logo
Trump invokes the Home Rule Act to take control of the Washington, D.C., police. What the act says he can and can't do.

Trump invokes the Home Rule Act to take control of the Washington, D.C., police. What the act says he can and can't do.

Yahoo19 hours ago
The statute does not require evidence or congressional approval — only a presidential declaration of emergency.
When President Trump announced Monday that he was bringing the Washington, D.C., police department under federal control in order to crack down on what he described as 'crime, bloodshed, bedlam and squalor' in the nation's capital, he cited Section 740 of something called the Home Rule Act as the legal mechanism behind the move.
'Effective immediately, the Mayor of the District of Columbia (Mayor) shall provide the services of the Metropolitan Police force for Federal purposes for the maximum period permitted under section 740 of the Home Rule Act,' read Trump's executive order.
So what is the Home Rule Act? And does section 740 really give him the authority to take over the D.C. police?
What is the Home Rule Act?
As you probably learned in elementary school, Washington, D.C., isn't a state. It isn't part of any other state either. It doesn't have a constitution of its own. Instead, Washington is what's known as a 'federal district,' and it has been mostly under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Congress since its founding in 1791.
For a long time, that meant residents of the capital didn't have the power to choose their own representatives. First, the president of the United States appointed three commissioners who ran Washington. Then in 1967 Lyndon B. Johnson did away with the old system and put a mayor and council in charge — but they were presidential appointees too.
The Home Rule Act, which Congress passed in 1973, is the law that finally allowed Washington residents to elect their own mayor and council members. It doesn't give the district complete autonomy though. Even now, the president still appoints D.C.'s judges, and Congress still controls its budget. Congress also has the power to review and block local legislation.
What is Section 740?
Section 740 of the Home Rule Act — titled 'Emergency Control of the Police' — is like a federal override switch for local control of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD). It plainly states that the president of the United States may 'direct the Mayor [of Washington, D.C.] to provide him, and the Mayor shall provide, such services of the Metropolitan Police force as the President may deem necessary' as long as the president 'determines that special conditions of an emergency nature exist which require the use of the Metropolitan Police force for Federal purposes.'
In announcing his police takeover Monday, Trump insisted that special conditions of an emergency nature do in fact exist in Washington 'Our capital city has been overtaken by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals, roving mobs of wild youth, drugged-out maniacs and homeless people,' the president claimed. 'And we're not going to let it happen anymore.'
As evidence, Trump has cited the Aug. 3 beating of Edward Coristine, a 19-year-old software engineer at the Department of Government Efficiency, during an attempted carjacking.
In his executive order, Trump delegated his authority to run the MPD to Attorney General Pam Bondi and directed Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser to 'provide such services of the Metropolitan Police force as the Attorney General may deem necessary and appropriate.'
'Crime in D.C. is ending, and it's ending today,' Bondi declared Monday.
Does Trump have to prove there's an emergency in D.C. before taking over the police?
No. The statute does not require evidence or congressional approval — only a presidential declaration of emergency.
In reality, violent crime has been declining in the district since 2023, according to the Washington Post; it's currently at its lowest point in six years. Juvenile crime has been falling too. So far this year, D.C. police have made about 900 juvenile arrests, the Post reports — almost 20% fewer than during the same time frame last year.
On Sunday, Bowser, a Democrat, cited similar statistics to claim that Trump is more focused on politics than policy.
'If the priority is to show force in an American city, we know he can do that here,' Bowser told MSNBC. 'But it won't be because there's a spike in crime.'
Can Trump control the Washington, D.C., police forever?
Not really. Per Section 740 of the Home Rule Act, Trump now gets to control the MPD for an initial 48-hour emergency window, with the option to extend for up to 30 days. Anything longer than that requires 'the Senate and the House of Representatives [to] approve a concurrent resolution authorizing such an extension.'
Of course, Republicans control both the Senate and the House of Representatives, so they might authorize an extension. Or lawmakers could do away with the Home Rule Act altogether.
Trump has already said that he's interested in getting Congress to overturn the law.
"We're gonna look at that," he told reporters last week. "In fact, the lawyers are already studying it. We have to run D.C.'
In the meantime, Trump has other ways to exercise power over the capital. He announced Monday that he would also be deploying 800 National Guard members to Washington — which he can do without the consent of the local government (unlike in U.S. states, where the governor holds that authority).
'We will bring in the military if needed,' Trump added.
He can also reinstate something called the Control Board, a five-member federal authority that effectively ran the city from 1995 to 2001, during a time of financial hardship. Going forward, Trump could appoint five members of his own and significantly reduce the remaining authority held by Bowser and the D.C. council.
Solve the daily Crossword
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Vittert knocks Mehdi Hasan for Jan. 6 reference in DC debate: 'This is silly!'
Vittert knocks Mehdi Hasan for Jan. 6 reference in DC debate: 'This is silly!'

The Hill

timea minute ago

  • The Hill

Vittert knocks Mehdi Hasan for Jan. 6 reference in DC debate: 'This is silly!'

NewsNation's Leland Vittert and pundit Medhi Hasan sparred on Monday night after the progressive commentator mentioned the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol attack during a debate on President Trump's crackdown on crime in Washington. "Trump cares about crime in D.C.? Really?" Hasan asked while appearing on NewsNation's "On Balance, adding, "Because I remember Donald Trump on Jan. 6, 2021 not giving a crap about crime in D.C." Vittert pushed back, saying "we know the statistics on Jan. 6." "You're gonna sit here and say, if Trump cures cancer, Jan. 6 was terrible," the host said. "The fact is you can't have an argument about what's happening on the streets of D.C. without going back to Jan. 6." Hasan shot back saying, "If he cared about crime in D.C., why did he pardon 600 people who assaulted police officers?" "Oh come on," Vittert responded, as the two talked over one another. "This is silly." Trump on Monday said he was declaring a state of emergency under the city's Home Rule Act, citing what he said was rampant and out of control crime. He seized control of the Metropolitan Police and deployed National Guard troops to patrol streets in the district. The move has been widely panned by Democrats and some local leaders in the district, who argued crime is down in D.C. and say the president is overstepping his authority.

The CBO has released estimates revealing Trump's impact on the poorest and richest Americans
The CBO has released estimates revealing Trump's impact on the poorest and richest Americans

Fast Company

timea minute ago

  • Fast Company

The CBO has released estimates revealing Trump's impact on the poorest and richest Americans

President Donald Trump's tax and spending law will result in less income for the poorest Americans while sending money to the richest, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported Monday. The CBO estimates that the 10% of poorest Americans will lose roughly $1,200 a year as they experience restrictions on government programs like Medicaid and food assistance, while the richest 10% of Americans will see their income increase by $13,600 from tax cuts. Overall, American households will see more income from the tax cuts in the legislation, including middle income households, but the largest benefit will go to the top 10% of earners. The CBO's report comes as lawmakers are away from Washington, many taking their messages about the bill to voters. Republicans muscled the legislation — deemed 'the big, beautiful bill' by Trump — through Congress in July. Democrats all vehemently opposed the legislation, warning that its tax cuts and spending priorities would come at the expense of vital government aid programs and a ballooning national debt. 'This really is a big, beautiful bill for billionaires, but for the poor and the working class in this country, you are actually poorer,' said Rep. Brendan Boyle, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, in an MSNBC interview on Monday. Changes to eligibility for government food assistance under the law will impact millions of Americans, the CBO found. Roughly 2.4 million people won't be eligible for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program under new work requirements for many recipients. Low-income Americans could also see their income reduced through further restrictions on food aid and other types of assistance included in the law. Already, more than 10 million Americans are expected to lose health insurance by 2034 due to changes to Medicaid under the law. Following release of the report, Rep. Jason Smith, the Republican chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, said he took issue with CBO's methodology, repeating criticism he has made in the past. 'CBO has a troubled track record of getting its estimates incorrect and, like Democrats, is biased in favor of more federal spending and higher taxes,' Smith said on social media. 'Don't buy it.' Republicans have been eager to sell the upsides of the legislation — arguing that the tax cuts will spur economic growth — while they are on a monthlong summer break from Washington. But those who have held townhalls in their home districts have often been greeted by an earful from voters and activists. 'Tax the rich,' the crowd in Lincoln, Neb. chanted last week as Republican Rep. Michael Flood attempted to defend the bill. Still, Trump has been undeterred. 'President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill is putting America First like never before, delivering huge savings for hardworking families, boosting our economy, and securing our borders,' said White House deputy press secretary Abigail Jackson in a statement last week.

MIKE DAVIS: A tale of two Russiagate heroes
MIKE DAVIS: A tale of two Russiagate heroes

Fox News

time3 minutes ago

  • Fox News

MIKE DAVIS: A tale of two Russiagate heroes

Donald Trump's 2016 presidential victory sent shockwaves throughout America and the world. Most of all, it devastated the Democrat Party, which could not accept that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Democrats' anointed next president, had lost to President Trump. We're only now finding out just how panicked the Democrats really were over the prospect of a Trump White House, but two men have for years been leading the charge to expose the dirtiest political trick in American history. And thankfully, they're still on the case. Throughout the 2016 campaign, Democrats sought to tie President Trump to President Vladimir Putin of Russia, claiming that Russia wanted Trump to prevail. Democrats also accused President Trump of having colluded with Russia concerning the hacking of Clinton's e-mails that the site WikiLeaks published. These sore losers continued to peddle this nonsense throughout the first Trump presidency, leading to the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller and the devastation of the lives of many Trump officials. Above all others, two people have long spoken out against and exposed this narrative: FBI Director Kash Patel and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. It was perhaps Patel's early work as a public defender that aroused his skepticism of the government's claims about President Trump and his allies, such as Carter Page, a campaign aide. While working as an aide for House Intelligence Select Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, Patel drafted a memorandum pertaining to the origins of the so-called Steele Dossier. This document was authored by Christopher Steele, a deranged former British spy who was virulently anti-Trump. The document peddled the ludicrous theory that Trump colluded with Russia as part of longtime ties to the country and was filled with outlandish and absurd claims. Steele's conspiracy fantasies led to the destruction of many lives, including Page's. These former Trump officials were accused of, among other things, being traitors by aiding Trump in his conspiracy with Russia. In reality, Steele was paid by the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign through its law firm, Perkins Coie, to cook up this conspiracy. The payments to Steele appeared on Clinton's campaign filings as legal fees; in other words, she misled the Federal Election Commission (FEC) about their true purpose. More importantly, intelligence agencies, including the FBI, misled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court in obtaining warrants against Page and other Trump officials. The judges were not aware of Steele's Trump hatred, nor did they know of the Clinton campaign's involvement. Patel's memo laid bare much of this scandal, and he was the target of scorn upon releasing it. Even though Steele was the conspiratorial lunatic, Patel received that moniker from congressional Democrats and the leftist media, who were all too willing to peddle the Russia hoax. As a result, significantly due to Patel's memo, Attorney General William Barr appointed John Durham to serve as a special counsel to investigate the origins of the Steele Dossier. Durham's report corroborated Patel, but the four years of President Joe Biden's administration produced little action. For example, Kevin Clinesmith, then an FBI lawyer, falsified an e-mail to attempt to beef up a warrant application against Page; the disgraced attorney later pleaded guilty to a felony in the matter and shamefully only received probation for his actions. In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, several officials—including former FBI Director James Comey—conceded that they would not have sought FISA warrants if they knew the information unearthed by Director Patel. Patel has continued his investigation since assuming control of the FBI. Last month, he revealed that burn bags containing many documents related to the Russia hoax were discovered at the FBI's headquarters. Grassley has stood alongside Patel as an ardent - but, for a long time - lonely voice against the Russia hoax. Last week, following the ordered declassification by Attorney General Pam Bondi and CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Grassley released the so-called Durham Annex, the previously classified version of his report. According to this document, the Clinton campaign was planning the Trump/Russia allegations since as early as February 2016. The New York Times published a piece last week claiming that these e-mails from Clinton campaign officials and George Soros's foundation were not legitimate but were instead Russian disinformation. No American intelligence agency, however, has made such an assertion; indeed, the CIA expressed no reason to doubt the authenticity of the e-mails contained in Grassley's release. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard also recently released a trove of documents that illustrate former President Obama's involvement in this scandal. Career intelligence officials rejected the notion that Russia desired a Trump victory; yet, Obama and then-CIA Director John Brennan conspired to cook up a fresh intelligence assessment making precisely that claim. The newly released documents also made clear that there was no evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia, and the FBI came to the same conclusion by 2017. Still, Mueller conducted a two-year reign of terror that destroyed the lives of many Trump officials. There must be accountability for this abomination. The Clinton campaign received a fine from the FEC, but that sanction does not begin to do justice to those devastated by this conspiracy, most importantly the American people. Democrats' refusal to accept the 2016 election results divided our country over three presidential elections, and severe legal, political and financial consequences must result. This conspiracy continued all the way through the 2024 election. So-deemed "Special Counsel" Jack Smith and two corrupt prosecutors—District Attorneys Alvin Bragg in Manhattan and Fani Willis in Fulton County, Ga.,—attempted to put President Trump in prison for the rest of his life. Part of this conspiracy included a raid on Trump's home and private club, known as Mar-a-Lago, in the Southern District of Florida. This location, known as a venue, is crucial. Strong evidence suggests that the Biden administration perpetrated the raid to get back documents that President Trump ordered declassified and that are now being exposed under this administration. These documents deal with the conspiracy, known as Crossfire Hurricane, to take out President Trump in 2016. Unscrupulous Democrats at the federal and state level then concocted absurd charges—91 counts in all—against Trump. This lawfare campaign had the goal of depleting his resources and preventing him from winning the 2024 election. The conspirators failed, and justice is coming. The truth that has come out and is still emerging – as many more documents await declassification and release – has occurred only because of the dogged determination of heroes like Patel and Grassley. Critics scoffed at these patriots, labeling them as unhinged and even enablers of the Trump/Russia conspiracy. The Russian Collusion era was reminiscent of McCarthyism; that is, if anyone dared question the government officials involved in the persecution, these skeptics were then branded as Putin collaborators. In reality, Patel and Grassley made enormous sacrifices, jeopardizing their reputations to expose the horrible truth for America's benefit. Finally, the light of truth is shining through, and Democrats and their media allies cannot extinguish it. Numerous government officials engaged in a grotesque conspiracy to violate President Trump's civil rights. Because of the actions of the conspirators in Florida, they and their co-conspirators cannot escape accountability with the help of virulently anti-Trump juries in the District of Columbia. The brilliant Jason Reding Quiñones is now the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, and he will leave no stone unturned to hold the guilty accountable. When these perpetrators finally receive the justice they so richly deserve, Patel and Grassley should receive the types of awards that unjustly went to so-called journalists who peddled the hoax that devastated the nation.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store