Can Trump take control of Washington's police?, World News
Here is an explanation of what federal law says about Trump's authority over the District of Columbia. Who governs the district of Columbia?
The US Congress has legislative authority over Washington, DC, a federal district that is not part of a state. But Congress has historically delegated much of the day-to-day work of municipal government to local entities.
A 1973 law called the Home Rule Act allows DC residents to elect a mayor and city council. Congress controls the city's budget, and it can nullify laws passed by the city council. Who controls DC law enforcement?
The Democratic mayor of Washington, Muriel Bowser, has authority over the city's Metropolitan Police Department. But a provision of the Home Rule Act, called Section 740, allows the president to take control of the police department for 30 days during an emergency.
Trump invoked Section 740 on Monday, saying in an executive order that there is a "crime emergency" in the city.
Bowser has pushed back on Trump's claims of unchecked violence. Violent crime hit its lowest level in more than three decades last year, according to city data, and has continued to decline this year. Can Trump extend police control within 30 days?
Trump on Wednesday suggested that he could extend the 30-day federal takeover of DC police without congressional approval.
"If it's a national emergency, we can do it without Congress, but we expect to be before Congress very quickly," Trump said.
Legal experts said the law is clear: A presidential takeover is limited to 30 days unless Congress votes to extend it through a joint resolution. Any such legislation would likely fail in the Senate, where Democrats can use procedural rules to block most bills. Are there limits to Trump's power over DC police?
Trump's Justice Department asserts that Section 740 allows for a broad presidential takeover of the Metropolitan Police Department. US Attorney General Pam Bondi has issued policy directives for the force, and on Thursday named Drug Enforcement Administration chief Terry Cole as the department's "emergency police commissioner".
In Friday's lawsuit, DC Attorney General Brian Schwalb, a Democrat, asserted that Section 740 was a "limited grant of authority" to the president. Even if a president declares an emergency, local officials retain the power to dictate Washington police policies and chain of command, according to the lawsuit.
US District Judge Ana Reyes, who is hearing the case, has so far been sceptical of Trump's view that Section 740 allows for a total presidential takeover of the city's police. But this is the first time the issue has been litigated. What about the National Guard and federal agents?
Trump has broad control over the DC National Guard's 2,700 soldiers and airmen. They report directly to the president, unlike their counterparts in other states and territories. Unlike the DC National Guard, each state's National Guard serves as a militia force that answers to their governors except when called into federal service.
Trump said on Monday he was deploying 800 National Guard troops to Washington.
Trump in recent months has also directed federal law enforcement agencies such as the FBI to increase police presence in Washington. Trump has broad authority to reallocate federal agency personnel. Can Trump's DC actions serve as a model for other cities?
Trump has said the federalisation of Washington's police force could serve as a model for similar action in other US cities. Trump has previously said he would expand his efforts to other Democratic-run cities such as Chicago that he claims have failed to address crime.
But Washington is unique because of the District of Columbia's legal status and the Home Rule Act.
There is no similar legal authority that Trump can cite to take over police departments in other cities. The US Constitution's 10th Amendment vests in states a police power to provide for the health, safety and welfare of state residents.
Trump could decide to send the National Guard or other military forces to support law enforcement in other cities, as he did when he sent 4,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles amid protests against his administration's aggressive immigration raids. There has been a longstanding tradition against using the military to police civilians within the United States.
California's governor has sued Trump, arguing that the president improperly called the state's National Guard into service and violated an 1878 US law that generally prevents the military from engaging in domestic law enforcement. Trump said the National Guard presence was justified because protests and acts of violence in Los Angeles were "a form of rebellion" that necessitated a military response.
A judge heard testimony this week in the California lawsuit, which seeks a ruling that would return the National Guard troops to state control and a declaration that Trump's action was illegal.
[[nid:721238]]
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
16 minutes ago
- Straits Times
Gabbard unveils plan to slash top spy agency by 40% in 2025
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox Ms Tulsi Gabbard has been openly confrontational with the workforce she leads. WASHINGTON – Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard announced plans to shrink her agency by 40 per cent by the end of 2025 in what she called an effort to make the office more efficient, even as she clashes with the national security community she leads. The overhaul would save taxpayers $700 million (S$899.71 million) per year by eliminating 'redundant missions, functions and personnel' at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), Ms Gabbard said in a statement. The ODNI oversees the US's 18 intelligence agencies. Instead, the ODNI will invest in areas that 'support the President's national intelligence priorities, and focuses on rebuilding trust, exposing politicisation and weaponisation of intelligence, and holding bad actors accountable,' the statement said. Bloomberg previously reported that the White House was pressing ahead with plans to slash the top spy agency. Officials from both parties concede that the ODNI has become too bloated over the years, and that the agency often duplicates work carried out by the independent intelligence agencies it oversees. Senator Tom Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas who leads the intelligence committee, welcomed the announcement as 'an important step towards returning ODNI to that original size, scope, and mission.' Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. World Israel says it has taken first steps of military operation in Gaza City Singapore 3 Sengkang Green Primary pupils suspended for bullying classmate, with 1 of them caned: MOE Singapore 18 persons nabbed and 82 vapes seized in HSA ops in Raffles Place and Haji Lane Business Chinese brands like Pop Mart, BYD, Joocyee expanding into S'pore as gateway to Asean market Life Why should we bear the burden of budget meals and app discounts, some S'pore hawkers ask Singapore Religion growing in importance for Singaporeans: IPS study Asia 'Disastrous, useless': New Zealand to overhaul high school qualification to lift falling standards World Google unveils latest Pixel 10 phones packed with AI But the effort comes as Ms Gabbard has been openly confrontational with the workforce she leads. The spy chief has sought to root out 'politicisation' by referring intelligence officers for prosecution over alleged leaks of classified information. Earlier this week, Ms Gabbard suspended the security clearances of 37 current and former national security officials, continuing Mr Trump's trend of revoking clearances as a means of political retribution. Two top officials from the National Intelligence Council were also reportedly fired in May after the release of a declassified memo that contradicted Mr Trump's basis for deporting alleged Venezuelan gang members. Senator Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said that while lawmakers broadly agree ODNI is 'in need of thoughtful reform,' Ms Gabbard has a 'track record of politicising intelligence.' The Virginia Democrat added in a statement he has 'no confidence that she is the right person to carry out this weighty responsibility.' BLOOMBERG
Straits Times
16 minutes ago
- Straits Times
Trump plans executive order on flag burning, NewsNation reports
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox The Justice Department would review cases involving flag burning to see if charges could be brought that weren't specific to the flag burning itself. WASHINGTON – US President Donald Trump plans to issue an executive order on flag burning, NewsNation reported, a move that aims to crack down on burning the American flag without running afoul of a 1989 Supreme Court decision that ruled doing so was protected speech. Under the order, set to be signed on Aug 21, the Justice Department would review cases involving flag burning to see if charges could be brought that weren't specific to the flag burning itself, such as public nuisance or disorderly conduct laws, NewsNation said citing two unnamed administration officials. Mr Trump has long sought to impose penalties for flag burning, floating punishments including a prison sentence or a loss of citizenship after winning his first presidential election. He highlighted the issue repeatedly during his last presidential campaign, and in 2024 suggested he could seek a constitutional amendment to ban that form of protest. He reiterated his call to impose penalties in June while speaking at Fort Bragg in North Carolina, saying that he was working with senators to pass a law giving jail time to flag-burning protesters and suggesting a yearlong sentence. 'People that burn the American flag should go to jail for one year. And we'll see if we can get that done,' Mr Trump said. Days later, Senator Josh Hawley, a Missouri Republican, introduced legislation that sought to add an additional year in jail to federal sentences for crimes that involved flag burning. Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. World Israel says it has taken first steps of military operation in Gaza City Singapore 3 Sengkang Green Primary pupils suspended for bullying classmate, with 1 of them caned: MOE Singapore 18 persons nabbed and 82 vapes seized in HSA ops in Raffles Place and Haji Lane Business Chinese brands like Pop Mart, BYD, Joocyee expanding into S'pore as gateway to Asean market Life Why should we bear the burden of budget meals and app discounts, some S'pore hawkers ask Singapore Religion growing in importance for Singaporeans: IPS study Asia 'Disastrous, useless': New Zealand to overhaul high school qualification to lift falling standards World Google unveils latest Pixel 10 phones packed with AI The US Constitution broadly protects speech and peaceful protest, and courts have long held that political speech is among the most sacrosanct forms of speech. The US Supreme Court in 1989 ruled in a 5-4 decision that burning a flag itself is a form of political expression protected under the First Amendment and cannot be made illegal. Congress then passed a new law banning flag burning, which was also overturned in a subsequent Supreme Court case. Efforts to amend the Constitution to prohibit flag burning have fallen short of the two-thirds majority needed in both chambers of Congress. Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky provided the crucial vote to stop a 2006 attempt in his chamber. Flag desecration emerged as a political issue amid the convulsions of the 1960s after some Vietnam War opponents began burning flags as a form of protest. In the decades that followed, punishment of flag burning became a cultural flash point in tensions over deference to patriotic norms versus protection of the right to expression. The issue again resurfaced in recent years when flags were burned at pro-Palestinian protests and demonstrations against federal immigration enforcement efforts. During the last presidential campaign, demonstrators burned a flag at Washington's Union Station to protest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's address to Congress – drawing condemnation from both Mr Trump and Democrat Kamala Harris. BLOOMBERG
Business Times
16 minutes ago
- Business Times
Elon Musk must face lawsuit claiming he ran illegal US$1 million election lottery
ELON Musk was ordered on Wednesday by a federal judge to face a lawsuit by voters accusing the world's richest person of defrauding them into signing a petition to support the US Constitution for a chance to win his US$1 million-a-day giveaway. US District Judge Robert Pitman in Austin, Texas said Jacqueline McAferty plausibly alleged in her proposed class action that Musk and his political action committee America PAC wrongly induced her to provide personal identifying information as part of the giveaway, late in the 2024 election campaign. Lawyers for Musk and America PAC did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Musk founded America PAC to support Republican Donald Trump's successful 2024 presidential run. McAferty, an Arizona resident, said Musk and America PAC induced voters in seven battleground states to sign his petition by promising that US$1 million recipients would be chosen randomly, as in a lottery, though the voters had no real chance to collect. She said voters who signed were also required to provide names, addresses, email addresses and phone numbers. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up In seeking a dismissal, Musk listed several 'red flags' as proof he had not run an illegal lottery. He said these included statements that the US$1 million recipients were 'selected to earn' the money and expected to become America PAC spokespeople, defeating the idea that the payment was a 'prize.' But the judge cited other statements suggesting the defendants were 'awarding' the US$1 million, and the money could be 'won.' 'It is plausible that plaintiff justifiably relied on those statements to believe that defendants were objectively offering her the chance to enter a random lottery--even if that is not what they subjectively intended to do,' Pitman wrote. The judge was appointed to the bench by President Barack Obama in 2014. Musk had also rejected the suggestion that petition signers suffered harm by providing contact information. Pitman said an expert in political data brokerage could testify what that information was worth for voters in battleground states. The lawsuit was filed on Election Day, Nov 5, 2024. A day earlier, a Philadelphia judge refused to end Musk's giveaway, saying that city's top prosecutor failed to show it was an illegal lottery. Musk is a Texas resident, and his electric car company Tesla is based in Austin. REUTERS
