be governed directly by Congress and federal appointees, but in 1973, Congress passed the Home Rule Act after the district's residents pushed for control of their own affairs.
The Act established an elected local government including a mayor and a 13-member council that would oversee the district's affairs. But according to the act, Congress still 'reserves the right, at any time, to exercise its constitutional authority as legislature for the District.'
Some Republican lawmakers have pushed to repeal the Home Rule Act, decrying Democratic Mayor Muriel Bowser's supposed incompetence. In February, Trump threw himself behind those efforts, saying while aboard Air Force One, 'I think we should take over Washington, D.C.—make it safe. People are getting killed, people are being hurt.'
Trump could test the strength of the Republican Party's slim House and Senate majorities by trying to repeal or suspend the Home Rule Act. But for now, the President and his allies have resorted to other methods to exert some semblance of control over D.C. In March, he issued an Executive Order establishing the 'D.C. Safe and Beautiful Task Force,' an interagency panel that would coordinate with local officials to boost law enforcement and further beautify the district. The same month, Congress also docked the district's budget by $1.1 billion.
'For 50 years, D.C. home rule could count on stout defense from the White House and majority support in Congress,' wrote former Washington Post opinion contributor Colbert I. King in February. 'Even in the worst-case scenario of a D.C. home rule repeal bill passing the House, a Senate filibuster would surely have prevented its final passage.'
'But political dynamics have changed,' King wrote. 'The guardrails are gone.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Court Lets Trump Block Billions of Dollars in Foreign Aid
(Bloomberg) -- The Trump administration can cut billions of dollars in foreign assistance funds approved by Congress for this year, a US appeals court ruled. Sunseeking Germans Face Swiss Backlash Over Alpine Holiday Congestion To Head Off Severe Storm Surges, Nova Scotia Invests in 'Living Shorelines' New York Warns of $34 Billion Budget Hole, Biggest Since 2009 Crisis Five Years After Black Lives Matter, Brussels' Colonial Statues Remain For Homeless Cyclists, Bikes Bring an Escape From the Streets In a 2-1 decision on Wednesday, the appellate panel reversed a Washington federal judge who found that US officials were violating the Constitution's separation of powers principles by failing to authorize the money to be paid in line with what the legislative branch directed. The ruling is a significant win for President Donald Trump's efforts to dissolve the US Agency for International Development and broadly withhold funding from programs that have fallen out of favor with his administration, regardless of how Congress exercised its authority over spending. Trump's critics have assailed what they've described as a far-reaching power grab by the executive branch. The nonprofits and business that sued could ask all of the active judges on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit to reconsider the three-member panel's decision. If the panel's decision stands, it wasn't immediately clear how much it would affect other lawsuits contesting a range of Trump administration funding freezes and cuts besides foreign aid. Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson wrote in the majority opinion that the challengers lacked valid legal grounds to sue over the Trump administration's decision to withhold the funds, also known as impoundment. The US Comptroller General — who leads an accountability arm of Congress — could sue under a specific law related to impoundment decisions, Henderson wrote, but the challengers couldn't bring a 'freestanding' constitutional claim or claim violations of a different law related to agency actions. Henderson, appointed by former President George H.W. Bush, was joined by Judge Greg Katsas, a Trump appointee. The court didn't reach the core question of whether the administration's unilateral decision to refuse to spend money appropriated by Congress is constitutional. Judge Florence Pan, nominated by former President Joe Biden, dissented, writing that her colleagues had turned 'a blind eye to the 'serious implications' of this case for the rule of law and the very structure of our government.' White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement that the appeals court 'has affirmed what we already knew – President Trump has the executive authority to execute his own foreign policy, which includes ensuring that all foreign assistance aligns with the America First agenda.' A lead attorney for the grant recipients did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The two consolidated cases before the appeals court only deal with money that Congress approved for the 2024 fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30. Grantees are poised to lose access to funds if they haven't yet been approved to be spent by federal officials — a precursor to actual payouts — or unless a court order is in place. The administration lost one of its few battles before the US Supreme Court earlier this year in the foreign aid fight. In March, a majority of justices refused to immediately stop US District Judge Amir Ali's injunction taking effect while the legal fight went forward. Since then, however, the challengers have filed complaints with Ali that the administration is failing to obligate or pay out the funds. They've rebuffed the government's position that the delay is part of a legitimate effort to 'evaluate the appropriate next steps' and accused officials of angling to use a novel tactic to go around Congress in order to cut appropriated money. The Trump administration has dramatically scaled back the US government's humanitarian work overseas, slashing spending and personnel and merging the USAID into the State Department. The challengers say the foreign aid freeze has created a global crisis, and that the money is critical for malaria prevention, to address child malnutrition and provide postnatal care for newborns. The groups argued that the president and agency leaders couldn't defy Congress' spending mandates and didn't have discretion to decide that only some, let alone none, of the money appropriated by lawmakers should be paid. The president can ask Congress to withdraw appropriations but can't do it on his own, the challengers argued. The Justice Department argued Ali's order was an 'improper judicial intrusion into matters left to the political branches' and that the judge wrongly interfered in the 'particularly sensitive area of foreign relations.' The government also said that the Impoundment Control Act, which restricts the president from overruling Congress' spending decisions, wasn't a law that the nonprofits and business could sue to enforce. The challengers countered that Ali's order blocking the funding freeze was rooted in their constitutional separation-of-powers claim, not the impoundment law. The cases are Global Health Council v. Trump, 25-5097, and AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. US Department of State, 25-5098, US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit. (Updated with White House comment.) Bessent on Tariffs, Deficits and Embracing Trump's Economic Plan Why It's Actually a Good Time to Buy a House, According to a Zillow Economist Dubai's Housing Boom Is Stoking Fears of Another Crash The Social Media Trend Machine Is Spitting Out Weirder and Weirder Results Americans Are Getting Priced Out of Homeownership at Record Rates ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court lets the White House suspend or end billions in foreign aid
WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided panel of appeals court judges ruled Wednesday that the Trump administration can suspend or terminate billions of dollars of congressionally appropriated funding for foreign aid. Two of three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that grant recipients challenging the freeze did not meet the requirements for a preliminary injunction restoring the flow of money. In January, on the first day of his second term in the White House, Republican President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development to freeze spending on foreign aid. After groups of grant recipients sued to challenge that order, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ordered the administration to release the full amount of foreign assistance that Congress had appropriated for the 2024 budget year. The appeal court's majority partially vacated Ali's order. Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson and Gregory Katsas concluded that the plaintiffs did not have a valid legal basis for the court to hear their claims. The ruling was not on the merits of whether the government unconstitutionally infringed on Congress' spending powers. 'The parties also dispute the scope of the district court's remedy but we need not resolve it ... because the grantees have failed to satisfy the requirements for a preliminary injunction in any event,' Henderson wrote. Judge Florence Pan, who dissented, said the Supreme Court has held 'in no uncertain terms' that the president does not have the authority to disobey laws for policy reasons. 'Yet that is what the majority enables today,' Pan wrote. 'The majority opinion thus misconstrues the separation-of-powers claim brought by the grantees, misapplies precedent, and allows Executive Branch officials to evade judicial review of constitutionally impermissible actions.' The money at issue includes nearly $4 billion for USAID to spend on global health programs and more than $6 billion for HIV and AIDS programs. Trump has portrayed the foreign aid as wasteful spending that does not align with his foreign policy goals. Henderson was nominated to the court by Republican President George H.W. Bush. Katsas was nominated by Trump. Pan was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden.
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump says search for Powell replacement 'down to 3 or 4' after reportedly widening to 11
Just hours after a report said the Trump administration was considering a pool of up to 11 candidates to replace Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, President Trump said the number of people under consideration for the role is actually much smaller. Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Trump said he's "down to three or four names" regarding a possible Powell replacement. Trump also said Wednesday that he may name Powell's replacement "a little bit early." Powell's term is set to expire in May 2026. These comments are in-line with what the president said last week in an interview. Earlier this week, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who is leading the search and interview process for the next Fed chair, said the administration is casting a "very wide net" for candidates. "The president has a very open mind," Bessent told the Fox Business Network on Tuesday. A report from CNBC on Wednesday morning citing two administration officials said Trump is now weighing up to 11 candidates to replace Powell, including Jefferies chief market strategist David Zervos and BlackRock chief investment officer for global fixed income Rick Rieder. BlackRock had no comment on the report. Read more: How the Fed rate decision affects your bank accounts, loans, credit cards, and investments Following CNBC's report earlier on Wednesday, White House spokesperson Kush Desai told Yahoo Finance, "Unless it comes from President Trump himself, however, any discussion about personnel decisions should be regarded as pure speculation." Last week, President Trump suggested that both former Fed governor Kevin Warsh and National Economic Council director Kevin Hassett were at the top of the list. When asked about Fed governor Chris Waller, Trump didn't deny that Waller was among the four possible replacements for Powell. Former St. Louis Fed president Jim Bullard, Fed governor Michelle Bowman, Fed vice chair Philip Jefferson, Dallas Fed president Lorie Logan, and former Bush administration official Marc Summerlin, and former Fed governor Larry Lindsey were all also considered to be in the running. Meanwhile, the president nominated Stephen Miran, current chair of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors last week to replace Fed governor Adriana Kugler, who stepped down on Aug. 8. If confirmed by the Senate, Miran's term will run until Jan. 31, 2026. Bessent told Fox Business that Miran's appointment will "change the composition of the Fed" and suggested Miran could be renominated to a full term on the Fed board. He also said that the administration will have two seats on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors to fill, assuming that when Powell's term as Fed chair expires next May, he will also step down from his position on the Board of Governors, which does not end until January 2028. Powell has not said what he plans to do. These changes at the central bank come as markets now expect the Fed to cut interest rates at its September meeting after electing to keep rates unchanged last month. Fed governors Waller and Bowman both voted in favor of a rate cut and later expanded on their views in statements issued in early August. San Francisco Fed president Mary Daly and Minneapolis Fed president Neel Kashkari, neither of whom are voting members of the FOMC in 2025, have also said since the Fed's July 31 announcement that the case for rate cuts has strengthened. Powell's next major public appearance is expected on Aug. 22 at the Jackson Hole Economic Symposium. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
