Trump orders increased federal law enforcement presence in Washington to 'make DC safe again'
'Washington, DC is an amazing city, but it has been plagued by violent crime for far too long," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement. 'Donald Trump has directed an increased presence of federal law enforcement to protect innocent citizens.'
She added that the increased federal presence means 'there will be no safe harbor for violent criminals in D.C.'
Trump has repeatedly suggested that the rule of Washington could be returned to federal authorities. Doing so would require a repeal of the Home Rule Act of 1973 in Congress, a step Trump said lawyers are examining — but could face steep pushback.
'We have a capital that's very unsafe,' Trump told reporters at the White House this week. 'We have to run D.C.'
The White House said the increased law enforcement would 'make D.C. safe again' and would be present on the streets starting at midnight — led by U.S. Park Police following an 11 p.m. Thursday roll call at an established command center.
The push will last the next seven days with the option to extend 'as needed," under the authority of Trump's previous executive order establishing the Making DC Safe and Beautiful Task Force. The added federal officials will be identified, in marked units and highly visible, the White House said.
Participating law enforcement include personnel from the U.S. Capitol Police, Homeland Security Investigations, the Federal Protective Service, the Drug Enforcement Administration, Enforcement and Removal Operations, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the U.S. Marshals Service and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia.
The police forces for Amtrak and the city's Metro rail service are also involved.
Trump has long suggested crime and violence is on the rise in Washington, and has lately begun to criticize things like litter and graffiti. But the catalyst for the order to increase police presence was the assault last weekend on a high-profile member of the Department of Government Efficiency by a group of teenagers in an attempted carjacking.
The victim, Edward Coristine, nicknamed 'Big Balls,' was among the most visible figures of DOGE, which was tasked with cutting jobs and slashing the federal bureaucracy. Police arrested two 15-year-olds and say they're still looking for other members of the group.
'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,' Trump posted on Truth Social earlier this week.
The president subsequently said he was considering repealing Washington's limited Home Rule autonomy or 'bringing in the National Guard, maybe very quickly.'
Thursday's announcement comes as Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser's government can claim to have reduced the number of homicides and carjackings — both of which spiked citywide in 2023.
Carjackings in Washington overall dropped significantly the following year in 2024, from 957 to just under 500, and the number is on track to decline again this year — with less than 200 recorded so far more than halfway through 2025.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Police hunting killer on the run as family of 'horrific' Welsh murder victim say they are 'terrified'
A woman says her family have been "torn apart" after a man convicted of murdering her mother failed to return to prison. Derbyshire Police has issued an appeal for information finding Vincent Raymond Lee who failed to return to HMP Sudbury on Thursday, August 7. He had been granted permission to temporarily leave the open prison. Lee was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder at Swansea Crown Court in April 1987 Lee killed Ann Worrell, 43, at her home in Galon Uchaf, Merthyr Tydfil in June 1986. He had dragged her unconscious body to her bed and set it alight. She had woken mid-attack and the prosecutor at the trial said she suffered an "horrific death". Lee had, newspaper reports at the time showed, considered Ms Worrell to be like his "own mother" and was grandmother to his child. READ MORE: Yobs drain two-mile stretch of canal 'for social media likes' READ MORE: Storm Dexter to hit UK within hours but Met Office says it's great news for heatwave Reports from the time say the judge told him he would serve a minimum of 15 years. "This was in itself an horrific crime, and it was the result of an evil act on your part," Judge Anthony Evans told him. "Setting fire to that house was not only sufficient to kill Ann Worrell it also created a risk to neighbouring houses. And, as such, the way you killed her was one deserving of extra punishment," he said. The judge told him he was "an absolute menace to the community in which you lived". In 2018, Lee was released on licence from HMP Cardiff but breached his licence conditions and was recalled back to prison. Now, Ann's family say they are "terrified". Derbyshire Police has asked for help finding him after the convicted murdered failed to HMP Sudbury on Thursday, August 7. Stay informed on everything Merthyr Tydfil by signing up to our newsletter here Ann's daughter, Mandy told WalesOnline: "The family are torn apart by this news again as he absconded seven years ago. I wouldn't want another family to go through what me and my family has been through over the years. "It's terrifying for us knowing that he is still on the run somewhere." Vincent Lee, 63 is described as white and 5ft 5ins tall. He is bald on top with grey hair on the sides and was last seen wearing a blue t-shirt, grey Nike tracksuit bottoms, black boots and blue and black glasses. Derbyshire Police said: "We are appealing for information after a convict failed to return to HMP Sudbury. "Vincent Lee did not return to the open prison on Thursday 7 August after a period of temporary release on licence. He is serving a life sentence for murder." Get daily breaking news updates on your phone by joining our WhatsApp community here. We occasionally treat members to special offers, promotions and ads from us and our partners. See our Privacy Notice
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Man Convicted of Killing Fellow Bus Passenger Because Victim Allegedly Bumped into Him and Didn't Apologize
James Richburg, 62, shot and killed William Womack, 30, on an MTA bus in Baltimore in 2024NEED TO KNOW James Richburg, 62, has been found guilty of second-degree murder, along with several firearm charges, after he shot a fellow bus passenger in 2024 The Maryland man shot the victim, William Womack, 30, after he allegedly bumped into him and failed to apologize Richburg's sentencing is scheduled for NovemberA Maryland man has been convicted on several charges after he shot a fellow bus passenger who allegedly bumped into him and then refused to apologize. James Richburg, 62, was found guilty on three counts — second-degree murder, use of a firearm in a crime of violence and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person — on Friday, Aug. 8, according to a press release from the Maryland State Attorney's Office. Richburg shot and killed William Womack, 30, in Baltimore on Nov. 30, 2024, "following a dispute" on a Maryland Transit Administration bus, according to authorities, per Law & Crime. Court documents obtained by WBFF reportedly state that Richburg and Womack were riding the same bus when Womack bumped into Richburg without apologizing while exiting at the rear of the vehicle. The men began arguing, and Womack then got back on the bus as the argument continued — at which point Richburg took out a firearm and shot the other man. Womback was taken to a local hospital, where he later died, CBS affiliate WJZ reported. Richburg fled the scene before authorities arrived, but he was later arrested on a bus without incident on Dec. 9, 2024, according to the outlet. "Our family got justice," Tamika Johnson, Womack's mother, said in a statement to WBALTV 11 regarding the conviction. "It has been long-anticipated. I've been going through up-and-down emotions. This is closure." Want to keep up with the latest crime coverage? Sign up for for breaking crime news, ongoing trial coverage and details of intriguing unsolved cases. 'This egregious act of violence is despicable and completely unacceptable and stands as a stark reminder that we must reject any form of brutality in Baltimore,' State's Attorney Ivan Bates said in the office's press release. He added, 'Since day one of my administration, I have been adamant that carrying an illegal firearm is an incredibly dangerous offense that I take very seriously because it leads to deadly outcomes like what we saw in this case.' Richburg's sentencing is scheduled for November, per WMAR. Read the original article on People
CNN
11 minutes ago
- CNN
A new law could have led to the Manhattan shooter's guns being confiscated. It went into effect a month before the rampage
Crime Gun violence Mental health Gun controlFacebookTweetLink Follow A new Nevada law that went into effect last month gives police officers the power to confiscate firearms from a person placed on a mental health crisis hold. Experts say it was designed to work in cases like the gunman who opened fire in a Manhattan office building on July 28. Shane Devon Tamura, 27, of Las Vegas, owned guns and was placed on a psychiatric hold in 2022 and 2024 after his mother reported to police her son was threatening to take his own life, according to records from the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. Tamura had a Nevada license to carry a concealed weapon when he killed four people at the 345 Park Avenue office building in New York and injured another before he died by suicide, police said. The key to the state's new law is it allows police to confiscate the firearms of someone experiencing a mental health crisis before a court's ruling. It authorizes a law enforcement officer who places someone on a mental health crisis hold to 'immediately confiscate a firearm owned or possessed by the person' and provide them with a notice detailing the procedures determining the return of the firearm. The state's earlier red flag law is similar to others around the country. It is intended to keep guns out of the hands of those who pose a threat to themselves or others but requires a court process, after law enforcement or family members initiate a request to temporarily restrict their access to firearms. The earlier form of the law was the only available tool that could have led to the removal of Tamura's firearms after his two mental health crises, according to Thomas Chittum, former associate deputy director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The two incidents were 'critical touchpoints' where the red flag law could have been triggered, and they represent one of the major indicators of future acts of violence, which is when those closest to the individual have tried to intervene, according to Christian Heyne, a gun violence survivor and the chief programs and policy officer at Brady, a gun violence prevention organization. 'These tools exist, but even when people are calling law enforcement, they may not be aware they have the ability to prevent them from purchasing firearms or possessing them or pushing law enforcement to pursue these tools as well,' said Heyne. The law is not widespread nationally, but states such as Texas, Florida and California have similar ones with variations. All 50 states have a legal procedure for taking a person into custody for a mental health crisis hold but not all of them have added a provision about what to do if they possess or own guns, according to Chittum. Depending on the circumstances of his psychiatric holds, which are still unclear, Tamura would not have necessarily been prohibited from obtaining his license in 2022 or buying firearms because of the holds alone, gun law experts say. Under federal law, only involuntary commitments or an 'adjudication of mental defectiveness' are disqualifying, Chittum said. The federal government and most states – with some variations – restrict firearm ownership in cases where a person was declared incompetent by a court, faced a restraining order, involuntarily committed or deemed a danger to themselves or others due to a mental illness, Chittum said. An extreme risk protection order, or red flag law, allows law enforcement or family members to petition a court to seize a person's guns in cases where they pose a danger to themselves or others. 'It might have worked in this case if they had sought an ERPO, which goes into the background check system and would have blocked him from buying a firearm,' Chittum said of Tamura. Gun rights advocates who oppose such laws argue they deprive a person of their Second Amendment rights without having been convicted of a crime, according to Chittum. The Nevada Firearms Coalition, a gun rights group, wrote a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee members, strongly opposing the bill and comparing it to the red flag law. 'The entire purpose and point of individual constitutional rights is that they must be protected by the government, and cannot be taken away by the government without due process,' the coalition's president Duncan Rand Mackie wrote. Mackie said rules around 'the confiscation and return of the firearms are vague, and both place an undue, unconstitutional, and expensive burden on the accused for the return of his property, ownership of which is a constitutional right.' Some law enforcement officers have expressed support for the new law because they wanted 'protection and clear direction on what they should do when they're dealing with people in a mental health crisis. It's not radical,' Chittum said. Data from the non-profit Everytown for Gun Safety show 21 US states have implemented a red flag law, while at the federal level, a red flag bill passed by the House in 2022 has not moved forward. The bill would authorize and establish guidance for federal courts to issue extreme risk protection orders, allowing family members to request a federal court order which would remove access to firearms for someone who is deemed a danger to themselves or others by the court. The Supreme Court has not ruled on the issue of red flag laws, which is still an emerging area of law, Chittum said. 'We're still trying to figure out this issue where people have a constitutional right but at the same time, we know some people are dangerous.' 'Must we wait until they've committed a crime and been convicted? That's the tension – we've got to do something and yet we've got this right, so how do we protect it?' In previous high court cases where police took away someone's firearms under the 'umbrella' term of community caretaking, they were sued and the court determined such justification does not give officers blanket authority to seize them, according to Chittum. One of those cases is Caniglia v. Strom. Police confiscated firearms from a man they took for observation, and he later sued them for violating his Fourth Amendment rights of unreasonable seizure of property. While the First Circuit Court approved the seizure under the community caretaking function, the Supreme Court ruled it was not a 'blanket exception' and remanded, Chittum said. 'On remand, the court found the officers had qualified immunity because it wasn't settled law,' he added. In another case last year, U.S. v. Rahimi, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts wrote historic laws 'confirm what common sense suggests: When an individual poses a clear threat of physical violence to another, the threatening individual may be disarmed.' The case is notable because it upheld a civil process for disarming a person – while most such mechanisms are handled in criminal court – and involved a process granting the subject a hearing before a court issued an order, similar to red flag laws, Chittum said. Nevada's new gun law compares to California's 5150 law, allowing an involuntary detention of someone who is deemed a danger to themselves or others, during which authorities can temporarily seize their firearms and could lead to a five-year prohibition. 'That's a model that is trying to narrowly tailor a firearm prohibition for people who are at an imminent and immediate risk,' said Heynes. 'It's something that other states have leveraged and utilized too and has shown to be an effective way of preventing violence.' Most states barely touch on the area of mental health when a person applies for a gun license due to concerns over privacy issues and stigmatizing people who have mental health issues, CNN has reported. People living with a mental illness are far more likely to be a victim of gun violence than a perpetrator, said Heyne, who stressed the importance of not being 'broadly overinclusive' of individuals who are in the category of additional risk. 'These hospitalizations or involuntary commitments carry a lifetime worth of consequences,' said Heyne. 'The answer to gun violence can't be more hospitalizations. The answer to gun violence can't just be more commitments.' It is why tools such as extreme risk protection orders 'become critically important' to not just be enacted as law but 'heavily utilized by both law enforcement and families when appropriate,' Heynes added. 'That's a civil process. There may be people who don't need to actually be committed but you want to separate them from firearms.' Firearm prohibitions rooted in temporary holds, he added, can be the difference 'between life and death' for individuals who are at an increased risk of behavior, particularly around self-harm. CNN's Josh Campbell contributed to this report.
