DC to impose ‘juvenile curfew' this weekend as Trump's crackdown comes into full force
The zone covers the baseball stadium, Nationals Park, a number of community recreation centers, schools, restaurants, and bars. Teenagers under the age of 17 caught violating the curfew could be ordered to do up to 25 hours of community service unless they're taking part in exempted activities.
The law authorizing the curfew states that any adult who 'knowingly permits, or by insufficient control' violates the Juvenile Curfew Act could face a fine of as much as $500 or community service.
The implementation of the curfew comes after President Donald Trump launched his crime crackdown in the nation's capital. He has taken control of the Washington Metropolitan Police Department and activated the National Guard on the city's streets.
Navy Yard has seen a number of violent crimes in recent years involving young people. In 2021, two teens, aged 13 and 15, carjacked an Uber driver using a stun gun, leading to the man flipping his car and subsequently dying from his injuries.
In July, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser signed the Juvenile Curfew Emergency Amendment Act of 2025, giving her the authority to establish curfew zones for 90 days.
D.C. police will begin enforcing the curfew in Navy Yard on Friday, pointing to safety concerns regarding large gatherings of young people. Police Chief Pamela Smith announced the plan Thursday, arguing that the targeted curfew aims to prevent situations that risk public safety.
The curfew will be in place from 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. each night from Friday, August 15, until Monday, August 18. Within the Navy Yard curfew zone, juveniles cannot gather in groups of nine or more in public spaces or on business premises unless they're taking part in exempted activities.
Exemptions include being accompanied by a parent, running an errand at the direction of a parent without taking a detour, working or returning home from work, being involved in an emergency, standing on a sidewalk near their home, attending school or religious activities, or exercising their First Amendment rights.
The juvenile curfew covering all of D.C. between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. will remain in effect through August 31.
The number of federal troops on the streets of Washington is set to increase as Trump pushes for an extension to the federal takeover of the city, even as crime is hitting a 30-year low.
Trump said Monday that he was putting the D.C. police department under the control of federal authorities and deploying the National Guard to 'rescue our nation's capital from crime, bloodshed, bedlam, and squalor, and worse.'
National Guard troops began appearing on the streets of the capital Tuesday night. In total, roughly 800 troops are being deployed.
While the takeover of Washington's law enforcement is supposed to last for 30 days, Trump said in a Wednesday speech at the Kennedy Center that he wants to extend that timeframe.
'If it's a national emergency, we can do it without Congress, but we expect to be before Congress very quickly,' said Trump.
'We are going to do something and it's going to serve as a beacon for New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and other places all over the country,' the president added.
While Trump claimed Monday that Washington 'has been taken over by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals, roving mobs of wild youth, drugged-out maniacs, and homeless people,' the violent crime rate decreased by 35 percent last year following a spike in 2023, D.C. U.S. Attorney's Office said in January.
The office noted that violent crime was at its lowest point in three decades, with homicides decreasing by 32 percent; robberies decreasing by 39 percent; armed carjacking going down by 53 percent; and assaults with a dangerous weapon decreasing by 27 percent.
On Wednesday, D.C. police said violent crime this year is down 26 percent. Bowser has slammed the federal takeover as 'unsettling and unprecedented,' arguing that it's 'authoritarian.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
15 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Trump's DC crackdown will do little to prevent crime, advocates say: ‘That's not what creates safety'
Donald Trump's hyperbolic portrayal of crime in major American cities, and his deployment of the national guard in Washington DC ostensibly in an effort to combat it, have reignited a decades-old debate about crime, violence and which policies and approaches can address it. The US president has cited cities such as Oakland, Philadelphia and Chicago as examples of places overwhelmed by crime and violence. He has put forward an increased militarization of law enforcement, and more money and legal protections for police, as the most effective ways to address homicides and other violent crime. But to violence prevention workers, the recent statements appeared made not out of care and concern for the lower-income Black and Latino victims who bear an outsized share of the nation's crimes, but to undermine and dismiss the progress community groups have made. And, the advocates argue, the administration's emphasis on law enforcement and prosecution as the sole ways to stop crime will do little to stop the cycles of violence and property crime that these groups have faced through Republican and Democratic administrations alike. 'The police are about response. But that's not what creates safety,' said Aqeela Sherrills, a longtime community violence intervention leader in Los Angeles. 'A lot of our urban communities have been war zones because they lack investment in infrastructure and programming. It's really disheartening to hear the president of the United States put out misinformation.' Sherrills began his career in violence prevention in Watts in the early 90s. Since then he's been a leading force in several organisations that work intensely with the small portion of a city's population responsible for the most violence in an effort to prevent crime and support victims of crime. Throughout his tenure, he said, he had seen the biggest successes in violence reduction come through training local non-profits, community leaders and officials on different violence community prevention models and then allowing them to build bespoke strategies from there. Over the decades, various models have seen major successes. Some deploy violence prevention workers to middle and high schools. In other programs, they use probation officers as a conduit to connect with young adults who are carrying and using firearms illegally. Some programs send workers to hospitals after a shooting, in an effort to prevent retaliatory violence. Some models rely on a police-community partnership, others don't involve police at all. But most programs center on connecting with mostly young men and teenage boys whose conflicts spill out on to city streets, traumatizing entire neighborhoods. This method has shown promise, research shows, In 2024 the Brooklyn community of Baltimore went a year without homicides after deploying a program called Safe Streets. And cities such as Oakland, Seattle and Philadelphia, where city leaders have invested in similar gun violence reduction programs, have seen drops in homicides when the programs were thriving, according to the Major Cities Chiefs Association's violent crime survey. And while the reasons for the ebb and flow of homicides can't be reduced to one program or strategy, those working to build these programs up have been fighting for credit and acknowledgment. During the Biden administration, they got it. Their approaches finally found federal support with the creation of an office of gun violence prevention and federal dollars for community prevention groups working on the ground. In past years, programs have expanded across the US as more municipalities build their own offices of violence prevention. But these insights don't appear to inform the Trump administration's approach, Sherrills adds. 'He's not reading the data, he's not looking at the trends and reports, it's just more kneejerk reactions,' he said. 'It's shortsighted because they're only speaking about one aspect of our criminal legal system.' This most recent crime debate comes nearly four months after the Trump administration cut nearly $170m in grants from gun violence prevention organizations, including several groups founded and co-founded by Sherrills who have had to lay off several staff members, dealing a serious blow to critical summertime programming. For small, upstart organizations this loss of funds puts their work in jeopardy, said Fredrick Womack, whose organization, Operation Good, lost 20% of its budget due to the April cuts. Womack says he was dismayed to hear the list of cities that Trump singled out, because they are all cities with Black leaders who have invested in community violence intervention. The calls for increased police and potential military presences, he says, shows a disconnect between the halls of power and the needs of the people most affected by violent crime. 'How is the military going to provide support for victims when they need someone who's going to be compassionate to what they're going through?' He asked. 'I know people want justice, but they also need support. They need healing and counseling. 'They won't go into the projects and ask the people how life is going for you. But they'll look at someone who lives in the hills who heard a gunshot two miles away last week and say: 'We have a crime problem,'' he continued. Womack founded Operation Good in 2013, and since then he and his small staff and gaggle of volunteers have worked with the teenagers and young men responsible for most of the city's violence and given them odd jobs and taken them to civil rights museums so they can understand where they come from and gain a sense of community. Womack's work has made a difference: in the years since the pandemic – which saw nationwide surges of gun violence – the homicide rate started to tick down, a change city officials have attributed in part to the work of community-based groups including Operation Good, and their collaboration with the police. Community leaders also argue that not only will Trump's approach be less effective, it's not aimed at helping the people most affected by violence. During a 12 August press conference, Jeanine Pirro, the former Fox News host who was recently appointed the US attorney for DC, argued that Trump's rhetoric about crime and his administration's approach to violence in DC were done in the name of victims. Flanked by posters of mostly Black teenagers and children killed by gun violence, Pirro argued that policies including DC's Youth Rehabilitation Act have only emboldened perpetrators. 'I guarantee you that every one of these individuals was shot and killed by someone who felt they were never gonna be caught,' Pirro told reporters. And when reporters asked about addressing the root causes of crime and violence and the recent cuts to community-based programs, Pirro argued that her focus is on being punitive, not preventive. For Leia Schenk, a Sacramento-based victim and violence prevention advocate, these sorts of sentiments, while common among conservatives, miss the point. 'It's tone-deaf and an oxymoron. The root causes are why we have victims,' Schenk said. 'In my experience [crime and violence] come from systemic oppression. Meaning if a family can't feed their kids, they're gonna steal, rob or commit some sort of fraud to just live and survive.' Schenk has been working in the community advocacy space for more than three decades and in that time has seen the most successful approaches to youth crime, shootings and other forms of violence happen when schools districts, local mental and physical healthcare systems get a level of investment that matches the scale of the problem. 'We're seeing the most success when we are supported – from schools to law enforcement to churches – their support allows us to do what we're doing on a bigger scale.' Despite the comments and moves from the Trump administration, Sherrills says the field of violence prevention will continue to thrive thanks to a strong foundation that was fortified in recent years due to federal support and increased support from philanthropic groups. 'We know that we're in challenging times but it's about doubling down on success and making sure we preserve the wins,' he said. 'We're going to continue to see violence trend down because of the work practitioners are doing in the field. Folks are tired of the killing and the dying and are looking for alternative ways to create better ways of navigating a conflict so that it doesn't lead to violence.'
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Should Europe wean itself off US tech?
Imagine if US President Donald Trump could flip a switch and turn off Europe's may sound far-fetched, crazy even. But it's a scenario that has been seriously discussed in tech industry and policy circles in recent months, as tensions with Washington have escalated, and concerns about the EU's reliance on American technology have come to the the root of these concerns is the fact just three US giants - Google, Microsoft and Amazon - provide 70% of Europe's cloud-computing infrastructure, the scaffolding on which many online services some question whether an unpredictable US leader would weaponize the situation if relations seriously deteriorated - for example, by ordering those companies to turn off their services in Europe."Critical data would become inaccessible, websites would go dark, and essential state services like hospital IT systems would be thrown into chaos," says Robin Berjon, a digital governance specialist who advises EU believes that concerns over a so called US "kill switch" should be taken seriously. "It's hard to say how much trouble we would be in." Microsoft, Google and Amazon all say they offer "sovereign" cloud computing solutions that safeguard EU clients' data, and would prevent such a scenario ever occurring. The BBC has contacted the US Treasury department for truth, there have always been concerns about the lack of "digital sovereignty" in Europe, where US firms not only dominate the cloud-computing market, but also hardware, satellite internet and now artificial the region's main mobile operating systems - Apple and Android - and payment networks - Mastercard and Visa - are fears became urgent in May when it emerged that Karim Khan, the top prosecutor at the Netherlands-based International Criminal Court (ICC), had lost access to his Microsoft Outlook email account after being sanctioned by the White ICC has issued arrest warrants for top Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, over their roles in the Israel-Gaza war - something Mr Trump called "illegitimate".Khan has since temporarily stepped aside until a sexual misconduct probe against him is says that "at no point" did it cease or suspend its services to the ICC, although it was in touch with the ICC "throughout the process that resulted in the disconnection". Since then digital sovereignty has shot up the agenda in Brussels, while some public bodies are already seeking alternatives to US is it realistic to think they could wean themselves off US technology?Digital sovereignty is loosely defined as the ability of a governing body to control the data and technology systems within its problem faced by those pursuing it is the lack of comparable does have its own providers, such as France's OVHCloud, or Germany's Germany's T-Systems or Delos, in cloud they account for a fraction of the market, and don't have the same scale or range of capabilities, says Dario Maisto, a senior analyst covering digital sovereignty at global business consultancy open-source alternatives are available for common software packages like Office and Windows, but while proponents say they are more transparent and accessible, none is as comprehensive or well known. But while moving to sovereign alternatives wouldn't "happen overnight", it's a "myth" to think it's not possible, says Mr notes that the German state of Schleswig-Holstein is currently in the process of phasing out Microsoft products like Office 365 and Windows in favour of open-source solutions such as LibreOffice and Linux. Denmark's Ministry for Digitalisation is piloting a similar scheme."We sometimes overvalue the role of proprietary software in our organisations," Mr Maisto says, pointing out that for key services like word processing and email, open-source solutions work just fine."The main reasons organisations don't use open source are a lack of awareness and misplaced fears about cyber security," he adds."Our prediction is in the next five to 10 years, there will be an accelerated shift [to these solutions] because of this wake-up call." Benjamin Revcolevschi, boss of OVHCloud, tells the BBC that firms like his are ready to answer the sovereignty needs of public and private organisations in Europe."Only European cloud providers, whose headquarters are in the EU and with European governance, are able to offer immunity to non-European laws, to protect sensitive and personal data," he Microsoft, Amazon and Google say they already offer solutions that address concerns about digital sovereignty, solutions which store data on severs in the clients' country or region, not in the tells the BBC that it also partners with trusted local EU suppliers like T-Systems, granting them control over the encryption of client data, and giving customers "a technical veto over their data". The German Army is one of its Microsoft president Brad Smith has promised the firm would take legal action in the "exceedingly unlikely" event the US government ordered it to suspend services, and that it would include a clause in European contracts to that effect."We will continue to look for new ways to ensure the European Commission and our European customers have the options and assurances they need to operate with confidence," a Microsoft spokesman told the BBC. Zach Meyers, from the Brussels-based Centre on Regulation in Europe (CERRE) think tank, says it might make sense for Europe to develop its own limited sovereign cloud to protect critical government he adds that it's unrealistic to try to "get Americans out of the supply chain, or to ensure that there's Europeans in the supply chain at each point".He points to Gaia X - a scheme launched in 2020 to create a European-based alternative to large, centralised cloud platforms, which has faced significant criticism and delays."A lot of these [tech] markets are winner takes all, so once you're the first mover it's really hard for anyone else to catch up."Instead, Mr Meyers thinks Europe should focus on areas of technology where it might gain an edge."It could be the industrial use of AI, because Europe already has a much bigger, stronger industrial base than the US has," he says. "Or the next generation of chipmaking equipment, because one of the few areas where Europe has foothold is in photolithography - the machines that make the really top-end chips." So where does the digital sovereignty agenda go from here?Some believe nothing will change unless Europe brings in new regulations that force regional organisations and governments to buy local technology. But according to Mr Berjon, the EU has been dragging its feet."There is definitely political interest, but it's a question of turning it into a shared strategy."Matthias Bauer, director at the European Centre for International Political Economy, thinks the goal should be building up Europe's technology sector so it can compete with the US and a report on EU competitiveness in 2024, Mario Draghi, former head of the European Central Bank, noted Europe is "severely lagging behind" in new technologies, and that "only four of the world's top 50 tech companies are European"."It's currently much harder for a tech company based in the EU to scale across the bloc than it would be for the same company in the US," Mr Bauer says."You not only face different languages, but different contract law, labour market laws, tax laws, and also different sector-specific regulation."As for the theory that President Trump might flip a "kill switch" and turn off Europe's internet, he's highly sceptical."It would be a realistic scenario if we were close to a war, but I don't see that on the horizon."Yet Mr Maisto says organisations must take the risk seriously, however remote."Two years ago, we didn't think we would be talking about these topics in these terms in 2025. Now organisations want to get ready for what might happen."
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
A Ukraine deal that rewards Putin will only invite future aggression
SIR – Donald Trump is inclined to support Vladimir Putin's demand for complete control of Ukraine's mineral-rich Donetsk region in exchange for ending the war ( August 16). Putin has said he would not seek to take any more territory. Could anyone be so gullible as to believe this, given Putin's previous form? Chris Learmont-Hughes Caldy, Wirral SIR – It is an outrage that Vladimir Putin should be laying down conditions for the ending of a completely unjust war that he started. Is there no one with the gumption to state that he is a war criminal, and has no right whatsoever to either seize another country's sovereign territory or be granted tranches of it? Chris Pond East Grinstead, West Sussex SIR – Donald Trump will now be remembered as the Neville Chamberlain of our times. For all his strong words, when face-to-face with a murderous dictator he gave in and stabbed Ukraine in the back. I don't think that 'coward' is too strong a word to describe him. The Nobel Committee should make clear that giving in to aggressors and bullying democratic countries does not count as peacemaking. Phil Coutie Exeter, Devon SIR – After the nauseating scenes in Alaska, how can the King, who admires Ukraine and Volodymyr Zelensky enormously, be expected to host and make small talk with Donald Trump next month? Roger White Sherborne, Dorset SIR – It is easy to claim that Donald Trump is 'rewarding' Vladimir Putin's aggression, but the Europeans are the ones who have continued to buy Russian oil, thus funding Moscow's invasion of Ukraine. As much as I would wish to see Ukraine regain all of its territory – including Crimea – and for Putin to be charged with war crimes, I do not see how either can actually happen. There is no way Ukraine is powerful enough to drive the Russians out of the Donetsk region. So that means there are only a few options. 1. The war goes on for many years, with neither side breaking through. 2. The US or Nato goes in to support Ukraine. This is never going to happen as it could start a world war. 3. Putin falls in a coup. This once looked likely. Not so much now. 4. Ukraine cedes most of the Donetsk region in return for a Nato guarantee on the rest of its territory. On balance, and as completely unfair as it will be, the fourth of these options appears to be the best of a very bad lot.
